4 ms·
It's valid in this case because apple is trying to make the case that this device is supposed to be the future of computing. It's telling that you can't actuall
by dwallin 3y ago
It's valid in this case because apple is trying to make the case that this device is supposed to be the future of computing. It's telling that you can't actually develop for the platform within the platform itself.
If you are developing novel AR experiences why wouldn't you want to be building them in a fully 3d environment, with new tools that can take advantage of all that brings? Instead we are forced back into the world of 2d, which shows an unfortunate lack of conviction on Apple's part.
If we are serious about this being the future of computing we need to build native tooling. This is a virtuous cycle, tools beget tools, but Apple needs to be willing to relinquish some control.
- voisin 3y ago> It's valid in this case because apple is trying to make the case that this device is supposed to be the future of computing. It's telling that you can't actually develop for the platform within the platform itself. Would you not have said the same thing about iPhone 1? It was absolutely the “future of computing” (whatever the hell that means) in terms of mobile ubiquity, but you could develop anything on the device itself at the time (or really, even today).
- dwallin 3y agoAn iphone and a laptop are both just 2d screens with input, the difference is one of just screen size and primary form of input. The Vision pro is an entirely different category of device. Both the form and nature of the display and controls are vastly different. The vision pro is a superset of a laptop but the reverse is not even close. If I'm building an AR or VR tool, I should be doing so in a 3d AR environment, anything else is obviously a substandard experience, removing options and fidelity for no gain.