PauloSeraa

Apple of the 2000s and 2010s I would say no chance would they chase this worthless fad all the way to a production product. But the current Apple under this leadership? The Apple that thinks Vision Pro is shippable product. Anything is possible. 

appleinsideruser said:

Why are Apple not bringing the 80% limit option to iPhone 14 or earlier? The hardware will put charging past 80% on hold due to heat or continuity camera streaming, so why not give the user that choice like on iPhone 15?

oh, yes, that’s right. Another one of those nudges to upgrade my hardware… 

Who the fuck wants to only charge their phone to 80%, even when the thing is still operating normally?!?! That is the dumbest thing Apple has ever added. Some self-flagellating nonsense for people who prefer to live like their phone is already 5 years old from day one.

Just use the phone like a normal person for a couple of years, then trade it in for a new one. Never look at nor think about the battery once the entire time.

It amazes me the lengths these guys will go to build a fantasy around something in hopes that people believe they are committed to it. In truth Apple will drop Vision Pro entirely if it doesn't sell well enough. Presale data isn't good, and Tim's continued experiment to see how much he can convince people to pay for something is starting to unravel. Apple simply does not do low volume products. They either cancel them entirely, or they let them die on the vine for ages while the 8 customers who bought into the idea are left hanging in the wind. Given the general feeling toward VR headsets on the market, the presale numbers most likely reflect a huge chunk of the people even interested in buying a Vision Pro, leaving day to day sales from here out to be scarce. If Apple can't even sell half a million units in the first year, their interest in the category will quickly diminish. Everyone assumes that version 2 is a given, but that's a bad assumption. Apple does not throw good money after bad, and they've already spent exorbitant amounts of money on the development of something that has amounted to an iPad for your face that costs $3,500, and requires wearing an objectionable piece hardware that is heavy, uncomfortable for any length time, nausea-inducing for most people, tethered to the wall, and completely world-isolating. What other Apple product even comes close to having that many negative tradeoffs? There is almost nothing good that you can say about this product that isn't outweighed but its downsides.

Apple has said that AR is the future, and I agree. So they go and build a VR headset, something no one anywhere thinks is the future, and try to do AR with it.

AR is all about the view finder. We already have the ability in software to do amazing things with AR, but they're nothing more than a tech demo until we get the view finder right. And a VR headset is not it. No more closer than holding an iPhone up to your face and looking through the lens of the camera. Apple knows this, and knows that glasses are the wearable of the future, and that everyday glasses that can be powered by iPhone to project AR into your world are a game changer. They also know that the technology to do this well is still several years away, and Tim Cook knows he won't be CEO by the time that comes around. He wanted spatial computing to be part of his legacy so badly that he pushed a product onto market years before it was ready, bolstered by his successes with overcharging customers in the last several years. Things like raising the price of products every time a new feature is added is a Tim Cook invention that customers have rewarded him for, and it has led to some poor decisions...Vision Pro's release being the pinnacle.

chasm said:

mikethemartian said:

So Apple claims that it doesn’t trade on user’s privacy but they push you towards a company that does and Apple takes a 36% cut.

To be fair, Apple can only control what Apple does, and Google is in truth probably the best search engine — but at a very high cost to users.

If Apple had made a deal with MS to have Bing be the default, they probably would have demanded a similar commission rate — they’d just be earning a lot less.

It is the users who choose Google, not Apple, who should be making these commissions. If you’re selling your most private and personal data to Google, why aren’t YOU getting any money for that?

If you assume Apple has 100 million US Safari users between the its mobile and computer products, and lets say 80 million of them use the default search in Safari, I reckon that $26 billion would work out to about $325 per user per year.

Still not enough for me to switch from DuckDuckGo, but at least those who are actually giving their data away for no reward at all now would be getting SOME compensation …

1. What is this imaginary "high cost" to the users? Self-righteous people on the internet love to doom about "collecting your data" but amazingly they can never point out any real-world harm that comes from it. That's largely because: there is none. You may have an argument somewhere in there about them profiting off of data and not sharing that profit with you, but then again, they could just charge you $325 a year to use Google instead...which absolutely no one would choose, except virtue-signaling internet personalities.

2. Apple has way more Safari users than that.

3. DuckDuckGo is cute, but completely inadequate and unusable for anything other than casual searches.

I prefer the comparisons to the M1 MBP because there are far more of those users eyeing up this product (myself included) than anyone who just bought an M2 a few months ago.