Last Active
  • Apple hitting roadblocks in Vision Pro assembly

    Firstly Xed made a great point about the numbers.  Secondly, the article is about a supply problem, not a demand problem.  Why would Apple cut orders?
  • If Apple Vision Pro wasn't expensive enough, a customizer has one for 10x more

    This a minor point about this clearly stupid modification, but it clearly does not have 1.5kg of gold as that amount of gold would be worth about $100,000.  Perhaps it has 1.5 GRAMS of gold.

    Correction: 18k gold would be worth less, maybe $70,000.
  • What iOS 17 features you aren't going to get at launch

    BiC said:
    JonG said:
    Skeptical said:
    All vapor ware until it’s on a phone. Why announce something then say it won’t be released FFS?
    Vaporware is defined as :  
    • software or hardware that has been advertised but is not yet available to buy, either because it is only a concept or because it is still being written or designed.
    The technical definition almost fits, but since this wasn't advertising, but a developer conference to allow outside companies/individuals to begin programming integrations for release on Day 1.  As a company that develops for both MacOS and iOS/iPadOS I will state that it is invaluable to see the roadmap.

    The fact that you wanted to listen in to developer information as a consumer matters very little to me as a developer.  In the history of Apple's information releases to date, there has been relatively little unrealized vaporware put out.

    By your argument, unless an item is in-stock for you, it is vaporware.  So iOS 17 itself is vaporware and by your argument should be kept under wraps until it is released, preventing anyone from testing and developing for it.  Also, we should do away with CES as well, since all they do is show what is coming soon.  Car companies shouldn't ever announce new models until they are at the dealers.  Tesla shouldn't take online orders, because they build cars to order, they are vaporware until they are delivered.

    This isn't about when a product is delivered, but if a company has a history of announcing items that never come out.  Or if they announce items just to drum up funding for them (Shark Tank, Kickstarter, Indiegogo, etc.), which I very rarely back because I've been failed too many times.

    Where did you get that definition - Vaporware is that it's not on the device.  It's pretty simple.  And don't go to beta software BS.  In terms of hardware if you can't buy it - it's vaporware - That's why Apple has had a tradition to announce and release - it's a solid tactic.  They learned from the original Macintosh.  Skeptical is SPOT ON
    It seems like you haven't been paying close attention.  Apple is doing what they've done for ages - they announce the upcoming software features at the developer's conference.  Just like they announced the vaporware Vision Pro and the vaporware iOS 17, and upcoming vaporware operating systems for the watch, AppleTV, etc.  It's unusual for the announcements to not come to pass.  (Did they announce that charging thing that was canceled?)  In any event, your definition of vaporware is the cockeyed one.  The definitions of vaporware others are using seem pretty solid - the internet might not be an unimpeachable repository of facts but they didn't just make it up like you did.

    BTW, the whole vaporware issue had to do with products that were announced with little or no chance of ever coming to market. Vaporware was stuff that didn't really exist. Microsoft, in my view, used to announce some things just to screw around with their competitors.
  • What iOS 17 features you aren't going to get at launch

    Skeptical said:
    All vapor ware until it’s on a phone. Why announce something then say it won’t be released FFS?
    So you are saying that Apple should not share what it's working on with developers at a developers conference?
  • Judge rejects Apple's bid to throw out China sales comment class-action lawsuit

    Unless the investment fund was trading really short term options, they could only have lost money if they sold stock.  Why would an investment fund sell based on that information?