mpantone

danox said:

mpantone said:

hammeroftruth said:

That would be hilarious if they took all this time to make an alternative store and the general public moved on. I guess they’re going to find out how expensive it is to build and maintain an App Store and could end up like the Microsoft store when they thought they could copy Apple’s retail ideas and be successful. 

Uh, Epic already has a pretty good idea of how much effort it takes to run an app store: they have several on other platforms including Windows PC, macOS, and Android.

The main points of contention are A.) Apple's 30% cut on the iOS App Store and B.) the inability to offer third-party payment options to users. Everything goes through the iOS App Store and Apple takes their pound of flesh.

Presumably they are trying to release their own with payment options that allow them to dodge Apple's 30% cut, at least in the EU (per their DMA). It will be interesting to see if users in other markets will be able to transact on the Epic Games Store app with the 30% cut going back to Apple.

Other DMA related changes are also restricted to EU users. If an American goes on a two-week holiday to Europe and tries to take advantage of the DMA-enabled changes, it won't work, the payment information/billing address needs to be EU. There are always some dodgy or laborious ways to skirt these controls but the casual app shopper isn't going to go out of their way to do any of this just to save a few bucks or give the app store cut to Company B rather than Apple itself.

The DMA has been very disruptive to the iOS walled garden and not just to Epic Games. It appears that Apple Intelligence may end up being stunted in the EU. Currently there is no planned release date for Apple Intelligence in the EU. The day it releases it will likely be a US-only service. It will likely expand to other markets before it hits the EU (in whatever condition).

The one on Android failed hence the lawsuit against Google.

The Epic Store on Android didn't fail. It was quashed by Google because of the same payments dispute as the iOS App Store situation.

Epic Games actually won their antitrust case against Google late last year so at some point their app will likely reappear back on the Android App Store just like the iOS version is trying to make a reappearance on the iOS platform.

Epic Games thought both Apple and Google were taking too big of a cut and fought to get third-party payment alternatives. The EU DMA facilitated this on the iOS side. In any case, the iOS App Store walled garden is opening up a wee bit, at least in the EU.

Apple is walking a very fine line between protecting its turf and violating antitrust laws. Naturally where that line falls varies based on jurisdiction and can change over time as new regulations are introduced and enforced.

As an American Apple customer, the American laws affect me the most but what happens elsewhere affects Apple (and also its revenue stream). Of course, most Americans with some sort of retirement account or pension plan are indirect shareholders of Apple so it's not like most Americans can stick their head in the sand and say it doesn't matter to them. Ultimately how much money Apple (or any other company) deposits in their bank affects most American adults.

While I do agree that app publishers should have the option of offering other payment choices, I personally don't want to give Tim Sweeney a dime. As far as I'm concerned, he can suck it.

hammeroftruth said:

That would be hilarious if they took all this time to make an alternative store and the general public moved on. I guess they’re going to find out how expensive it is to build and maintain an App Store and could end up like the Microsoft store when they thought they could copy Apple’s retail ideas and be successful. 

Uh, Epic already has a pretty good idea of how much effort it takes to run an app store: they have several on other platforms including Windows PC, macOS, and Android.

The main points of contention are A.) Apple's 30% cut on the iOS App Store and B.) the inability to offer third-party payment options to users. Everything goes through the iOS App Store and Apple takes their pound of flesh.

Presumably they are trying to release their own with payment options that allow them to dodge Apple's 30% cut, at least in the EU (per their DMA). It will be interesting to see if users in other markets will be able to transact on the Epic Games Store app with the 30% cut going back to Apple.

Other DMA related changes are also restricted to EU users. If an American goes on a two-week holiday to Europe and tries to take advantage of the DMA-enabled changes, it won't work, the payment information/billing address needs to be EU. There are always some dodgy or laborious ways to skirt these controls but the casual app shopper isn't going to go out of their way to do any of this just to save a few bucks or give the app store cut to Company B rather than Apple itself.

The DMA has been very disruptive to the iOS walled garden and not just to Epic Games. It appears that Apple Intelligence may end up being stunted in the EU. Currently there is no planned release date for Apple Intelligence in the EU. The day it releases it will likely be a US-only service. It will likely expand to other markets before it hits the EU (in whatever condition).

slow n easy said:

9secondkox2 said:

Not news. The only way this was ever going to be a legit big deal is glasses. 

AVP wasn’t a hit. The 2nd gen will be a bit better - mostly due to ai software - but still suffer from being a headset. 

Untethered glasses that look like actual glasses/sunglasses will be the thing. Especially if they look like or are brand name shades (even if they are an apple design complete with signature Apple design. Not some nerdware. 

I have zero interest whatsoever in glasses or AR. I don’t see the appeal of it or what I would use it for. I would rather buy a VR Headset.

There are 6-8 major reasons why glasses might be better than VR/AR goggles.

If you've used both (like me), the weight difference between glasses and googles is a *MAJOR* consideration. Even though I've been wearing glasses since childhood, I still take them off occasionally for a break. The ones of my face right now weigh about 30g. My Oculus Rift S weigh 500 g or 16x more.

The second major thing about googles is the discomfort for various reasons after wearing over time. If they are sealed off to prevent external light, that means air circulation is poor. It's important to mention that VR goggles are full of electronics which generate heat which is difficult to dissipate entirely to the exterior. Some of the heat is directed to the interior of the heatset.

Another issue is eye fatigue from staring a screen that is a fixed distance from your eyes. Perhaps younger eyes can handle this easier but at some point your eyes will be old and tired like mine and it's just not very comfortable doing so for longer periods of time.

With glasses (or unaided vision), you can rest your eyes by simply staring at something else. Typical ergonomic advice recommend doing so when using computer monitors and other video screens: occasionally look at something else (at a distance, away from the monitor). This is far easier to do without an HMD.

It's worth pointing out that a typical VR HMD isn't truly a full immersive experience because the display coverage is limited and don't provide any sort of peripheral vision. That forces you to look at the screen.

With something like AR glasses it would be easy to turn off the AR functions and continue viewing the surroundings. With an HMD, if you stop the content, you basically have either a blank screen or some default environment. Even video passthrough is not the same as unassisted standard vision.

There are also latency issues with all displays. Again, with a pair of glasses, you still get to view the world normally. The latency issues were particularly severe in VR HMDs in the Nineties and often caused motion sickness in users. Those negative effects have decreased by aren't gone.

There are probably 4-6 more issues concerning VR goggles or any similar immersive HMD. It probably explains why poor man's VR (like Google Cardboard) came and went very quickly. Even amateur enthusiasts quickly recognized many of the inherent shortcomings of googles/HMDs.

Some of the issues I've mentioned can be mitigated by better technology in the next few years but not all of them.

I don't see how VR HMD device manufacturers can get their products down to the sub 50 g range. I also don't know how they can eliminate comfort issues associated with air circulation and heat. 

In the end, my VR HMD sessions last about 45 minutes because of overall device wearing fatigue. One thing I found interesting is that VR HMD use makes me thirsty (probably due to google heat and poor air circulation). Even drinking a glass of water is pretty awkward with a VR HMD with video passthrough. The googles and accompanying headgear are really designed for using the device with your head more or less level. The odd weight distribution is not a particularly enjoyable sensation when you look down, up or around.

And as you get older, the discomfort issues will become more annoying, not easier to accept.

Again, if you have worn both regular eyeglasses and a VR/AR HMD for an extended time, all of this should be very obvious. Wearing a VR HMD isn't a joy. It's more of a duty or chore, just like wearing snow googles (which I have also worn) when you go skiing or snowboarding. It's not something anyone prefers. But snow googles don't weigh anywhere near what VR HMDs currently weigh.

So much misinformation about this topic.

The main reason why there is a lot of empty space in the current Mac mini chassis is because it no longer ships with the original 5.25" optical drive. The current design had space for one 2.5" HDD (lower bay) and one 5.25" slimline optical drive (upper bay). In some machines, the drive in the upper bay could be replaced with a second 2.5" HDD. The Mac mini 2010 server was like this. There were after market drive brackets for brave DIYers. In fact, the optical drive mechanism was the primary determining factor for the current design's dimensions.

Eventually Apple also removed upgradeable RAM modules and switched from 2.5" storage to soldered NAND.

That is why the current Mac mini is so empty, not because of all the "Intel components" [sic]. The chassis was freeing up space BEFORE the Apple Silicon switch.

The lower TDP of Apple Silicon SoCs have made it easily to cool the device. The thermal solution for the Intel Mac mini units and the Apple Silicon Mac mini units isn't vastly different. The latter just needs to work less to provide adequate cooling. Note that peak temperatures of the M2 SoC during a full workload (like a Handbrake encode) are still about the same as a maxed-out Intel CPU. The former idles much lower though. And the fan on the M-series Mac minis doesn't need to work as hard to keep the SoC cool so it's quieter at full load.

The biggest question about this rumored smaller Mac mini is how Apple handles the power supply unit. It's integrated into the Mac mini, no external power supply. For MacBooks, Apple uses external power supplies (and batteries naturally). The Mac mini presumably would not be powered by batteries so it needs a PSU full time.

I have a couple of mini PCs (based on the Intel N95 and N100 CPUs) and they are both around the size of this purported new form factor. But these mini PCs have external power supplies. Of course, they were only $150-180 apiece so obviously the manufacturer didn't budget for high quality internal PSU.

These sort of info tidbits spark a lot of questions, almost all of which will go unanswered.

When did Apple do this? Did they rent or buy? How much did they pay? Are they still using this hardware? Are there plans to do this in the future?

It's the same with Waymo vehicles. Google has used a large number of vehicles from various manufacturers with a ton of different modifications over years of testing (they still aren't done).

I would not be surprised if there are Nvidia GPUs sitting in an Apple data center somewhere. Perhaps not for production purposes but for testing.

In the end we will never know all the details of Apple's development process. They certainly want the least amount of this disclosed because it gives their competitors insight into Apple's methodology. Apple's secrecy is a competitive advantage. Note that the open source AI model they released is not the one they will use for Apple Intelligence.