twolf2919

About

Username
twolf2919
Joined
Visits
33
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
880
Badges
1
Posts
183

Reactions

473Like62Dislike74Informative

  • Meta's AR glasses are three years behind Apple Vision Pro

    twolf2919twolf2919
    graphicsguy said:
    The more I think about and hear about the Vision Pro, the more I'm convinced it's going to be another massive hit. I was thinking about how back in 1994 when I bought a lowly Powerbook 520 for $2250. That's about $5K today. And I was just a 25 year old wanting this cool new thing -- a laptop. And I was just getting by waiting tables at the time, so that was a huge % of my money going to that purchase. It's laughable how much more the VP will be able to do for the money. They'll have no trouble selling them. 

    I don't see the analogy.  In 1994, when you spent the equivalent of $5k today, you purchased something that immediately made your day-to-day life more productive by letting you do word processing, spreadsheets, gaming, maybe even surf the nascent World Wide Web.  The Vision Pro doesn't do that.  Yes, it'll make some narrow set of activities more pleasurable - e.g. having a more immersive movie experience - but in no way will it make your day-to-day life more productive.  At least not initially.

    muthuk_vanalingamretrogustowilliamlondoncornchipbeowulfschmidt

  • Meta's AR glasses are three years behind Apple Vision Pro

    twolf2919twolf2919
    They may be 3 years behind in technology, but they're ahead on price.  Until a follow-up to the Vision Pro is significantly cheaper - like  under $1k - it won't gain mass market appeal.
    designrjbdragonwilliamlondoncornchip

  • Spotify cutting off remaining customers paying through the App Store

    twolf2919twolf2919
    lam92103 said:
    Apple should not be able to dictate what over 53% of American consumers can install on their phones. They should not be able to force companies to bend to their rules or just loose 53% of the mobile market
    Apple built the phone and made the rules for software to be allowed on the phone before that "53%" even existed.  People buying an iPhone agree to this bargain.  Apple isn't dictating anything to those 53% or anyone else considering an iPhone - every one of those 53% agreed to follow the rules when they purchased their iPhone.  It's called *choice*.   They had/have plenty of alternatives.

    If Apple made their rules more restrictive *after* a couple billion people bought an iPhone, you might have had a point - but, of course, that's not the case.

    Similarly, Apple also didn't force companies to bend to their rules or just lose 53% of the mobile market.  Apple came up with a smartphone and platform and let third party developers sell their software on this platform, provided they followed the rules Apple felt would make it successful  - i.e. their software needed to go through Apple's review process and only be downloaded via the AppStore (because Apple believed its customers wanted security) and, if those apps sold any digital goods, they had to do so through Apple's payment mechanism and give up 30% of the price of the item (again, because Apple thought it would benefit users to only need to give their payment information to one company - Apple - rather than have it sent to every software maker who might mishandle it).

    Spotify, Electronic Arts, and all the other whiners out there agreed to those terms when they first got onto the iPhone - because they knew it was a win-win situation for everybody.  But then they got successful and greedy and suddenly they no longer want to pay up.  They want to change the rules.

    Individuals who want to force Apple to allow downloading of apps from anywhere on the web should simply buy an Android phone instead of destroying the good thing (security wise) that Apple has built.
    RonnyDaddychasmAlex1Nkempathonnodgeapplebynaturewilliamlondonwatto_cobraFileMakerFeller

  • Apple on the hook for $1.1 billion in Caltech Wi-Fi patent case

    twolf2919twolf2919
    Misleading/incorrect title - Apple is not on the hook for $1.1b - that was the original damages awarded Caltech from BOTH Apple and Broadcom.  And it's been tossed out - so a new trial is now set to begin to determine damages again.
    watto_cobraronnfoadpscooter63

  • What keeps the Mac relevant for Apple, despite iPhone dominance

    twolf2919twolf2919

    godofbiscuits said:
    I call BS. I'm a developer.  There are far less than 10M Apple developer accounts total, while there are between 1 and 2 BILLION iPhones in use.  It's not Xcode that keeps the Mac relevant. It's that computers are still relevant, and that laptops are the most popular/useful form factor, and that Apple's are the most versatile and well made.
    Why would you call it BS based on what you said?  It's obvious that the apps written for those 2B iPhones (as well as however many iPads there are out there) were written on Macs.  So whether it's 1 or 10m or 1B developers - they all used Macs.  And they're 100% necessary for those developers.  What's more relevant than 100% necessity?

     But I do think the author is being a bit narrow-minded for sure.  I'm also a developer who uses a Mac.  And I don't write iPhone or iPad apps - I develop Java apps as well as web apps and the Mac is simply the best development tool available.  The only Apple-specific 'Xcode' tool I ever really use is notarytool (to sign my app installers on Mac).  Being UNIX based, most of, if not all, the tools available to Linux users are available right out of the box on Macs too.  But on top of that, it's got a great *and consistent* GUI - something Linux, after 30 years  of existence, still hasn't managed - and a good breadth commercial software offerings.  And one never has to worry about this driver and that driver not working on a Mac.

    macplusplusdanoxroundaboutnowbaconstangAlex1Nwatto_cobra