Last Active
  • Apple's $1000 AR headset expected in 2022, 'Apple Glass' in 2025, contact lenses in 2030

    flydog said:
    doggone said:
    What is MR?  How would contact lenses work or even be powered?
    The “prediction” is for contact lenses to be released within 20 years, which is the same as saying “if the technology existed,” which it doesn’t. 

    And we have no idea if it's even possible.  It would require transparent circuits, normally transparent/sometimes opaque and lit display, and probably a transparent wireless power antenna.  That would all have to be less than a millimeter thick, and flexible. It would have to accommodate corrective lenses for users who wear contacts for vision correction, or it would have to handle vision correction itself.  Oh, and it would have to be completely non-toxic and oxygen permeable.

    Maybe in a hundred years.  Maybe never.  But I don't think there's a chance that this is going to happen in 20 years.  The materials to do it simply don't exist now.
  • State of Apple Silicon - half of the most popular Mac apps still need Rosetta

    I touched a M1 Mac today for the first time.

    S L O W.

    Completely what I expected, but with all the "no, really, they're fast" hype, I thought maybe I'd be wrong.

    Nope.  They're slow. 

    Buy an Intel Mac while you still can.

  • Epic Games takes Apple dispute to Australian market regulator

    sdw2001 said:
    As much as I am deeply concerned about the power of Big Tech (the recent actions of FB, Twitter, AWS, Google  and Apple stand out), I continue to think Epic doesn’t have a leg to stand on here.  The developer clearly and intentionally violated the terms of service to make a point. As the article stated, they baited Apple into taking the action they did.  I don’t see how they are going to make a credible argument that Apple’s system has “driven up prices.“  Apple does not have a monopoly on smart phones. They are a major market player and they have their own system. If you want to use their system, you’re going to play by their rules.  They will claim, with quite a bit of credibility, that their system protects users, overall quality, and has led to a massive number of relatively low cost apps.  Is the developer actually going to argue that they have a *right* to have their software installed on Apple’s product? Like it’s some kind of public service or common carrier?  That argument has a lot more merit for the social media companies, and we’re not even there yet with them.  I continue to believe this is going nowhere for Epic.  

    Apple absolutely has a monopoly in a major segment of the market. 

    And it's not Apple's iPhone, it's MY iPhone.  All Apple needs to do is add a preference to allow installing apps from any source of my choosing.  They can put whatever dire warning on it that they'd like, they just don't have the right to keep me from flipping that switch.

    Epic are doing this for their own greedy reasons, but they are still heroes for doing it.
  • Apple working on re-engineered and smaller Mac Pro

    Marvin said:
    DuhSesame said:
    Apple engineers are currently developing a new Mac Pro that looks like the current design at about half the size. It’s unclear if that Mac will replace the current Mac Pro or if it’s an additional model. Apple’s chip designs could help the company reduce the size of its computers due to increased power efficiency, but the current Mac Pro is large, in part, to fit components like additional storage drives and graphics chips.

    Why?  I don’t buy this either, not at least the “replacement” part.  Are they suggesting that Apple Silicon only have half of the PCIe lanes?

    Half of the Mac Pro is taken up by the GPUs:

    You're making the assumption that most buyers will put GPUs in that space.  The only Mac Pros I've installed have been servers, they've got monitors but they'll be off most of the time.  They get the base GPU config, lots of CPU, and RAID card for external storage because nobody trusts Apple's SSDs.
  • Experimental Windows XP theme aped Mac's Aqua user interface

    williamh said:
    Back in those days, the eye candy wasn’t universally accepted on the Mac. Some people complained from the OSX betas that Apple would implement a UI that was too processor intensive.  Jobs, as I recall, responded that CPUs would progress to the point it wouldn’t matter. And they did. 

    And then Apple turned the UI into flat and ugly.