iqatedo

DAalseth said:

alandail said:

robin huber said:

Success will be about software. If it’s only for gamers, can’t see mass adoption. Then it would be, as you say, a stepping stone. 

the killer app for VR is fitness.

I don’t see how that could be a good idea. Whether you’re dancing, running on a treadmill, biking or whatever you need to see what you’re doing. To not run into things first, but also for simple balance. Have you seen those videos of blindfolded people trying to have a pillow fight? It would be about that good, only more dangerous. 

I am a road cyclist who has qualified to compete internationally in UCI competition. Amongst my friends, ergo training is popular and currently a connected iPad or computer is the means of visualising the ride. We ride virtually in places and with people all over the world, being able to do so in 3D would be not only awesome but very popular. I used to row eights, being able to use a rowing ergo with crew mates would be brilliant as perfecting timing and stroke length etc is only possible in coordination with others in the boat. These are fitness activities that would benefit, even as a one-hour long 'burst mode' pursuit. I can't say that VR/MR headsets would take off but I suspect the uses to which they are put will grow rapidly once affordable VR/MR systems are available.

tommikele said:

I spend a fair amount of time in Tel Aviv and I must tell you Apple Maps is woefully bad in Tel Aviv. Quite surprising considering its position as the premier tech hub in the Middle East. So much is missing from Apple Maps that I find it mostly unusable there. No transportation information, Many major, long time locations can't be found via search. It is horrible. You would think it was two totally different apps when you compare it to using it in the USA. I try to stay away from Google anything as much as possible. Sadly, Apple forces me to Google Maps.

I wonder to what degree local regulations/authorisation impede advanced mapping/imaging? Is this even a thing? Some authorities might be reluctant to allow detailed mapping in some locations.

CheeseFreeze said:

The new iMac looks great IMHO, and as the article states, feels very Ivy-ian. Several products now balance usability and design better.
However the Mac Studio looks ugly and the designers didn't have the balls to move beyond stacking two Minis together; a wasted opportunity.
I hope the new Mac Pro and iMac Pro will show a more ambitious design.

Loving my new iMac, which replaced a 2009 27" system and very pleased to have the mains power and ethernet connector removed to a remote 'brick'. Increasingly, systems like this will not require mains voltage and will permit more interesting use cases, such as in the Apple car. I hope the car is a design knockout and up with the best performers. We can hope.

Being someone who, as a teenager, paid dollars for a single transistor - my condolences to those who can still remember the BC108 and BC109 transistors (that I have such fond memories of) and as someone who witnessed the revolutionary transition from TTL technology to CMOS, I still find tech exciting. I look at my iPhone though and it feels so natural, as if I grew up with it, in fact, to make a long distance call in my childhood my parents had to book a phone call with the local general post office. However, while Mac hardware is on a steep upward trajectory and the OS provides brilliant api's, both Apple and third party software are lagging. I am fortunate that the software that is of most importance to me and that began on a Mac, Mathematica, is version equal to those running under Linux and windows. However, other powerful software that also saw first light on the Mac, such as National Instruments Labview today pay only lip-service to the Mac. I cannot fathom Apple's approach to its own software. Each of Apple's productivity apps, Pages, Numbers and Keynote have stagnated whereas others such as iWeb have simply gone away (sure - iWeb, who cares but its utility in the day was remarkable).

My concerns though are likely moot, or soon will be. A whole new way of computing is coming and whomever gets there first will devour the market. The distinction between the operating system, apps and commerce will blur possibly into indistinguishability. I am not referring to meta, this new-age of computing will require intellectual resources far beyond those Facebook/meta could offer. Alphabet on the other hand... hoping Apple gets there first!

fastasleep said:

I'm increasingly inclined to believe Musk in this situation is a) the world's biggest troll, b) manipulating the market for personal gain, c) actually not the galaxy brain that his cultists believe he is, or most likely d) all of the above.

Anyone seen his pitch deck for the future of Twitter? It's fulllllll of bullshit:

931 million — Musk’s target for user numbers by 2028. They have 229 daily active users with a growth of about 15% right now, which if that continues reaches only 550 million users by '28. Where does he get all those other users? ¯\(°_o)/¯ 

Twitter currently makes $5B/year. Musk wants it to make $26.8B by 2028. He wants ads to make $12B/year by 2028 and wants $10B to come from paid subscriptions — 69 million of them (ha ha "69" nice, bro). How? ¯\(°_o)/¯ 

He wants to create a mysterious product called X, that will have 104 million subscribers by 2028. What is it? ¯\(°_o)/¯ 

Twitter’s current workforce is around 7,500 people. Musk wants to increase that to 9,225 by 2022-end, slash it to 8,332 by 2023, and increase it again to 11,072 by 2025. Why those very specific numbers? ¯\(°_o)/¯ 

[ insert weird nerds defending Musk from valid criticism meme here ]

Buying Twitter is a huge distraction that Musk does not need. Can't believe that he went ahead. Perhaps he's looking for an 'out'.