cpsro

HoloLens does not use holography. If it's "holographic" as Microsoft advertises (and the press regurgitates unchallenged), it's only in the limited sense of simulating the experience of viewing holographic imagery. The technology used is stereoscopic vision. To someone who knows what holography is, calling HoloLens holographic is (euphemistically speaking) inaccurate.

I believe it's easier to tap in the center position, making accidental disconnects (disasters) more frequent.

AppleZulu said:

Look at the pipeline, folks. Wear glasses if your'e struggling with myopia. None of this is about Apple ending the Mac Pro line.

The current iteration of the Mac Pro is all about getting it moved to Apple silicon.

It's fabulous Apple was able to finish off the Intel contract. It's ugly that Apple couldn't do better with Apple Silicon and the new Mac Pro, which is more of an expensive placeholder than an attractive solution. This is not the future Apple led us all to expect. 4-year-old AMD processors kick the 2023 Mac Pro's butt. Oh, yeah, AMD uses more watts. ok, swell.

cdarlington1 said:

I see no fumble. It was clear after the launch of Apple silicone that soc was what they were doing and the macpro wasn’t going to be the macpro of yesteryear. 

The fail is Apple couldn’t do anything more with the system than what they did in the Studio. No more RAM, no more cores, no more speed (with all that cooling!). Even the PCIe slots aren’t properly supported, with only 16 lanes that must be shared among 4 slots.

cia said:

jdiamond said:

The biggest apparent technical issue seems to be the failure of the quad-die Apple Silicon chip. 

I don't know if it was a failure so to speak, the quad Ultra chip just didn't make financial sense to Apple.  It would have been an incredibly niche product, the top tier.

Top tier, yes. Incredibly niche, nope. We don’t really know what Apple had hoped for, but if quad-die was on the roadmap, it failed.