This outlines how Apple approaches the immersive video format to put the most pixels on the horizon line:
https://blog.mikeswanson.com/apples-mysterious-fisheye-proje...
https://blog.mikeswanson.com/apples-mysterious-fisheye-proje...
Interesting that it's such a strange transformation, even the author of that article hasn't been able to decipher it exactly. The Google EAC seems so straightforward and "neutral", I'm surprised Apple created their own format (unless Google's format requires licensing, but I don't think it does).
There's nothing surprising here, it's been Apple's style for the entire time I've been working in tech - 15 years or so - to create formats that they control and preferably which only work on Apple devices. It's a big part of why their walled garden is so strong.
> Additionally, the format is undocumented, they haven’t responded to an open question on the Apple Discussion Forums asking for more detail, and they didn’t cover it in their WWDC23 sessions
Unfortunately, this is completely normal behavior from Apple and I've run up against it far too many times.
When finally forced, by regulation or industry pressure, to answer questions, open their format up, or support other open formats, they pay lip service and drag their heels in every way possible.
If they do build something on their own, they have a reason. Most often technical. E.g. lightning is strictly better than any alternative that was available when they were introducing it (and that it didn't become the USB-C form factor is partially due to them wanting high licensing revenue). And really... you don't get why they created their own CPUs? Which hands down beat anything else out there on perf/watt and allow their systems to have incredible battery runtime on really tiny batteries?
In other words, there could be some Apple in literally every device on the planet, but they decided they didn't want that -- for some reason. That is the part I don't understand. It seems like such a short-sighted play.
But that's the job of a company...
> but they decided they didn't want that -- for some reason.
Because they are a consumer company. They depend on a strong asymmetry between their customers and them. It would be really hard for any other company to rely on Apple as a supplier. Afaik the only relationship that exists in that way are company phones, but those are not handled by Apple directly, but rather through carriers. Apple simply doesn't have any experience in being a supplier (and probably also large aversions to becoming one from their own treatment of their supply chain).
Linus Torvald's repeatedly says something very insightful about "enterprise grade hardware", he describes it as "over-priced crap that doesn't work". Which is correct in the sense of "it doesn't comply to standards and only works in one specific combination". But that's literally where the value of "enterprise" comes from. There is someone that provides an in-depth description of a single use case and the appropriate solution and sells that. It isn't supposed to work in many scenarios. It's supposed to work in one. But for that one you have to guarantee a certain quality level and if you fail that you will have to pay for that. That is simply not how Apple operates. They are the big dog. Always. That's why they broke up with Nvidia
But my point was: They didn't introduce any format for the fun of it. There always was a reason. Nearly always a technical one. Sometimes "only" a business one (which one could argue that qualifies for "for the hack of it")
By that logic, Google isn't a company despite setting industry standards.
Variants of this principle is seen everywhere throughout their systems and architectural designs, thankfully backfiring often enough that Apple isn't taking over PC any time soon.
They manage pricing to maximize industry profit share, not marketshare.
Even in technical threads were people are literally struggling to complete work because of Apple's attitude (my experience here mostly relates to support for 3d browser apis over the last decade) there's still a largely negative response to any perceived Apple criticism.
I'm actually pleasantly surprised that my comment here is no longer downvoted. I guess HN folks are more savvy than typical web devs.
To be honest I'm not sure I'm even criticizing Apple. I don't like it, for sure, and it makes my life harder, but it's clearly a sound business strategy that has served them well.
Assuming no intentional bias, it's personally hard for me to imagine how anyone could be in the industry for that long and not understand Apple's contributions to formats and other standards we take for granted.
* Apple was the first major adopter and popularizer of now-de-facto standards like 3.5" floppy drives, USB, Wi-Fi, and DisplayPort, and additionally created (and gave away) DisplayPort Mini
* Apple co-developed and popularized IEEE 1394 (FireWire), USB-C, Thunderbolt, and USB 4
* Apple created the ISO base media file format (ISOBMFF), which is the basis for MPEG-4 and many other time-based and image file formats
* Apple popularized today's most popular compressed media formats, and will do the same for AV1 (with hardware decode in M3 and newer Macs today, and Apple TV soon)
* Apple dropped a proprietary OS for the BSD-based OS used across their product line, from wearables, to mobile, to HMDs, to laptops/PCs
* Apple used its open source WebKit to advance modern web standards, and are one of the few defenders against Google's near-total hegemony of web technologies
* Apple's contributions to and investments in open-source technologies like Clang/LLVM and Swift have helped all developers directly and indirectly
Using an as-yet-undocumented projection format to argue the opposite isn't super-persuasive, since Apple eats their own dog food (sometimes for years) before promoting it to an open, generalized industry standard (e.g. "QuickTime Movie" container format).
It takes someone with a good deal of integrity to display a nuanced view of something, weighing both the good and bad.
Such observations aren't typically wanted in forums. Forums favour a "hive mind" mentality, because that's easy and doesn't require thought. Simply put <x> into the good or bad box. If we play the same game of distilling HN into a singular entity, then we already know what it thinks about Apple.
As for Apple's actions I don't think it deserves the polarised views that we see on HN. I've been around long enough to see how companies come in and out of favour and often the meddling efforts by competitors to sway such public opinion. Some people are just really distracted by team fandom and cheerleading, instead of looking at the more important question "what does <x> do for or against me personally?"