tech The Apple Thread

[Starshine]

Just now, Kayseri Mantisi said:

I know, I still prefer Philips OLED's with Ambilight (they're not available if youre from USA, but really popular in Europe - Ambilight is the best TV tech ever imo) and LG OLED's (specifically the G and upper series) I just said QD OLED too because they started to get popular in recent time for people who are obsessed with brightness 

Regardless, it's not even comparable.

 

You're getting a scalable desktop monitor to IMAX sized screen in your living room at 4000 PPI, in Micro OLED fidelity. With color accuracy to Apple's standards, probably better brightness, contrast, etc. vs having to color calibrate a one sized TV itself. And some of those TVs cost just as much.  

[PopMusicJunkie]

I was sold on Apple Vision Pro, let me start saving up my coins now.  

[Starshine]

2 hour battery is like.. stupid.  

 

All day when plugged in obviously, but plugged into what? A wall outlet? 

 

This is clearly an at home device meant to grow the app ecosystem for the future AR glasses. I kind of see these as a developer tool. I might buy to try it out and maybe return. 

[Kayseri Mantisi]

10 minutes ago, Starshine said:

Regardless, it's not even comparable.

 

You're getting a scalable desktop monitor to IMAX sized screen in your living room at 4000 PPI, in Micro OLED fidelity. With color accuracy to Apple's standards, probably better brightness, contrast, etc. vs having to color calibrate a one sized TV itself. And some of those TVs cost just as much.  

There's no way this Augmented Reality headset gives you a better performance for movies and series etc than a higher end/lux tv's lol. It might be good for 3D objects like they showcased for engineers etc at workplaces, but not for streaming content imo. It won't even have the sound performance of the TV which is good for movies + don't think it can have the infinite contrast ratio of an OLED TV since it blends it with your room + not every room might be suitable for that “IMAX sized screen” since your actual room is not IMAX sized in real life you know right, it blends your room with software.  I'm not trying to say it's a bad device, I just replied to that user since they were thinking to get it instead of a new TV. There's also comfort issues, you don't need to wear something on your head everythime you want to watch something. Just lay on your couch instead and enjoy an actually professionally calibrated big screen with better darks and colors. 2 hours battery life is also horrendous for streaming content, most movies are longer than that I don't even need to say that. This is not a device intended to replace a good TV.

[nadiamendell]

It looks like a cool device, but at that price it is DOA.  So a fancy Quest, no AI, no Siri improvements (other than the removal of "Hey Siri" ) .... I worry Apple may be losing its way.  

Edited June 5, 2023 by nadiamendell

[Starshine]

1 minute ago, Kayseri Mantisi said:

There's no way this Augmented Reality headset gives you a better performance for movies and series etc than a higher end/lux tv's lol. It might be good for 3D objects like they showcased for engineers etc at workplaces, but not for streaming content imo. It won't even have the sound performance of the TV which is good for movies + don't think it can have the infinite contrast ratio of an OLED TV since it blends it with your room + not every room might be suitable for that “IMAX sized screen” since your actual room is not IMAX sized in real life you know right, it blends your room with software.  I'm not trying to say it's a bad device, I just replied to that user since they were thinking to get it instead of a new TV. There's also comfort issues, you don't need to wear something on your head everythime you want to watch something. Just lay on your couch instead and enjoy an actually professionally calibrated big screen with better darks and colors. 2 hours battery life is also horrendous for streaming content, most movies are longer than that I don't even need to say that. This is not a device intended to replace a good TV.

Headsets currently are already capable of turning your FOV to a theater size, it's not brand new. There's literally a crown that morphs it into full virtual reality, your room wouldn't need to be theater sized to do that. I'd reserve my judgement when I actually try them on.

 

It's not intended to replace a TV, that's why I said it isn't comparable. 

[Kayseri Mantisi]

Just now, Starshine said:

Headsets currently are already capable of turning your FOV to a theater size, it's not brand new. There's literally a crown that morphs it into full virtual reality, your room wouldn't need to be theater sized to do that. I'd reserve my judgement when I actually try them on.

 

It's not intended to replace a TV, that's why I said it isn't comparable. 

Girl I also don't think they're comparable, we're supporting the same thing then? I thought you said they're not comparable because Apple's headset would've been bigger than a high end tv or something. The user Magickarp said that they were thinking to get it instead of a TV and that's why I wrote that in the first place, saying he shouldn't.

[Dula Peep]

Yeah 3.5K is steep.. But apparently they are working on a cheaper version out next year 

[Bloo]

Apple did absolutely nothing to make AR look interesting to me. We'll see if this actually catches on and finds mainstream appeal. But I'm tempted to say this might be their first big flop in a long while.

[nadiamendell]

15 minutes ago, Bloo said:

Apple did absolutely nothing to make AR look interesting to me. We'll see if this actually catches on and finds mainstream appeal. But I'm tempted to say this might be their first big flop in a long while.

This... It's like... "view your same apps but in AR!!!!" The only thing that really stood out to me was the 3D video recording feature, but who wants to pay $3500 for that?  Also, the fact that these won't even be available until next year is.... a choice. This will only give competitors time to catch up and hopefully come up with something way more affordable. 

[CBC]

I'm surprised people are surprised by the price... I was expecting 5k. Anyway, it isn't a device for personal use it's def made for industry, think game/movie developers seeing assets in real scale, furniture designers, designing pieces for engineering projects 

[nadiamendell]

8 minutes ago, CBC said:

I'm surprised people are surprised by the price... I was expecting 5k. Anyway, it isn't a device for personal use it's def made for industry, think game/movie developers seeing assets in real scale, furniture designers, designing pieces for engineering projects 

Umm. Have you seen the marketing videos? It's literally being marketed for just that:

 

https://twitter.com/tim_cook/status/1665806600261763072?s=20

 

 

[barbiegrande]

46 minutes ago, nadiamendell said:

It looks like a cool device, but at that price it is DOA.  So a fancy Quest, no AI, no Siri improvements (other than the removal of "Hey Siri" ) .... I worry Apple may be losing its way.  

Apples been creatively bankrupt for years 

[AxelFox]

If this **** doesn't let me explore Middle Earth with my own eyes as if I was there then I'm not giving them my money 

[Bloo]

1 hour ago, nadiamendell said:

This... It's like... "view your same apps but in AR!!!!" The only thing that really stood out to me was the 3D video recording feature, but who wants to pay $3500 for that?  Also, the fact that these won't even be available until next year is.... a choice. This will only give competitors time to catch up and hopefully come up with something way more affordable. 

3D fanaticism is a proven failure in terms of marketing. People do not care about it. The 3DS is the most successful 3D product and… the most well-received version of it was “the new 2DS” which had no 3D capabilities. 3D is a novelty that has failed time and time again, so this is not a thing of wondering whether “this” will be the time it catches on. It just won’t. So yeah, people will not be spending $3500 to take 3D pictures they will likely only really be able to view well on that same headset.

[Bloo]

1 hour ago, CBC said:

I'm surprised people are surprised by the price... I was expecting 5k. Anyway, it isn't a device for personal use it's def made for industry, think game/movie developers seeing assets in real scale, furniture designers, designing pieces for engineering projects 

But they’re marketing it as that. They’re focusing on Safari, video watching, and photo viewing. The most productive-heavy thing we saw with it was… using Keynotes.  

 

There is potential for AR to be a breakthrough product for people that work with highly-niche applications like CAD documents or medical imaging artifacts. But I haven’t seen Apple really promote it to be a product that is meant for those markets. It’ll need compelling software for that. You can’t always rely on 3rd party software to develop those apps for a new platform when they have no idea if it will stick around in the longterm.  

[CBC]

1 hour ago, nadiamendell said:

Umm. Have you seen the marketing videos? It's literally being marketed for just that:

 

https://twitter.com/tim_cook/status/1665806600261763072?s=20

 

 

10 minutes ago, Bloo said:

But they’re marketing it as that. They’re focusing on Safari, video watching, and photo viewing. The most productive-heavy thing we saw with it was… using Keynotes.  

 

There is potential for AR to be a breakthrough product for people that work with highly-niche applications like CAD documents or medical imaging artifacts. But I haven’t seen Apple really promote it to be a product that is meant for those markets. It’ll need compelling software for that. You can’t always rely on 3rd party software to develop those apps for a new platform when they have no idea if it will stick around in the longterm.  

Isn't it normal for them to always market the products to the average user? Like the iphone pro (cinematic bs), macbook pros, those imacs that have specs worth 35-50k, it's weird but ig the logic is workplaces don't need publicity to know the latest apple product is out and is good for their productivity?

 

you do touch an interesting point... but tbf the majority of apple users only do that on their laptops but buy pro models for whatever reason so... 

[Bloo]

3 minutes ago, CBC said:

Isn't it normal for them to always market the products to the average user? Like the iphone pro (cinematic bs), macbook pros, those imacs that have specs worth 35-50k, it's weird but ig the logic is workplaces don't need publicity to know the latest apple product is out and is good for their productivity?

 

you do touch an interesting point... but tbf the majority of apple users only do that on their laptops but buy pro models for whatever reason so... 

Not entirely. The rollout of the actual Pro Mac devices (e.g., Mac Ultra, MacBook Pro) focused on Logic, Final Cut, and Xcode benchmarks. There was also some numbers thrown about forward passes with TensorFlow. Those are things pros would care about. They’re not the most pro demonstrations, for sure. But they’re a far cry from bragging about being able to do FaceTime and browse the web with Safari.

 

This, as is, is not being pushed as a pro device. Otherwise they would demonstrate the software it can pull off to integrate into pro workflows. It has non-pro hardware (e.g., the M2) and no native pro software. So yeah, it’s a bit of a mismatch between it and its price.

[VOSS]

I thought this deserved its own thread, delete/merge here if not ig

[Bloo]

3 minutes ago, VOSS said:

I thought this deserved its own thread, delete/merge here if not ig

Yeah, I think a separate thread is fine. 

[Cheers]

3.5k lmao go to hell Apple

[shelven]

6 hours ago, Bloo said:

Apple did absolutely nothing to make AR look interesting to me. We'll see if this actually catches on and finds mainstream appeal. But I'm tempted to say this might be their first big flop in a long while.

Tbh I actually had the exact opposite reaction. I've found AR incredibly boring and couldn't understand the appeal of it until now. I finally understand why so many people keep saying it can be a game changer.

 

Now this current Vision Pro is definitely a messy product. $3500 USD for a super bulky device and 2 hours of battery life doesn't exactly scream mass appeal. But I think the underlying tech is hugely marketable if they can get the cost and size down relatively quickly.

[Mellark]

3.5k is typical of Apple, but this iOS 17 update feels alright.

[Bloo]

42 minutes ago, shelven said:

Tbh I actually had the exact opposite reaction. I've found AR incredibly boring and couldn't understand the appeal of it until now. I finally understand why so many people keep saying it can be a game changer.

 

Now this current Vision Pro is definitely a messy product. $3500 USD for a super bulky device and 2 hours of battery life doesn't exactly scream mass appeal. But I think the underlying tech is hugely marketable if they can get the cost and size down relatively quickly.

The problem is I’m doubtful that we’ll see a massive decrease in price. If this were $1000, then I could see it taking off. But the amount of hardware needed to make a good XR headset is just too costly and the use cases are too simple, IMO. Watching a movie, taking a FaceTime call, editing a Word document, and browsing the web are such uninspiring use cases. I can do all of them on my iPad, my iPhone, and my MacBook. I think XR devices need a compelling use case that set them apart from the standard devices in the tech landscape in order for people to feel compelled to buy it. Until that happens, it feels like it’s more so only going to be bought by bigtime tech enthusiasts with money to burn.

[Bloo]

4 minutes ago, Mellark said:

3.5k is typical of Apple, but this iOS 17 update feels alright.

It’s honestly not an insane price given the hardware it comes with. Microsoft HoloLens 2 Dev Kit is the same price.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/d/hololens-2-development-edition/92f64zpzzzd4