genovelle

proline said:

Weird that Apple feels so easily threatened these days. My local Apple Store was right above a Microsoft store for years. Back then, that just served to visually demonstrate the huge difference in consumer attention between the two. 

dewme said:

avon b7 said:

dewme said:

This is a tough one. Apple has been very successful in stepping in where others have underserved or failed. Bot in those cases the underlying need was still quite clear. 

For example, there were a plethora of MP3 music players available long before the iPod showed up. But no single player provided all the necessary pieces in such a compelling and easy to consume manner. Likewise, there were plenty of smart-ish cellphones with the ability to deliver phone, messaging, a subset of web functionality, entertainment, and a lot of the same features the iPhone did, but none of them were nearly as compelling and easy to use as the iPhone. 

Apple jumped in well after the needs and demand had been established. The problems existed and Apple came up with amazing solutions. 

With the AR/VR headset I for one have a hard time identifying the needs and demands that Apple is going to do much better. This is a case where Apple has to create the need and demand part of the equation too, which makes it a whole different story. Most of the use cases I hear people describe around the Apple headset are trying to convince us that there is a problem that fits the solution we have already arrived at. Solution in search of a problem. 

It’s not impossible to go from solution to problem. Lasers were developed long before the multiplicity of problems they could solve using lasers became apparent. But this approach is one that takes much longer ti develop. Companies like Apple want success quickly and investors aren’t going to sit around to wait for science projects to turn into cash cows. 

We will see, but it’s somewhat difficult today to see where this will go tomorrow or, hopefully not, someday, because someday is too long to wait. 

It's definitely not a solution looking for its problem. 

We know that because both AR and VR are already being put to good use. 

The question is not so much 'what can it do for me? ' but 'at what cost?', both in terms of economic cost and practicality.

AR especially is data driven and content must be freely available to make it attractive.

If I'm running a museum, hospital, zoo, public transport system or whatever, I would have to package up that content and make it available. I won't want to support different platforms. It will have to be based on a standard. From a user perspective I'd be looking to see content universally available, not walled off.

VR on the other hand is perfectly feasible within a closed system but having walls within a device probably isn't very user friendly.

In both cases, data transport infrastructure is key and, right now, it doesn't exist in quantity or capacity for widespread use. With FTTR it is very doable in domestic settings but general outside use is another story.

When the two technologies are mixed together in an XR setting, things like being able to view your phone screen through your glasses take on a whole new dimension. 

I happen to live in a place with 340 days of sun on average per year. Viewing even the best phone screens in full sun is a royal pain. Being able to read my screen through a HUD style experience would be a godsend. Eye tracking technology for hands free use would also be appealing. 

The use cases are there. There are solutions out there too, but for differing reasons, they can't gain widespread traction. Apple is not immune to those problems either. 

Obviously, miniaturisation is one of them. Battery life, transport speed, processing speed, optical quality, weight etc all have to be tackled and whoever manages to bring a product to market at an affordable price will be well positioned to take advantage on some levels but at the end of the day (and it was the same for the internet), content creation will be key and that is going to be better if it is 'open'. 

Good points. No doubt that AR and VR have some niche problems and domains that are a good fit. But for the population of Apple product users, I.e., consumers, which is what Apple most wants to please, I would still be hard pressed ti come with an “elevator speech” that make a large number of current Apple customers have an “aha” moment. 

Hopefully Tim Cook or one of his technical evangelists will be able to come up with such a speech. The size of the “aha” had better be enough to justify the cost and inconvenience of the technical solution that Apple is going to present us with, which is more to your point.

I’m beyond digging into details and specifics or conjuring up interesting things it “might” do until Apple gets my attention. That’s what is missing today and I don’t think I’m alone because unlike the iPhone the fundamental need isn’t obvious. Not yet. Apple still has work to do and the technology pundits and clever renditions of what might be aren’t moving the needle in terms of getting my attention. 

DAalseth said:

Analyst Ming-Chi Kuo believes that that to date, investors have overestimated customers' actual desire and demand for mixed and virtual reality headsets
True that.

True that.

However I feel that what they need isn’t a slick new device from Apple, they need a reason to have one. Gaming? Not really, while there’s some hard core gamers, casual games are a much bigger slice of the market and they don’t need one. Business? Not really, there are a FEW specialized fields that might benefit, the adoption is going to be slow, and most businesses have no use for them. Movies? Not hardly, even watching at home people like to socialize, not be walled off in their own little private theatre. 

It’s really cool tech, but nobody has made a case for why every person should have one. Or even every household, or the vast majority of people. I’ve played with VR, and AR systems. They are cool as heck, but cool is not a use case. Cool is not a need.

davidmalcolm said:

darkvader said:

iOS_Guy80 said:

Their loss and mistake.

Hardly.  Amazon Prime is worth it for the shipping, Prime Video is essentially a freebie that they throw in.  And it's still got a lot more content than Apple, and it's generally better content.

I'm gonna bet there are a LOT more people with Amazon Prime than with Apple TV+, and it's probably going to stay that way.

Apple's big thing is apparently some show about a sportsball coach.  Yawn.

Better content than Apple TV+? Hardly. The Lord of the Rings show was pretty even though the writing was pretty middling. Upload was genuinely good. Jack Ryan is good. Marvellous Ms Maisel was good for the episodes I watched. And they’ve had a few others that I enjoyed. But they have NOTHING as good as Ted Lasso, Shrinking or Severance. Foundation is certainly better than the seasons of the Expanse that Amazon funded. 

Don’t get me wrong, Prime Video has some good shows but they’re no where near Apple’s level.