tundraboy

What's Apple's Vision Pro killer app?

tundraboy

December 2023

twolf2919 said:

... I think Apple jumped the shark with this AR "wannabe" VR headset. I'm not sure why developers - especially small ones - would write software, i.e. potential killer apps, for it when Apple has given no timeline for a device (the vaunted AR glasses) that will have mass market appeal and thus provide a return on their investment.

In 25 plus years of following Apple closely in the pundit space, I think they have "jumped the shark" at least 4 times. The Pod, the Phone, the Pad, the Watch, and yet here they are still. Unexplainedly alive and keeping and the most successful tech company in the universe. Here comes Vision Pro now and darn it, they're water skiing over it again.

The Vision Pro isn't for everyone. It is a niche product, Apple knows it's a niche product. But they need to release one to start exploring the headset product space and what it needs to offer if it is to be successful. For sure they know it needs to be lighter and less bulky. Few people enjoy having a barnacle stuck on their face. Obviously the tech isn't there yet but offering a timeline on that is a fool's game for two reasons: First, technological advancements are not that easy to predict --fusion power has been 'just around the corner' for at least 30 years now. Second, and this problem weighs more on Apple's decision making, even if they have a firm grasp on when the lightweight headset will be realized, announcing a timeline amounts to telling your potential customers "Don't buy this one, wait a couple of years." How stupid is that?

There is no guarantee that Apple will get Vision Pro right but it wasn't until around iPod 4 when sales started to reach mass market levels, likewise around iPhone 4 or 5 for iPhone. It will take a few more years for Vision Pro to catch on, if it ever catches on. But if I'm laying a wager on who is going to succeed in making a headset computer a mass market product, I'd say the best bet would be Apple.

Activists agitate for 'iPhone infinity' with AI-generated Tim Cook, promise protests

tundraboy

September 2023

In mobile electronic devices, there are three main design goals or aspects to consider:

1. Cheap

2. Compact

3. Complex (which when done right means performance and functionality, but I chose C to have a catchy "3 Cs of mobile device design".)

The thing about Cheap, Compact, and Complex is that you have to pick two. The design engineers and naturally you, the customer, can't have all three.

A complex and compact device isn't cheap. If you want cheap and compact, say sayonara to complex. If you want cheap and complex... Two out of three is the best one can hope for. That's an economic and technological fact.

The thing about a modular phone is you can get only one. (And even that one aspect will probably be bested by an integrated phone.) The engineering design problem for modularity is more complicated and expensive than a straight up integrated phone. The design parameters are way stricter: Compatibility with past and future modules, module accessibility, secure attachment and connections, etc. Then, compared to integrated phones, you're wasting space with the case that modules come in and the macro connections and attachments between modules. On top of all that, designing for compatibility between modules of different vintage takes a severe toll on performance and functionality. Your data transfer rates, for example, would be constrained by the slowest, oldest module that you choose to maintain compatibility with.

That is why modular mobile devices never succeeded and will never succeed in the market. It's a product which you pay more for less. The proponents/advocates of modular mobile devices don't have even the slightest grasp of this. Which is incredible given that the trend in electronics design has always been toward smaller, denser, and more integrated components. Google wasted a lot of money finding this out when I could have told them for a small consulting fee.