Honkers

Kierkegaarden said:

designr said:

Kierkegaarden said:

If Vision Pro is indeed around 450g, that isn’t too far off from AirPods Max at 385g.  I’m sure they are experimenting with different materials — possibly titanium or carbon fiber.

True. However, the mounting/wearing approach is quite different. I'd say that will require the Vision to be lighter.

Wouldn’t a top strap help?  I see one in some marketing images, but I wonder if third parties will develop their own.  I can imagine some with an exaggerated amount of padding that would ok for home, not so much for public.

It would help, but it's still unbalanced compared to AirPods Max.  The weight itself isn't so much of the problem, it's that it all concentrated on the front of the face putting pressure on the neck, and possibly the bridge of the nose too (can't say for sure, haven't tried one).  And likely to stay that way unfortunately, unless Apple wants to build more of a helmet structure so that they can put elements of the electronics at the rear of the head.  I don't think anyone wants that though, so the imperative is to make the existing design lighter through materials and refinement.

emcnair said:

It wouldn’t surprise me at all that Sonoma is the last OS for Intel machines. Why should Apple put in the additional internal effort or restrict its development path?

Because customers who you screw over might not want to be your customers again.

A drop from $230 to $235 isn’t so bad. Keep dropping!

22july2013 said:

Apple Watches and iPhones now have an "action button." Could it also be built into iPads? MacBooks? iMacs? Mac Minis?

AirPods?

mayfly said:

Xed said:

mayfly said:

StrangeDays said:

mayfly said:

Don't need faster chips, denser memory chips, better cameras or higher def screens. What's there now is more than good enough. What I need, and what most of us need, is better battery life.

Better chips like Apple silicon improve efficiency and deliver more compute per watt, netting longer battery usage. 

And better battery technology would improve on that result, wouldn't it? We're still using the same Anode, Cathode, Electrolyte battery tech that was invented in 1800 by Alessandro Volta. To date, only the materials have changed, incrementally allowing more energy from the same package, at the expense of creating more heat. There's no free lunch, but something better is needed when EVERY electronic device, tool and auto now run on batteries, or will in the near future.

1) No, it's not the same battery tech from 1800. It is constantly improving in ways that Volta couldn't have possibly predicted. For you to claim otherwise is to assert that innovations don't really count if they're still using ion exchanges for energy creation, which is yet another fatuous argument on your part.

https://www.energymonitor.ai/transport/us-scientists-make-breakthrough-for-long-range-electric-vehicle-batteries/#?cf-view


2) Are you one of those people that will say "something better is needed" as if that's not obvious to innovation and then when something better is found by people doing real work you then claim it was your idea and that you should get credit for their efforts?

Don't need links that just prove what I'm saying. I need someone to DESCRIBE the difference, because there is no difference in the fundamental technology that creates power from exothermic chemical reactions.

This is so reductive and meaningless, you may as well say that Apple should be investing in iPhones that don't need electricity at all, because surely a trillion dollar company can do such a thing.