Is Word ported to those other devices you mentioned? Will Netflix ever have a native app for those devices? Do they have an intuitive, easy to use interface?
I don’t think anyone is claiming that MR is new and that Apple is first to the market. People are claiming they appear to be the first to do it close enough to “right” to make it a compelling device.
The iPad did replace a category of laptops. At the time the iPad came out netbooks were popular and it was believed by many that Apple was in trouble because they didn’t have a netbook. Apple came out with the iPad and killed the netbook market.
They don't "struggle". Computers exhibit definite behavior when a program attempts to store or operate on numbers that are too large for the allocated space.
For integers, overflow behavior is pretty easy to understand.
Obviously I know this. As stated, in 3rd grade parlance it’s appropriate to say “they struggle”. Have you ever heard someone say, “I need a new computer; mine’s dying.”? This level of pedantic nitpicking is not appropriate for 3rd graders. I’ve heard professional programmers say that their computer struggles with compiling certain programs they are working on. Colloquialisms can be useful and they are ubiquitous.
It would be more accurate to say that calculating with very large integers or integer fractions with millions of digits can be slow on current computers - but it's still far beyond what humans can typically do without assistance.
Million-digit numbers are absurdly large in terms of physical quantities, but can easily arise when one is enumerating possibilities, such as the number of ways that one could give out randomized phone numbers to everyone in a city.
(That's the sort of explanation that my mathematically-inclined friends and I would have understood in grades 3-5, when we learned about integers, rational and irrational numbers, and basic probability/combinatorics, as well as simple algorithms for multi-digit arithmetic and conversion between integer and decimal fractions.)
Factorial and exponential functions were (and are) fun to play with on calculators because of the large numbers you can generate; python and mathematica are even more fun of course. I think recent TI and Casio graphing calculators support python, though I don't know about their bignum support or memory limits.
I think you missed that my comment was about explaining something to third graders or don’t understand what it means to explain something to people in that age group.
Not the allocated space, the bit width of the ALU. Besides, your explanation doesn't add anything to the description of 'struggle' beyond 'in a normal and expected fashion'.
Given that computers have calculated the value of Pi to more than 60 million digits , I think we can safely say that computers readily handle numbers with many digits.
A computer can’t display more digits than the number of particles in the observable universe. This is a finite number. As such it is correct to say that computers struggle if the number of digits is too large. While for practical uses modern computers don’t struggle with finite integers one normally encounters they do struggle with precision in certain circumstances. For 3rd graders I think it’s OK to introduce them to the concept that computers, like all devices, have limitations.
> A computer can’t display more digits than the number of particles in the observable universe. This is a finite number. As such it is correct to say that computers struggle if the number of digits is too large
There are two sources of error here:
1. Your interpretation is essentially "computers struggle to complete tasks that are impossible for them to complete" - a meaningless tautology. At best it is "nothing scales infinitely" which perhaps is a bit more useful as a refutation for complaints that something "doesn't scale" in an unlimited fashion, but that doesn't seem to be the context here.
2. "Too large" is ambiguous. If it's "too large for computers to handle" then it devolves into the above meaningless tautology. However, a sensible and common interpretation would be to interpret "if <something> is too large" as "if <something> is very large" - but we know that computers can in fact handle numbers with huge digit counts (somewhere between 1 and 60+ million.)
So the original statement is either a largely meaningless tautology or something that is misleading and/or incorrect. PP's criticism is valid.
It’s not an ad hominem. It’s a polite way to suggest that you don’t know what you are talking about when it comes to teaching concepts to kids. I think it’s worth your while to wonder why it is so obvious that you are not a teacher. What experience and insights regarding age appropriate explanations are you missing that make it so obvious that you don’t teach?
Correctness, of the sort you are implying are absolutely not appropriate at all levels. There’s a reason kids in second grade are told that you can’t subtract a larger number from a smaller one, for instance.
1. None of what you are saying removes the ad hominem aspect.
2. In grades 1-2 (iirc) we applied negative numbers when we talked about the number line (which we had on the wall.) Even preschoolers knew about negative temperatures on the thermometer.
- lessons are presented based on what you already know (e.g. you can't choose to study a topic before you've demonstrated mastery of all topics it depends on)
- I pick the next lesson from a very small set (usually 5 options, sometimes fewer), so there's no wasting time choosing what to study next
- really great spaced repetition system that prevents forgetting
They don't grant degrees or diplomas. As such it is presumably accredited as a Supplementary Education Program and (like JHU CTY, Stanford ULO, and AoPS) do not grant credit. Such programs can be the basis of credits if your "real" high school accepts them, though.
Right, ymmv for transfers at either a hs or college. But the accredited status makes it possible to get approval. MA say they can make the documentation available manually and will automatically in the future.
Just having a higher resolution alone has made Apple Vision worth talking about. By all accounts I’ve read it’s very impressive. The interface is much better on the Vision than with the Quest. I had a Quest but I stopped using it because my eyes no longer can stand to see non retina screens. Pixelization was fine 15 years ago but anymore. Wearing glasses in the Quest was a pain. My glasses fogged up too often.
Implementation of features and capabilities is what matters. The capabilities are useless if it’s too hard to use them or the device is defective in some way that prevents users from wanting to use them.
I disagree that higher resolution alone makes it worth talking about. Meta can churn out high quality screens as well as Apple, for a price. The more compelling angle is how they have nailed the interface with eye and hand tracking and if this works as well in real-world environments as it did in their demo setup.
Apple has a tech advantage lately with their software and hardware stack. But historically their products have done well because of product features not because of tech advantages. There is a non-zero chance you get an almost $4K device as hamstrung as an iPad.
So the question still remains, what are they going to do with it? It has much potential. But in some ironic twist of fate it is Meta taking the product first approach here. And Apple’s closed ecosystem (not to mention high price) puts them at a huge disadvantage to target the social/gaming angle of “spatial computing”.
It’s not over yet, and in general this is exciting because competition will start to ramp up.
Meta can churn out high quality screens as well as Apple, for a price.
But they didn’t.
The more compelling angle is how they have nailed the interface with eye and hand tracking and if this works as well in real-world environments as it did in their demo setup.
This is what I was referring to when mentioned implementation. To paraphrase you I could retort: “Meta could have spent the time perfecting the interface but chose not to.”. I don’t see the relevance of such thinking though.
iPad is selling great because it is not ‘hamstrung’, it’s focused. People choose a device that does a few things only and does them greatly, instead of one that does everything, poorly.
There’s plenty of tablets with similar hardware specifications to an iPad that allow sideloading and hacking. That’s just not what a lot of people are looking for. They want a device where you can trust that if you press the button, the screen turns on and the apps do what they do, every time, without it being another computer to administer.
agreed. like or hate apple, it does seem they're the only company that consistently seems to test their products with 'regular' people (parents, school principals, construction workers, etc), not people who know what 'sideload' even means
I agree that only Apple can make this product, but current target audiences primary want virtual big monitors feature. For such usage, they don't need great hand tracking and passthru. Maybe passthru is useful for like drink a water.
On the budget side, there's 3D printable inserts that accept lenses from a cheap pair of Zennioptical glasses.
I got mine from VROptician whose were a bit pricier (maybe $80?). There were some cool options for magnetic ones, but I don't change the lenses enough for it to be worth the extra cost. It'll be interesting to see what Apple charges for theirs.
Quest 3 will up the resolution and still be 1/7th the price. The question I think is whether it's enough, but recent head sets (Quest Pro) with pancake lenses are pretty close and Quest 3 will be more. It may be enough for most people.
An another important spec is FoV. Reviewers say that FoV is not the best but not annoying, but I don't know is it true or they just Apple's cool aid on WWDC.
News, AppleTV (the tv app, not the device), and the app store and Maps. The app store is understandable but I search for my very local bank’s app and at the top of the results was a big banner for a stupid app that had nothing to do with my local bank. It was like doing a Google search.
The people who designed it, built it, and tested it have used it for an extended period of time. It would be un Apple like if they decide to ship a product with such a well known potential defect in the user experience.
I don’t understand the complaint on pricing. A camcorder in 1986 cost around $1900 in today’s money and it sold well. It was far less capable, far less elegant, and far more bulky. This device is a computer, camera, MR headset, and replaces monitors. I think $3500 is a very reasonable price given its specs and what it does.
I think given the amount of tech and at least presented level of quality of experience (which I do not doubt) the price is fine. I think the problem is it is $3,500 in search of a problem to solve.
A camcorder has a clear use case. It let you make home movies.
They failed to articulate the use case in a compelling way and every scenario I can think of is extremely hampered by the 2 hour battery life.
Business is out. Everyone outside Silicon Valley that can afford this thing will be rejected if they show up with a weird uncanny valley avatar to a meeting.
Travel sounds good, but 2 hours really limits it. You better have a seat charger and even then it must be pulling down how many watts? Will seat chargers on planes have enough sustained power to do more than prolong battery life?
Watching movies at home? Sure. If you are alone and you are plugged in.
What else? Weird VR computing and web browsing? The friction of putting on the headset is too much to make up for however good that experience is.
I think this headset has a clear use case. For one, it’s a way better recording device than what currently exists. With the headset appearing transparent it will not be too much of barrier to interacting with what you are recording. One can record the birthday party while interacting with the party in a way very similar to how you would if you had no device. Recoding a birthday party using a phone is much more dystopian in my opinion than using this headset.
Another use case is getting rid of monitors and freeing up space on a desk. I imagine in the future I’ll have a sever in a closet and the headset will allow me to get rid of my TV, keyboard, mouse, monitor, laptop, and Apple TV. My wife and I can each put on a headset and have customized picture/sound while synchronously watching the same show. She likes the TV to be a lot louder than I do.
I will be able to play board games with friends across the country and it will be as if we are all in the same room interacting with the game board. This thing would be great for online teaching or tech support.
Is it a better recording device? Do we know that? Everyone is going to hate the person that is wearing that thing during a birthday party. I remember how obnoxious camcorders were because they were so big and obtrusive. This feels worse.
Maybe this replaces monitors, but a lot of people work on their computer 8-10 hours a day. What does 8-10 hours with a headset on feel like? What do other people in your organization think of the uncanny valley avatar?
It doesn’t replace TV. You have to have a headset per person. And each headset costs 3X a good 55 inch tv? And each person needs to be plugged in to make that work. If someone comes over you have to say bring your own headset.
And the final example is a use case that will basically never happen. It is hard to get friends to coordinate over a normal game on Xbox or PlayStation.
I love Apple but this is just not a mass market device.
As stated, it does replace TVs for my household. Two headsets would replace two TVs, 2 sound bars, 1 monitor. When friends come over we play board games or hangout. I don’t watch movies with friends at my place. We talk about shows we’ve seen but we don’t watch together. When people come over it’s about interacting with them.
We will see whose vision for the future is correct. I don’t think your view is broad enough to see possibilities for how things can change and evolve. The criticisms I’ve read about the headset make me think of Ballmer laughing about the $500 phone or when he discounted the iPad and when he talked about Apple making a laptop without a DVD player. I remember people saying the iPad was just a giant iPhone.
This thing might flop but I hope it doesn’t because I’d love to get rid of TVs, sound bars, etc.
I hope it is awesome. I really do. I just have trouble seeing it become a mass market hit in the way I didn’t with any of the recent Apple device launches. I was on the optimist side for all of those. I project they sell 1-3 million per year, maybe more if they drop the price closer to $2,000. Ever breaking 5 million units sold per year will be tough.
My reaction to each previous Apple launch for context:
iPhone: "That is it. That is the future of all phones."
iPad: "I don't know if it is for me, but they are going to sell a ton of those and it is going to replace the need for a laptop for a lot of people."
Watch: "I want one, but I don't know I can justify it until it operates more independently from the phone."
Anecdote: My spouse said absolutely not when shown. Had a visceral negative reaction.
> For one, it’s a way better recording device than what currently exists.
> Another use case is getting rid of monitors and freeing up space on a desk.
> I will be able to play board games with friends across the country
These don't feel like strong arguments for regular people, honestly. Is anyone clamoring for better recording of their kids' birthday parties? People can play board games online already. Is the uptake not great for that simply because you can't see a virtual avatar of your friends? I have a single monitor on my desk and I personally am not hurting that it's using up desk space. It's just not a real pain point.
All of the use cases Apple presented in their promos are undeniably neat, but nothing jumped out as something that solves a real problem I have. Maybe I'm not their target market, though.
I like Ford’s statement: If I asked people what they wanted they’d have said faster horses.
Before the iPhone people had phones and iPods and laptops. Nobody was clamoring for a small portable computer beyond what Blackberry provided. Nobody was clamoring for online gameplay before the internet.
> Nobody was clamoring for a small portable computer beyond what Blackberry provided. Nobody was clamoring for online gameplay before the internet.
No offense, but I don't think these are accurate. When Doom came out in the early '90s, it famously offered network gameplay via modem. I remember when the first Warcraft came out, playing it with friends over a modem. Multiplayer gaming over the internet was clearly the next step (playing with random people around the world is huge compared with just playing with people you know).
Also, when the Blackberry came out, I do remember PDAs being a big thing at the time, so there was already a market for portable devices and people clearly liked having portable digital electronics, and one that allowed you to go online and view the web with desktop quality was a major benefit.
My main view of Vision Pro is that it doesn't provide revolutionary functionality since so much of what it's offering already exists in ubiquitous fashion today with all of our smartphones, tablets, laptops, etc. It's providing a new way to interface with apps, sure, but we're not going from a world of no ubiquitous tech to ubiquitous tech/internet like we did with smartphones. I think for this to be successful, Apple really needs to show value that is so beyond what we can do already, otherwise it'll remain a novelty for tech enthusiasts who enjoy trying out new experiences.
Going from a horse to a car is a huge leap since you can now move faster or further than you ever could. It opens up the world to you. Going from looking at a phone in my hand to looking through goggles at virtual screens doesn't feel to me like a huge leap in day to day functionality.
The internet existed in the 90s so referencing Doom is not apt as it pertains to my statement that before the internet no one clamored for online gameplay. There was a market for PDAs at the time of Blackberry and no one was clamoring for something much better. And the market for small portable computers is now orders of magnitude larger after the iPhone than the market for PDAs was ever going to be with Blackberry type devices. No one clamored for a device without a keyboard.
Great products don’t have to answer a need people think they have. They can create the need.
It isn't transparent. It shows a digital rendering of you on the OLED screen facing outwards. And to me, it reeks of "Glasshole" yet again. It would be like someone having sunglasses inside, "can you please remove them when we're talking?".
I said, appearing transparent. Presumably, it’s been tested and Apple has found it’s not a repeat of the glasshole experience. Clearly they’ve put a lot of time and effort to make it so that interacting with someone wearing the headset isn’t too weird or unpleasant. They may have missed the mark. We’ll see.
That first bit sounds like a very hot take to me - the headset quite literally blocks and intercepts the standard human signals for attention and emotional response and then tries to recreate them on an OLED screen with a CGI model.
I can't see how that's better than filming on a phone, where although the eyes are looking at what's going on on the screen, their response is still clearly visible in the raw form.
A very expensive OLED… I’d be willing to bet the one piece front glass element costs Apple several hundred dollars each… and where anyone else would use standard lenses and optical windows over the tracking cameras, visual cameras, and LiDAR systems… because Apple were making the EyeSight feature a big part of the industrial design, they had to make it “come together”… they had to waste hundreds on a pointlessly rounded piece of ludicrously over complicated glass…
I made the joke that Apple probably put more time and money into the optical engineering and design of this overpriced ski goggles style one piece optical assembly than the cost of designing a space telescope (excluding mega projects like Hubble & JWST aside, of course) …
A person recording on a phone is not participating in the event. They are, for the most part, observing. Others may be able to see their expressions and whatnot but they are generally not interacting with the person doing the filming. It remains to be seen if people are willing to interact with someone wearing, what will appear to be, ski goggles. Apple may not have solved the issue but they clearly spent a vast amount of money/time/effort to make it so that interacting with someone wearing the headset isn’t too weird. We will see if they got it right or close enough to right.
How far fetchedis the idea that facial expressions on the model could be manipulated to look negative/positive when the user is talking about something the software creators have different opinions on?
Because, when it comes to consumer electronics, we have experienced massive deflation for the last ~50 years, to the extent that we simply do not expect to pay big bucks for any electronics. Spending more than $1000-$2000 on a gadget is way outside most people's norms.
Remember, the original Macintosh cost $6000 in today’s money, which most people would consider an absolutely ludicrous sum for a computer (of any kind) today.
Yes, that is true. My wife and I are childless. We could buy two of these devices and immediately get rid of our two TVs, sound system, and monitor. I don’t think I’ll ever buy another monitor, sound system or TV again. I doubt I’ll ever buy an iPad or laptop again either. I think there’s a big enough market for this device at the $3500 price point. Obviously I could be wrong. I hope not because I’m excited about the possibilities of this device.
> I doubt I'll ever buy an iPad or laptop again either.
After seeing the Vision Pro marketing material, my first thought was about how antiquated it already looks to use a slab phone to do anything. The new iPhone/AirPlay/TV integration was like looking at an old tech commercial from the 90s.
I can't shake the feeling that blended AR+VR is going to be the next big modality, and Apple is going to make this market. A lot of people aren't going to like it, but it will catch on and come to replace almost everything else.
On another note, I suspect the Vision Pro is an important stepping stone to releasing an Apple EV.
Do you really want to "jack in" just to watch a movie or listen to some music? Isn't the point of a TV to relax on the couch, maybe cuddle with the wife?
I think a person can relax on the couch with the headset. Cuddling is an issue. I would much rather use the headset than a TV. For one, I can resize the screen as I see fit. One problem in my house is that my oled TV doesn’t do well in sunlight. I can watch a movie while seeming to be at any location I desire. I hate the idea of the electronics waste that comes with 70 inch TVs when the time comes to replace it. I don’t like the hdmi cables and plugs. I’d rather have less clutter. I like the idea of an all purpose, high quality media and internet consumption device that is small that will replace a lot of products that I currently have.
No. When friends are over we play board games or hangout. If the device becomes as ubiquitous as phones or laptops then people will likely watch movies together apart. The concept of hanging out could possibly change. The idea of being present will evolve to a slightly different notion with the headsets.
Of course the headset could be a huge flop. But I think having a personal, portable holodeck is a hot idea.
Yeah, I'm somewhere between "that's fucking expensive" and "if it can legitimately replace a monitor for hours on end, that might well justify the price."
I'll admit one sticking point for me is the lack of noise cancellation on the earphones. I'm sure that is coming, so holding off for a generation or two might be a good bet.
I think your view is too narrow and short sighted. The tech elite had Blackberries, iPods, and laptops when the iPhone came out and didn’t want to re-buy them. They didn’t rebuy the the first two items but did buy iPhones. This is a similar situation in my opinion.
It’s interesting that you say, traditionally have been subject to tips, and mention hotel housekeeping. This was not common until relatively recently. I never tip hotel housekeeping since I grew up with it not being normative.
I wonder what tipping will be like in 10 years if this trend continues. I suspect though that tipping will slowly die as people are fed up with it.
Well, it was common when I was a housekeeper back in the mid-late '80s. The customary tip was $1 per day the room got cleaned. About 3/4 of guests would tip that. Ironically, the ones who didn't tip were almost always the ones who left the room trashed, which was completely backward. Leaving a room in good shape was considered as good as a tip by my fellow housekeepers.
I didn't bother to work out what the German meant, but the "eco-friendly" thing where you don't want them to change the towels every day took the form of a small, woven bag. I hung it on the door, and was pleased that housekeeping didn't come into the room at all -- I don't like my stuff being moved around.
When I left I noticed there were chocolate bars, fruit etc in the bag, one item for each day I'd stayed.
That’s interesting to hear. I traveled extensively in the 80s with my family and we never tipped and there were never sign suggesting a tip as far as I can remember. My tip is that I always leave the do not disturb sign on my door handle for the duration of my stay.
No, there's never a sign. Like with all tipping, you're supposed to just "know" somehow.
But (at least then -- I've noticed that things are a bit different now) there is usually a little card telling you the name of your housekeeper. That's where you're supposed to leave the tip (if you're leaving one). Money on the card was deemed a tip, money left anywhere else was deemed forgotten property and turned in (if the housekeeper was being honest).
Where I worked (at a Hilton), we had to clean 17 rooms per day. If every room left a $1 tip -- which never actually happened -- that would come close to doubling my wages for the day. It made a significant difference.
I see signs now asking for a tip in hotel rooms. Lots of tipping relies on signs. Like at the register stand where the iPad is swiveled around asking for the user to input a tip percentage.
By signs I mean things like you mentioned nudging one to tip. It’s not an overt sign stating it is expected but it is a sign letting you know that it is expected.
It is slightly different in a better way. You can interact, engage and otherwise participate in events while recording using the headset than you can with a camcorder or phone. I'm guessing, but obviously don't know, that Apple let's people "see" your eyes while you use the headset because it makes it more natural for others to interact with you while you are using the headset.
I don’t think anyone is claiming that MR is new and that Apple is first to the market. People are claiming they appear to be the first to do it close enough to “right” to make it a compelling device.