Respite

danox said:

Respite said:

Xed said:

Rogue01 said:

stevenoz said:

Do you need a Mac to use it?
If so, how old can it be?

You know Apple will make it Apple Silicon Macs only to mirror the Mac into the Goggles, with macOS Sonoma.

What does this mean? Apple will make a Mac whose sole purpose is to show you what's on a 2D Mac display inside your AVP display? If so, why do you think that? If you mean something else, then what is that?

I think they're clear enough.  They're saying that they think screen mirroring won't work with Intel Macs.  Could well be right.

Why should it work with Intel Mac's VisionOS is Apple Silicon based.....moving forward Intel is the past and if it does by chance support some Intel Macs will it work at an acceptable usable level.

It has since been confirmed that Intel Macs are compatible, as long as they're running Sonoma, and it will be at a lower resolution.

9secondkox2 said:

Nice try Tim. 

But this is nothing like the iPhone launch or even the Mac. 

This is more like the Apple Watch launch. 

It’s fine for what it is. The best vr/ar headset out there. But let’s stop pretending it’s more than that. 

He's not going to listen to you dude.  Give it up.

Xed said:

miiwtwo said:

AppleInsider said:

[...]

Please try not to quote the entire original article - Jason

so basically you try to convince that it's price is correct, WRONG, doesnt matter, the rest we can wait until 2025, i'm sure that Apple gonna release the "base model" and maybe drop the actual Pro,

1) If you don't quote anything you're responding to you just come across as a schizophrenic yelling into the wind. So what comment from article are you referring?

Are you serious?  

AppleInsider said:

Apple Vision Pro versus PlayStation VR2 - Specifications

Specifications	Apple Vision Pro
Display Resolution	23 million pixels per eye

Are you sure about that "per eye"?  I can't find that referred to anywhere on https://www.apple.com/apple-vision-pro/, it either says "23 million pixels" or "more pixels than a 4K TV for each eye".

Given that 23 million pixels is actually more than a 6k TV, I have my doubts about your interpretation.

red oak said:

tech_traveller said:

Well, despite Tim Sweeney being a crook, you can't deny that this case helped developers.

Now they can advertise prices where they get 100% of the income, maybe we will even get cheaper options now.

Nope.  Apple will still require the developers to pay, at a slightly reduced rate.   I believe it is 25%.  Apple will require documentation from the developers and right to audit.   Developers get a zero win here  

I believe that's the expected charge Apple will apply for sideloaded apps, not for content purchases.  Content purchases via the web are allowed right now and no commission for Apple is applied.  The only change is that developers are allowed to signpost it within the app now.  

And thank goodness, the store ban on signposting was ridiculous.