mpantone

Still beta. That's why no restaurant is going to use beta Apple Maps on their website.

And no restaurateur is going to sign up for Apple's Developer Program either. It's nice that Apple is working on it but they are years behind Google Maps.

The launch was a disaster and they are still trailing by miles. Like I said, Google Maps blows Apple Maps away in some regions. Apple Maps is so bad in Tokyo that half the times I use it, I have to switch to Google Maps. Which is a non-starter. Just start with Google Maps from the beginning.

Naturally Tabelog (their restaurant review site, like Yelp) uses Google Maps. Apple Maps definitely plays second fiddle in Tokyo. And it still suffers from all of the non-web compatibility in other Japanese cities.

If you are going to travel the world with your smartphone as a reference tool you still need to occasionally use Google Maps. If you live in your mom's basement in Boondocks County USA, sure, you can probably survive just sticking with Apple Maps.

And that doesn't change that Apple Maps data is fundamentally poorer in quality than Google Maps in a widespread area. Remember that Google's business is selling your data to advertisers (mostly through Google AdWords). Companies have more incentive to be on Google Maps because of Google Search.

Apple is going to have to try a LOT harder to make Apple Maps as good as Google Maps. They are years away from that still.

AppleZulu said:

This should be unsurprising, because it’s at the heart of Apple’s business model, and is the same concept as Apple’s exclusive relationship between its hardware and operating systems. Boiled down, it’s about limiting unnecessary variables. 

Honestly, it’s surprising how few people seem to get that, and even more surprising that no competing company has tried to replicate that approach. 

Samsung tried and failed, notably on the software side with their Tizen operating system. Of course they design continue smartphones and Exynos SoCs. And yes, they do have some of their own services like the Galaxy Store (smartphone apps).

Google's business model is to track everything you do and sell that data to advertisers. They would benefit the most by having control over smartphone hardware which is evidenced by their continued work on Pixel smartphones. In fact, recent Pixel models are now using a Google Tensor G4 SoC which is now their fourth generation silicon.

My guess is that there are a couple of companies who have prototype smartphone SoCs in their labs. I know little about the Chinese smartphone market but most likely there are several companies (like Huawei) working on it.

It's possible that Amazon is trying to develop their own silicon for handhelds but it may never see the light of day in a shipping device.

Microsoft completely blew it. They were a dominant smartphone platform before the iPhone emerged on the scene. Microsoft fumbled it all away and now they are destined to stand on the sidelines and wistfully watch others lead the way. Consumer technology innovation hasn't been driven by PCs for well over a decade. Remember that Apple was not designing their own smartphone silicon when the iPhone debuted in 2007.

Facebook partially blew it. There was a Facebook smartphone but Facebook abandoned further development over a decade ago.

https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/heres-why-the-facebook-phone-flopped/

And now there is evidence Meta is trying to develop custom SoCs mostly for their cloud servers. But rather than be a major player in the smartphone industry, Meta is basically a few apps/services that are popular in some markets and relatively unpopular in others. There's plenty of evidence that shows that Meta's focus is misdirected. They sunk a lot of money into a VR blackhole and their inane "metaverse" B.S. instead of trying to make a dent in smartphones.

9secondkox2 said:

Really doubt this. 

The one thing the VP has going for it is the specs. And it still flopped. It’s not like a faster GPU or GPU is going to help. 

You are ignoring the fact that the M4 SoC is on a different process node (N3E) than the M2 (N5P). It takes less electricity for the M4 to do the same tasks as the M2 (the SoC in the current AVP). This is important for the AVP because it is battery powered.

If everything else remains the same, this hypothetical AVP 2 (with M5 SoC which is expected to be on the TSMC's 2nm process node) would likely have better battery performance than the original model.

Note that the 100 Hz refresh rate of the AVP definitely can be improved. Of course faster refresh rates require more power so saving some on the SoC is going to help. A pleasant VR experience is really going to be around the 120-160Hz refresh rate. I own an Oculus Rift S (70Hz refresh) which is pretty much at the lowest threshold.

Part of AVP's lack of sales has to do with the discrepancy between Apple's specs and Apple's price vis-a-vis the competition. It simply isn't worth $3500. It's not ten times better than a Meta Quest 3 ($400) or Quest 3S ($300). Plus the fact that there's a lot more software and content available for the Quest HMDs. Anyone who has tried a consumer-grade product from the competition knows this.

Hell, anyone who shoved their smartphone in a Mattel View Master VR device (about $18 in 2015) also knows this. These were Google Cardboard-compatible devices from nine years ago.

https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/mattel-view-master-virtual-reality-viewer-starter-pack

Sure the user experience sucked (you had to hand hold the viewer) but it was less than an Andrew Jackson.

Easier for Apple to do a spec bump by dropping in a new SoC rather than design an entirely new device. And Apple has a very long history of using the same industrial design for multiple generations. The main thing is whether or not they can decrease COGS.

There are obviously less expensive VR HMD prototypes in Apple's labs. Maybe they don't have adequate performance, maybe the gross margins are too low, maybe Apple is waiting for the market to develop more interest, most likely it's a combination of 8-10 factors (including the ones I mentioned) before Apple will pull the trigger on a differentiated model.

Remember that Apple did not launch four different iPad models at the same time in 2010. They released them incrementally over years.

Goggles-style HMDs are a dead end. Too uncomfortable, too heavy, too restrictive. (Disclaimer #1: I own an Oculus Rift S.) A VR/AR HMD really needs to approach the weight of a pair of eyeglasses and have the same comfort level. (Disclaimer #2: I am a longtime wearer of eyeglasses.)

Even a lighter, mass market focused Apple Vision HMD would still be a stepping stone to a pair of eyeglasses.

If Apple wants this to be accepted by Joe Consumer, they will need to find a price point much closer to Meta Quest 3 ($400) or Quest 3S ($300). While the AVP certainly has better specs and better quality components than those two Meta devices, the latter have far more available content. As we know, Content Is King...

Dead_Pool said:

But I thought Macs were so efficient that they needed only 8 GBs?

It was pre-Apple Intelligence.

Many closely watching Apple’s AI efforts expect their LLM to take up around 6GB of RAM leaving little for applications. Increasing RAM to 16GB provides far more headroom which will be crucial if the user enables Apple Intelligence.

This has been heavily covered by tech media despite the fact AppleInsider failed to mention it in this particular article.