throw74775

Yeah - I’ve tried metas controllers and it felt clumsy and effortfull to use the UI. The descriptions of Apple’s eye tracking sound far superior.

Why wouldn’t makers of light saber toys just add a buzzer? That would be far better than a game controller, and super cheap to add.

> Value as a toy/trinket is obvious.

It’s hard to accept that you can only see this as a toy or trinket. No serious observer is characterizing it that way even if they are uncertain about its future.

I’m not saying apple is infallible. I’m saying it’s silly for people who have so little experience by comparison to be confidently dismissive. It’s obvious that Apple is less fallible than random commentators. I’m not saying they can’t fail, only that if you don’t don’t see the value, that should make you curious about why you don’t see it and why Apple does.

> won’t have a controller standard to work against

There is no reason this is how it would play out.

By haptics you mean a buzzer? That doesn’t replicate any kind of real-world experience.

But again - there is no reason gamers can’t have a control, but it’s silly to use a game controller to interact with a computing environment when you can use your hands.

It’s compatible with any Bluetooth controller, but I see no reason it would be a nonstarter.

Remember it has full hand tracking. If you want to hold something e.g. a lightsaber or whatever, there is no reason not to. An inert plastic prop should work just fine.

From the early reports, there is nobody saying they have to focus in some special way - you just look at the control, and tap.

> Are these people similarly traumatized when they open a desk drawer or photo album and happen to see an old photo that evokes sad memories?

This sounds like a plot point from a 1970s detective movie. People use their phones to take photos these days, but before that they used digital cameras.

The rest of the article puts it in context. They have had bad experiences with the photos app prompting them with inappropriate ‘memories’, and this is reminding them of that.

Confirmation bias is never a prior.

This isn’t true.

The headline is an outright lie.

Later in the article they say:

  Some kinds of data are always end-to-end encrypted, even with the default standard data protection:

  Passwords and Keychain
  Health data
  Home data
  Messages in iCloud (only when iCloud backup is disabled)
  Payment information
  Apple Card transactions
  Maps
  QuickType Keyboard learned vocabulary
  Safari
  Screen Time
  Siri information (excluding Siri Shortcuts)
  WiFi passwords
  W1 and H1 Bluetooth keys
  Memoji

Will they? It seems like tracking hands and objects directly provides much more information than gripping the two sides of a broken in-half Xbox controller.

That makes sense - it looked very much like a pure open source project.

I wonder if they came to him or if someone else facilitated it as opposed to it being his initiative.

> I can’t help think Apple’s sudden interest in making web apps more useful has to do with visionOS.

Of course it does.

But that has nothing to do with the cynical conspiratorial manipulation you then go on to describe.

> The investment on building a product is not even remotely considered by the market when a product comes out.

You are missing the point. The point is that to think that Apple of all companies doesn’t know this is absurd.

I think the value proposition is blindingly obvious. The big question for me is whether the device is comfortable to wear for long periods.

> Somehow Apple chose a solution which would involve developers giving Apple what is for many people and open source projects a significant sum of money.

Perhaps if the open source community had provided a solution that actually served the needs of end users in this regard, Apple could have adopted it.

> Then, Apple decided to not directly tell Apple users that the thing standing between them and the software they downloaded is that Apple believes the developer needs to give Apple money.

You’ve admitted that they are solving a real problem, therefore this is not an honest representation of what is going on.

I think you know that downloading an unsigned binary from the internet and executing it on your personal machine is utter stupidity from a security point of view.

No it’s not. It needs to be updated in order for it to run without that warning.

If the user has permission to disable the warning, they can, otherwise the app needs to be updated.

Presumably the endgame for Neuralink is to give people direct perception of the truth, as determined by TruthGPT from the content on Twitter.

All you have to do is try one in an Apple store when they come out, and then you’ll be able to get a better understanding.

It’s easy to just claim it’s worthless without firsthand experience. It’s not so easy to discount the giant investment and expertise that have been brought to bear on developing it.

From the keynote you can see that it supports Bluetooth keyboards and a giant set of apps and media out of the gate, and its OS is a continuation of that couple of decades of legacy.

Am MBP plus a studio display is about $3.5k. Nobody seems to object to that pricing.

A lot of postmodern thought results in the formation of cults, in which people occupy a virtual world inside their own minds.

Most US developers are not producing versions for Chinese app stores. That’s a red herring.

Of course individual products have their own idiosyncrasies, but is it in fact the case that on average, an app on iOS will make more than the same app on Android.

That chart doesn’t say you lose 10% of your market share.

It only says that 10% of your users can’t upgrade to the latest version of your app, which is a totally different proposition.

You say for some companies, this is unacceptable, which is obviously true.

It’s not obviously true for a lot of companies, so it’s worth questioning whether this is just a dogma that is handicapping developers and slowing progress in many cases.

Yes, but why?

Yeah - I mean obviously I don’t know that Apple has solved this. If they have, it’s a clear winner as far as I’m concerned.

No it’s not more complicated. iOS brings in twice as much app revenue than Android in total.

What you’ve said doesn’t change this at all.

Right - and the Quest Pro isn’t well compared to what Apple is marketing here. I couldn’t accept a job working with a VR company because I couldn’t get past the nausea the Quest Pro induces in me.

I think the point is that Meta’s investment is weak compared to Apple’s full court press. It really is laughable.

It would be rent seeking if they didn’t continue to make investments in the platform, but nobody believes that is their plan.