Isn't that true for everything, though? If I weren't a software developer I wouldn't know that I have to worry about questions like "has this plane been rebooted in the last 51 days?" [1] or "does this bank offer anything other than SMS as second factor?".
Maybe structural engineers feel safer after their Master's when they traverse a bridge, but I bet that's more the exception than the rule.
Seeing how the sausage gets made makes you realize ALL the downsides and things you'd rather not have known. That doesn't mean you can think of a way to fix science. Let alone get the required funding to make an actual attempt.
As someone based in the EU but an English speaker I like to buy from .eu domains, the language will probably be in English and the shipping pan Europe while still priced in Euro with no import duties.
I trust .de domains too for the same reasons as that's a kind of default pan European domain mainly based on amazon.de and caseking.de.
I've been using Voxscript [0] for a while, after comparing the two I think voxscript is better, gives longer more detailed summaries, TexTube just seems to give a very brief impersonal overview. Easy to try both and see which you prefer.
Hmm it didn’t work that way for me, first I asked it to summarise a video, then I simply posted the link to the video assuming it would give the transcript, in both cases it summarised the transcript.
But if I start a new session and simply paste the link to the video it gives the transcript. I’m not sure an llm is the best solution to getting full transcripts.
No mention of it in the article, even though they wrote:
> But it’s also why Cook’s Apple delivers fewer surprises. The delight is still there, but there’s less amazement.
For a day or two then the newness wears off quickly. It's an iPad you can strap to your face. If I thought the iPad was a real platform then I might be more interested but unless they make the Mac display thing much better and/or open up the Vision Pro to be a real computing platform then it's just a very expensive iPad and in most cases I'd honestly pick the iPad over it.
I _really_ wanted to love mine but it got boring very quickly. It's only good as a content consumption device that has numerous downsides to just watching my TV. My TV is big enough, I couldn't make a much bigger screen in the Vision Pro without having to move my head (defeating the purpose) to see everything.
It's cool, it was the sharpest text I'd ever seen in VR (I've also tried the Quest 2 and 3) but the Mac display was fuzzy and huge disappointment. I thought I could justify the cost if I could replace my monitors with it but it sucked as a monitor replacement and I never anticipated how much would be lost in a video chat. It looked like I had botox injections and my face was much less expressive. When you work remote you want every communication advantage that you can get, this added a significant degradation to all video chats.
I could go on but I already have in a number of blog posts so I'll stop here. It might blow your mind in a demo but day-to-day use? Yeah, most people barely use theirs anymore and I returned mine. I'm sure there are a number of die-hard fans but it's a tiny number of people (hell, there were only a tiny number of Vision Pro headsets sold and if 50% are still in daily use or even weekly use I'd be shocked).
> If I thought the iPad was a real platform then I might be more interested but unless they make the Mac display thing much better and/or open up the Vision Pro to be a real computing platform then it's just a very expensive iPad and in most cases I'd honestly pick the iPad over it.
The Mac screen replacement enhancement is the “killer app” for me. Mac screen surrounded by simpler (mostly Safari) windows.
I would happily pay $4500, $5500 for a true “Pro” Mac replacement Vision. With an emphasis on maximizing the value of spacial computing for productivity.
I can think of dozens of small Vision OS tweaks they could make now that would better facilitate this, even before any hardware updates.
Alas, more power for its users is not an Apple priority. “Bicycle for the mind” is a lost mantra.
“Media kiosk” is in.
Even though they essentially created a new category of VR they show every sign of leaning back into “iOS, iOS, iOS”.
I disagree. It’s inventing new multi modality such as the pinch to select and the in-the-air drag and drop. This brings us a bit closer to Minority Report Tom Cruise magic.
Mind-blowingly stupid? I used an Oculus Rift DK2 in 2014; the fact that Apple could brute-force a similar product with no market fit and slightly more "magic" in it hasn't impressed me the slightest. Add in the fact that it's slower than an iPad and costs as much as a used car and the thing is dead-on-arrival. Meta ate Apple's lunch with $500 headsets and Valve dominated the high-end with better controllers and software for years. The only way Apple can create market fit is by inventing a new price segment (read: Stupid Expensive) and leveraging their branding to do the heavy lifting.
Apple dodged Khronos standards for years, avoided OpenXR during it's development, and got cut off from SteamVR after Valve gave up engineering support. They have so many loose ends to tie up that it's kinda hilarious anyone thinks Apple is a competitor in this industry, at this point. Vision Pro isn't an iPhone moment, it's a Lisa moment. We'll count ourselves lucky for each one we're not burying in a landfill.
I think it's apt that you're comparing it to the developer kit, because it is essentially a developer kit. They should have marketed it that way, but I guess they wanted to capitalize on the big spike of initial interest/excess money in the metaverse fans. After using it, I think that the vision pro needs a better optional input device for precise input.
I think that hope that they are working on some kind of 'magic wand' that uses the same haptic feedback and gyroscope-type tech that is in the Apple Pencil.
Once the weight is reduced and the input UI is fixed, it will be truly useful.
> The only way Apple can create market fit is by inventing a new price segment (read: Stupid Expensive) and leveraging their branding to do the heavy lifting
Meh, sounds like something steve ballmer would say. The price will drop. By the way, have you actually tried it?
Yes (albeit not at an Apple Store). For $3,500 it's not a competitive AR experience. It's not even cutting edge, either. Inside-out hand tracking has been a thing on standalone headsets since the first-gen Oculus Quest. Gaze tracking is more trouble than it's worth, the glowing eyes on the outside are like a cheap Halloween decoration, and the whole assembly feels like it will get bricked from a waist-height drop on the carpet.
Have you tried other, modern headsets? Bigscreen Beyond, Pimax Crystal, even the Valve Index? It's a blowout. Apple's price tag doesn't justify the lack of competitive features compared to their alternatives. They can't break into a market of "metaverse fans" because they don't support OpenXR or SteamVR - they are explicitly only targeting Apple fans. As someone who isn't part of the Apple ecosystem anymore, the Vision Pro is a fucking joke. What am I supposed to use it for, a $3,500 dedicated 360-degree porno machine? An overpriced streaming client for desktop VR? I have literally zero applications for it, I wouldn't have a reason to own Apple's headset if it was as cheap as an iPhone.
> Once the weight is reduced and the input UI is fixed, it will be truly useful.
Do you honestly believe that? After hundreds of failed attempts to make VR useful, you sincerely think Apple will be the one to do it?
This will only work if Apple can convince customers to go all-in on their ecosystem. And very clearly they won't; even the US Army doesn't have an interest in the headset where they have been applying Oculus Quest and Hololens operationally. Big businesses might care, but besides telecommunication applications I don't see where they're going to get applied. Consumers don't give a flying fuck, as evidenced by the lackluster sales and basically non-existent userbase entrenchment.
> The price will drop.
It certainly will. If the iPhone has taught us anything, it's that when prices drop, profit margins rise. The MSRP will only climb, especially as Apple gets more-and-more desperate for stupid and gaudy gimmecks like the eyeball passthrough.
> Yes (albeit not at an Apple Store)
Who said anything about an apple store?
> What am I supposed to use it for, a $3,500 dedicated 360-degree porno machine? An overpriced streaming client for desktop VR? I have literally zero applications for it, I wouldn't have a reason to own Apple's headset if it was as cheap as an iPhone.
Like I said, I think right now it's a glorified dev kit. If you have one, you can get a head start on making apps/experiences so that when the mass market one comes out, you can be on the app store already. Many people including myself didn't buy an iPhone until the 4 one came out.
> For $3,500 it's not a competitive AR experience
> If the iPhone has taught us anything, it's that when prices drop, profit margins rise
My whole point is not to use the current price as an indicator of anything. Apple cut the price of the first iPhone by 50% after 3 months due to poor sales.
>> Once the weight is reduced and the input UI is fixed, it will be truly useful.
>Do you honestly believe that? After hundreds of failed attempts to make VR useful, you sincerely think Apple will be the one to do it?
I believe if the weight and input are addressed, then it's automatically a million times better. But it's not the only thing that needs to be fixed. It also needs a bigger field of view and battery life. But the MOST IMPORTANT thing is a better input method. It's obvious that for input methods, Apple has a huge head start compared to everyone else. (mouse, click-wheel, multi-touch, force touch, etc). They are probably keeping their cards close on input to the vest until the mass market version is ready in order to keep their head start. For now, gaze tracking is all we have.
> Gaze tracking is more trouble than it's worth
I think gaze tracking is great, but shouldn't be required for input.
> Have you tried other, modern headsets? Bigscreen Beyond, Pimax Crystal, even the Valve Index?
I've only tried the Quest2, which was super pixellated. The Vision Pro is very price competitive with varjo headsets, which are just about equivalent on specs.
> the glowing eyes on the outside are like a cheap Halloween decoration
The outside display feels unnecessary right now because the whole device is meant to be used at home. But the fact that they are building this tells us they are working on a more mobile version of it, where interacting with other people is actually important.
The thing is no one is forcing you to buy it. You can buy the competitors if you prefer. You have the opportunity to start developing apps on the apple system, for an up front cost. Or you can wait for the cheaper, better ones to come out and not have a head start on making apps. It's whatever.
I agree, but I didn’t feel amazed until I actually scheduled a demo and used it
There have been so many bad VR headsets. I remember trying Doom on one in the 90s and getting motion sickness immediately. I also wear glasses so it’s never been great to wear anything else.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Vision Pro is just not getting any attention due to the high bar to actually use one. It’s not something you can describe that hasn’t been polluted by prior experiences with VR
In some ways I wish the EU would ban US tech companies, EU basically has no indigenous tech landscape compared to Russia and China who have suppressed US tech.
Do recall that the EU has imposed quite a bit of regulation on US tech companies, remember all the requirements that EU citizen data be located in the EU? An outright ban however is unlikely between allied democratic nations, but it is certainly within their right
There is this false idea that setting up an AWS or Google or Facebook competitor is in some way difficult. It’s not, if Meta, AWS, Google were banned in the EU perfectly functional European equivalents would pop up very rapidly similar to Russia and China.
> There is this false idea that setting up an AWS or Google or Facebook competitor is in some way difficult.
I personally think it is difficult due to scale and economics.
That is not to say Europeans can't grow a competitor in cloud, search or social media -- of course they can. There's a deep talent pool in Europe. But there's a lot of friction to doing tech at scale in EU. Large amounts of capital is much harder to raise, and varied regulatory environments/languages add cost to scaling. Plus you have to treat the UK and non-EU European countries as a separate markets.
The difference between EU vs China (and to some extent Russia) is the latter have similar abilities to scale as the U.S.
Also competitive advantages can be difficult to beat. AWS had a 8 year lead over Azure and while Azure is a lot better these days, it's still not all the way there. GCP, even though it is backed by one of the greatest and most highly capitalized large-scale engineering orgs on the planet, struggles to get appreciable marketshare.
Which, I think, would be a good thing on mid and longer term. Because the vacuum would create positions to be filled. And Europe does have tech, and especially would have tech, if it were given some room.
The computer game and television/movie industries both dwarf adult entertainment. The reasons for the rationale on how pornography made the VCR and VHS in particular a success (bringing affordable video pornography into the privacy of your home) do not apply to VR.
I have to agree, it’s unusual the way the writer described this man as living a “quiet life”. He was the head of the union in what was likely a major employer and had a large family along with probably a large extended family.
He didn’t seek fame but I wouldn’t describe this man as a quiet one, he probably lived in a rich social network full of visitors, work colleagues, veterans, friends etc. There are very few people aside from egotists who seek large scale recognition for their work etc.
Maybe the company simply prefers to hire Indians better cultural fit etc. this is one of the main things considered when making a hiring decision. Will this person get on well with the team, be productive etc.
> Maybe the company simply prefers to hire Indians better
That completely ignored the fact that they went out of their way to fire the American employees. If what you're saying was a reasonable answer they wouldn't have hired Americans in the first place.
TCS is a very Indian organisation, it would make sense for them to hire Indians in the US. The reason this lawsuit is proceeding at all is because a senior exec said exactly this, they want to have more Indians working for TCS in the US. There is no evidence they were fired because they were American they’re just latching onto this throwaway comment which was stupid but at the same time completely understandable.
TSMC wants more Taiwanese working on its semi plants in US for similar reasons, but at least their executive team is a bit more diplomatic in how they say these things.
