flaneur

staigard said:

The iPhone X has potentially all the functionality of AR glasses ... well apart from the ability to balance on your nose.

I find the Face Tracking very interesting ... also the bezel-less design.

Face ID has the ability to track your eyes. By fast processing of the camera signal a seamless copy of reality could be displayed on the screen of the phone. A copy of reality that fits in exactly with the actual reality around it (a very small seam being caused by the bezel). Over this copy of reality, anything could be written or drawn.

Face Tracking is great, but it is not doing much useful at the moment ... animating lumps of poo ? OK it also unlocks your iPhone but that was done well enough with the old Touch ID.

I have a feeling that Face Tracking will suddenly become a lot more useful in the not so distant future.

Also AR on iPhone X would avoid the social problems that Google Glass engendered.

I do not understand how people ignore the fact that they have two eyes that provide two visual fields that are merged in the brain to provide the perception of depth, substantiality, texture and space itself — natively, out of the binocular architecture of the visual system, and then they pretend that a flat, two-dimensional rectangular electronic display will substitute for the sublimnity of that stereo perception.

What Tim is talking about when he says Apple is focusing on "customer experience" is clearly something more than what you are talking about, which they already have running on iPads in the new Apple Park visitor center. I'm almost positive that he's talking about a way to make wearable screens that would only make sense if they were binocular, stereo 3D, as well as being transparent to the Reality part of AR, the world you see around you when you wear your normal glasses or sunglasses, in other words.

First time I've heard of QuantumFilm, which is somewhat explained here:

https://www.androidauthority.com/quantumfilm-explained-634711/

The physics on the atomic or molecular scale aren't made clear, but so far the best takeaway is that the photon sensing happens at amorphous analog level, like photo emulsions do. Or used to do.

It looks like the digital readout can be as fine as the circuitry underneath can be fabricated, and the potential pixel density is heading toward that of analog film.

Anyway, Apple buys into another basic technology for imaging, comparable in breakthrough to micro LED or 3D sensing.

Fatman said:

Pretty simple solution - sell an iMac without the motherboard and storage. Essentially it's now an external monitor. Just need input ports, and display circuitry. AND IT WILL BE THE SAME HEIGHT AS AN IMAC! Come on TIm Cook!

You have no idea whether LG has the production capacity to supply Apple with both iMac screens and screens for a standalone Apple monitor, while making their own LG-branded monitors as well. 

In other words, Tim Cook may have no control over the situation. Production realities are the fundamental factors that nobody ever seems to think about in these forums. 

Based on the run-up to the Iraq invasion in 2003, we should be wary of accepting this story at face value. (E.g., the fake uranium yellowcake letter.)

In fact, the grammar and spelling mistakes are so crude, it seems to be too obviously designed to be discovered as malware.

It's possible that this is a fake malware "plot" meant to incriminate Iran as part of a new neocon plan to drum up support for military action against Iran. The watchwords in times like these: "healthy skepticism," which dupes label "paranoia."

rogifan_new said:

Why didn't Apple just make their own display? Seems that's what everyone wanted.

Because, as you must know very well, only LG makes a 5K IGZO LCDs in any quantity whatsoever, but who knows how many they can make..

And as I've pointed out several times here, sometimes to you, who says LG would want to sell Apple any more of their prestige and probably scarce technology for wholesale cheap, when they can get back more of their R&D by selling their own branded monitor?

But yes, maybe Apple would have caught a shielding problem if they were in charge of packaging LG's innards in an Apple monitor.