throw74775

In the iOS vs Android case, iOS does in fact typically bring at least 50% more profit to developers, often far more.

Why must you support iOS(-2)?

I don't see why that should be. Obviously you have a right to do whatever deals you like and not buy this product, but it seems to me that one reason Apple is investing so much in this is because they expect to recoup a huge reward over time, not just from device sales.

I guess you can always buy an android based headset that allows sideloading but presumably it won't have the same level of investment.

You don't think they are contributing something by creating this platform?

This might have made sense with the iPad but I can't see how anyone is going to write software that 'fully utilizes' the system in a way that Apple doesn't support without billions of dollars of investment.

I’m not mistaking myself for the general consumer. I’m aware that it’s only one day after the keynote, and very few people are already thinking this far into how it might affect their lives, and I know this is because I have industry experience going back decades.

That said, this doesn’t matter. If the use cases I’m thinking of are actually served by the device, then that knowledge will spread organically, and people will buy it.

I agree that movie screen in a headset is not the play, that’s why it wasn’t my first example. My point is that if just a couple of the use cases are real, it will enable people to use their space differently, and that will be about as sticky as a product gets.

Presumably it’s his wife who decides whether it is ok.

What makes you think they were trying to match the competition’s weight?

If these are well known problems with VR, should should assume Apple is fully aware of them. Imagining otherwise would be stupid.

If they are aware of the problems then we should assume they believe they have adequate solutions. Imagining otherwise would be stupid.

Magic is not needed. All it takes is a team that is aware of the problems, and has the engineering resources to address them.

Do you have pre-seed funding to give him?

NextStep was easily the best there was. Nothing else was remotely suitable. The only contender people like to fantasize about is BeOS, which was nice (I used it as a daily driver for a year), but a toy compared to NextStep and OSX.

Assuming Apple’s product has all the deficiencies of failed products from the past will of course lead you to conclude that they will fail.

If Apple’s device is good enough to use for real work on a Mac and Meta’s product is not, it doesn’t matter how much cheaper it is.

Aluminum is about 3x the weight of ABS, but is significantly stronger. It’s not at all obvious that any weight could be ‘shaved’ while still making the device as durable.

I think you’re overthinking it.

I was considering buying a new studio display for my Mac Studio. I have a single 4K display that is fine most of the time, but for serious work, I want more. That purchase is now on hold until I’ve tried Vision Pro.

For just this application alone, Vision Pro is interesting. As well as a desk, my office has a sofa, and a round conference table. I like to be able to move from one to another for different activities because it’s better for my body. Being able to do this and still access my Mac, or have computing surfaces floating nearby would be a huge benefit for me.

I also have a living room with a TV in it. For me, TV isn’t a social activity - it’s just a way to unwind or watch something of cultural significance. I would love to be able to remove the TV and arrange the room in a more social way. I’d also like to be able to watch movies etc. in other rooms.

I’m considering having roommates, and being able to sometimes watch large screen content in my bedroom feels like it would take pressure off the shared spaces, and allow me to downsize my personal use of space more comfortably.

If it works as well as is claimed, it’s practically a no-brainer for me to buy even at $3500, just based on the added freedom it would give in my own home.

That’s not the bullish end of the spectrum. Eliezer Yudkowsky has said that GPT-4 could already be there.

It’s standard for gaming.

If you are going to claim that Apple’s VR system needs to use meta’s style if controller in order to be successful at gaming, I think that’s short sighted.

Vision Pro supports game controllers. It was in the demo.

> Meta Quest Pro has much of what the Apple device offers

No it doesn’t. Parent said there were ‘plenty’. Perhaps there is another on your the list that does?

I worked at a games company that only made casual games and we had individual users who spent more that $3500 per month, admittedly not many, but more than one.

Why? Nostalgia for an old product range? It seems better not to have to buy that clunky enclosure if you don’t need it.

> There are plenty of AR/VR headsets out there that have the same feature set and are far cheaper

Can you list some of these far cheaper products that have the same feature set?

> it's not new.

I’m not aware of any remotely comparable product.

Yes, but all you’ll have is a big smart tv. Visio pro does a few things a TV doesn’t.

This is true, but I also don’t see why it matters. In practice most users who want the highest performance level will choose the Mac Studio form factor, which is far more convenient.

The Pro chassis is an alternative enclosure for use cases that require PCI expansion cards for niche applications.

Yes - there are definitely questions around how good the ML model will look.

To me it wasn’t amazing.

Correct, almost nobody cares about sideloading.

Seems like it’s already on its feet.

Unity is 3D

> why weren't they wearing the goggles?

Vision Pro uses an ML model to present you without the googles if you are using FaceTime.

You said:

> So Apple wasn't able to increase performance (or even ram capacity)

You were simply wrong. Why not just admit that?