this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2023
56 points (96.7% liked)
Apple
17241 readers
177 users here now
Welcome
to the largest Apple community on Lemmy. This is the place where we talk about everything Apple, from iOS to the exciting upcoming Apple Vision Pro. Feel free to join the discussion!
Rules:
- No NSFW Content
- No Hate Speech or Personal Attacks
- No Ads / Spamming
Self promotion is only allowed in the pinned monthly thread
Communities of Interest:
Apple Hardware
Apple TV
Apple Watch
iPad
iPhone
Mac
Vintage Apple
Apple Software
iOS
iPadOS
macOS
tvOS
watchOS
Shortcuts
Xcode
Community banner courtesy of u/Antsomnia.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I love your enthusiasm and optimism, but I think it may be overwhelming your objectivity.
You seem to think this new Apple device is going to be a smash success. What's your timeline for Apple to develop it sufficiently to be a success like you're expecting it to be? 1 year? 3 years? 5-10? What is your yard stick for it to be considered successful?
I appreciate that you believe that because Apple sells a lot of devices that their devices are mainstream. You may not have heard but Linux has just surpassed MacOS in terms of the number of people gaming on the platform, largely attributed to Steam/Valve and their Steam Deck/Proton software.
Valve has been heavily involved in the development of VR headset technology from the beginning. We're not there yet. I applaud Apple's efforts and their development of VR/AR is only going to benefit the market.
Don't misunderstand; I want them to succeed in this new endeavor, I just don't think they will.
It won't be 1 year. I've said repeatedly that this is a devkit. In 5 years, when they've had time to get the mass market version out there, there will be at least 10s of millions of apple headsets in the wild.
Apple makes as much money on gaming as Valve does. They're also not new to AR. They launched ARKit in 2017 and it's both powerful and easy to use; it's just not massive due to the limited value of AR on a phone.
The fact that it's Apple is a big part of the fact that it's going to be successful. Except Facebook's obscenely incompetent attempts after the entire planet already knew that they were cancer, nobody has seriously invested in popularizing VR, let alone AR. Valve made it viable, but they haven't marketed it.
The bigger part is that the hardware, up until today, is fucking awful. It's possible to get past that and still have an enjoyable experience, but the displays are shit and the lack of resolution is extremely high strain on your eyes over time. Vision Pro is the first hardware out there that is actually good. I named a whole stack of features that you can't get anywhere else, and probably won't be able to for a couple years. It's a genuine giant leap forward in hardware.
I appreciate the debate and I think we'll have to agree to disagree and see how things progress.
Apple haven't been known for their hardware but rather their software and design, and I think this will be another of their very cool, but ultimately misdirected attempts at pushing the envelope.
They basically created the entire modern smartphone market and even today are effectively the only reasonable option across the tablet space until you get down to the $100 ad machines from Amazon. You can argue that they're the driving force behind truly wireless earbuds too. They're absolutely known for their hardware.
I can definitely see the merit in your position. I'll be interested to see how it develops. It also isn't out of character for Apple to attempt something overly ambitious and scrap it either.
“Apple haven’t been known for their hardware” negates absolutely any credibility to your arguments. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Apple’s industry and cultural influence.
This statement was true in the late 80s and early 90s before Jobs came back, but since literally the iMac, Apple is absolutely “known for their hardware” first and their also-worthy-of-switching-costs software second.
As a company, they value and pursue these equally, or at least intend to, but from the outside, putting software first, especially for mainstream appeal is just…false.
I understand that there are hits and misses (the last little while of Intel MacBooks started to run into conflict between Apple's design goals and Intel's power-hungriness, which is why they ended up getting M1 to the point they could do it), that they mostly don't make budget friendly options, that they focus heavily on specific use cases to some detriment to others, etc., but if you're doing what they're designed for and are willing to pay for premium construction they make a lot of good stuff.