s/sensor/panel/
1,298 karma · joined February 4, 2023
There's some interesting analysis here: https://kguttag.com/2023/06/26/apple-vision-pro-part-4-hyper...
He concludes, by making comparison with the Meta Quest which has similar pancake optics to the AVP, and by scaling up the PPD, that the AVP's PPD could be as high as 39 PPD in the center of the image.
I think most of the conclusions derived from the analysis here will still hold true if the central PPD does turn out to be as high as 39, rather than 34. It's still a very long way from 20/20 retina at 60, from foveal cone density at 110, and pales in comparison to the PPD achieved by even entry level 14" laptops or 27" 4K displays.
I keep trying newer lens technologies as they come out, but mostly it's been a bust. However I do also like Precision1 for Astigmatism water gradient lenses, which came out in 2021. They are thicker and more stable overall, with slightly higher vision quality, but prone to drying up if I don't blink.
Occasionally for a change I'll wear Acuvue Oasys 1-Day for Astigmatism, which came out in 2017.
All three work well for me but the Acuvue Moist are the ones I tend to reach for the most often. It depends a lot on the individual and the fit, I think.
In summary, with an 88" screen at a distance of 5 feet, some viewers rated 8K content (118 PPD) higher on average than equivalent 4K content (59 PPD), particularly those with better than 20/20 vision (~60 PPD). Most would not notice. It wasn't directly tested but I'd guess most people do notice the difference between 30 and 60 PPD, but only those with above average eyesight will see improvements beyond that.
To achieve the same effective pixel count as a MBP, a virtual screen at the AVP's PPD would have to be resized to 90° horizontal FOV, which is just too big to be comfortable, equivalent to sitting 6" from a 14" MBP screen.
The technology just isn't there yet. We need at least another doubling of PPD. See you in 10 years.
To get true 4K res (3840x2160) at a PPD of 34 would require a screen that is 3840 / 34 = 113 degrees wide, way in excess of what is accessible by adduction of the human eye. A 60° wide screen would have a resolution of 60*34 = 2,040 pixels wide, or roughly 1080p.
[update: I remeasured in a more relaxed posture sitting back and it's closer to 20" in that scenario]
* Your 22" screen at a distance of 32" has a horizontal FOV of 33°. Moving your eyes from the middle of one screen to the adjacent screen is a 33° movement. Assuming 1080p it would have a PPD of 58, which is roughly retina PPD.
* My 27" screen at a distance of 20" (I measured it [update: originally measured at 14", remeasured in a more relaxed posture]) has a horizontal FOV of 60°, almost twice as wide. Moving my eyes to an adjacent screen would be physically impossible and I'd have to turn my head since the maximum adduction angle for human eyes is ~45° (each side). At 4K it has a PPD of 32, not even retina.
Although you can move your eyes from the center of the left screen to the center of the right (33 * 2 = 66°), you can't see the edges of your outer screens without turning your head slightly (33 * 3 = 99°, greater than human adduction of 45 * 2 = 90°).
Your three screens have a combined FOV of 99°, which is 50% bigger than my single 27" at 60°. That's definitely more, but it's 1.5x, not 3x, more. So our setups are not that different, it's just that you are using three monitors to cover a little more horizontal FOV than I get sitting closer to just one.
> I find it more uncomfortable to eyes to switch screens on the same window, especially if one is light and the other is dark. The blinking is disorientating and can be eye hurting, because eye is not prepared for the color switch/ doesn't know what to expect.
I use dark theme for everything so don't have this issue and am constantly switching between tabs and windows.
Turning your head is a hassle. I also find turning my eyes fatiguing if the angle of movement is too great. So I tend to prefer smaller, higher PPD displays over larger displays with the same resolution. I want a lot of pixels in a compact FOV.
For me, 4K 24” has been the sweet spot for desktop monitors. I currently have a 27” due to so few good 24” 4K monitors being made these days, and at the viewing distance allowed by my setup, even that is just slightly too big, such that looking to the corners can get annoying.
The PPD on these headsets still just isn’t anywhere close to the point where it can match a single high density desktop monitor, and making the virtual screen bigger or adding side screens just doesn’t work for me ergonomically.
There are so many of these biases. As just one example, studies have shown more talkative people are perceived as being more intelligent, even when this is objectively not true. I will take the time to find references if anyone's curious; I recall an experiment in which a group discussion was held and participants were rated by their peers on intelligence. The experimenters then measured how talkative each person was during the discussion, and their actual intelligence was assessed via a standardized test. Peer's perceptions of intelligence were uncorrelated with actual intelligence, but strongly correlated with talkativeness.
The result is that fast talking employees who focus on impression management, self-promotion, and securing juicier work - work that is of a quality or type more likely to be perceived as being important - at the expense of getting genuinely important but often less glamorous things done, and less things done overall, get rewarded.
This problem is particularly pronounced in American culture where extraversion is already a highly regarded and arguably overvalued trait (e.g. show and tell). It's less of a problem in other cultures, e.g. European cultures, that place higher value on introversion (e.g. quiet work and study).
I guess I will just be more aggressive in hiding posts that I didn't want to waste my time reading.
As it is, there is only one channel and no competition, so we don't know what the malware situation would be like in the absence of Apple's monopoly.
For example:
* Apple says "here's our proposed new framework." EU regulators say "We don't like it." Apple replies "Too bad, we're going to do it anyway, and we are confident we are in line with your regulations." EU regulators say "If you do that, we'll sue you." Apple replies, "OK, we have good lawyers." End of meeting.
* Apple asks the EU for more specific details on how the EU will approach various provisions, without actually revealing any concrete details of what they were planning.
* Apple requests the meeting with the EU regulators, to reassure them they are going to take action before the March 4th deadline and that they have a detailed plan in place to meet the new regulations, but then does not actually reveal any specific details in the meeting and instead talks only in generalities.
These are all possible contents of such a meeting. Just because you know they had a meeting on the subject of the new regulations, does not mean you can assume Apple was vetting their changes and getting EU approval before announcing. There are a great many things that are not that, and just because you can't think of them, or I can't think of them, does not mean they did not happen.
Unless you have direct or indirect knowledge of what happened behind those closed doors, which have not been reported in the media or elsewhere, you are not entitled to make any assumptions.
Most consumers understand those concepts and fear those things. Most understand nothing about the economic impact of monopolies and anti-competitive business behavior and the harms they cause consumers in the form of higher prices, lack of innovation, reduced choice, and poorer quality products and services.
So Apple plays off those fears by using language consumers understand, making them actually want the very monopoly that is being forced on them and actually harming them while making billions for Apple.
It's unethical behavior, no more defensible than Sam Bankman-Fried's effective altruism, a.k.a. "mostly a front." This is all right out of Apple's standard playbook.
If you agree to the new business terms, you can distribute them on the App Store, on alternative app marketplaces, or both. I think that's what "and/or" means here. You are not obliged to distribute your app through alternate app marketplaces, or through the App Store. Some developers whose apps are already on the App Store won't get around to distributing their apps on the alternative marketplaces. Other developers releasing new apps will forego the App Store entirely. Once they've accepted the new terms, the new fee structures will apply to those developers regardless of which marketplace(s) they choose.
And once you've agree to the new terms, you can't switch back.
The fact that they don't allow you to transfer your apps to another developer account unless that account has also opted in to the new business terms, is new information and interesting, but not surprising. Otherwise, it would be possible to circumvent the lock-in provisions merely by creating a new developer account and transferring your apps to it.
[1] https://developer.apple.com/documentation/appdistribution/in...
> Therefore, the Company accounts for all third-party application–related sales on a net basis by recognizing in Services net sales only the commission it retains.
So the commissions are <=$85B. Given the $1.1T number is from Apple, that implies the average commission rate is <15% (many categories of app excluded from commissions perhaps?).
They list gross margin for services to be $60B but I don't see where they break down net profit with greater granularity or "per division" (the word division does not seem to appear in the 10-K). For example they could make $80B in App Store commission, sell $5B in other services, make $80B in profit from commission, but lose $20B on other services, and that would still be consistent with the numbers in the 10-K, right? And those numbers presumably don't include indirectly related operating expenses which totaled $55B.
Apple has not revealed how profitable the App Store really is, but either way it's a LOT of profit, certainly enough to warrant expensive attorneys and stalling implementing this legislation in good faith for as long as possible.
10% was not commission-free. App Store commissions are between 15% and 30% depending on the size of the developer. That would be between $165B and $330B revenue for Apple from commissions.
Nobody knows how profitable the App Store is to Apple. "It’s a question that investors would love to know the answer to, because it addresses the entire business model of the App Store. Apple does not disclose any detailed financial results of the App Store,". "Barnes calculated that the App Store had hefty profit margins, which increased to 78% in 2019, up from 75% in 2018" [2]
App Store revenue is still growing (not least with inflation) so the number of 2023 was likely even higher.
~80% margin on $165-$330B revenue in 2022 would be $132-$264B. So my original number of $100B may actually have been on the low side.
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2023/05/31/apple-touts-1-1-trillion-i...
[2] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-profitable-is-apples-a...
[1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-profitable-is-apples-a...
Yes, we know they talked with the EU, but we don't know the content of those discussions. It's easy to assume they were checking whether their proposed implementation would satisfy the regulators. It's equally likely, even more likely, they were gathering information, posturing and probing to see how the EU would react, to gauge how best to craft their scheme to outwit them and what they could or could not easily get away with.
You can hold a negotiation and still screw the other side over afterwards - isn't that actually the best way to do it? Holding a meeting first to learn what cards your opponent has in their hand is just a better way to play any game.