I think the issue with the OP is that it does not strike me as very well considered in a way that’s similar to ‘old iPhone criticism’. It seems anchored to past

I think the issue with the OP is that it does not strike me as very well considered in a way that’s similar to ‘old iPhone criticism’. It seems anchored to past decisions[1] for other devices and the reasons they were made, and seems overconfident for an opinion on a device which the author does not have detailed specifications for. I think two things could have made the article more useful: 1. A better structured article. This was a mix of random details and jargon with speculation about the new device that didn’t feel well tied together. 2. I would expect the view of a sceptical expert to be more cautious and considered; to say what things might be difficulties, why they were difficulties for things in the past, how Apple seems to be planning to deal with them, where that approach might fail or succeed, and then some estimate of whether it seems easy for them to solve the problem. That is, it should be more clear what the assumptions are that are being relied on for the estimation. To take a stereotypical iPhone criticism for example, it would be bad to merely say that the lack of keyboard or badness of touchscreens makes it impossible and better to say that good touchscreens and some kind of solution to keyboard problems would be needed, and you don’t think improved sensor resolution would work and the problem seemed hard because X or Y. Like, I’m not saying that the author needs to be right but I think they could do a better job of having convincing reasons that they have tried to thought of the ways they might be wrong. [1] There was some discussion of a device the author worked on in the ‘90s(!) but I didn’t see discussion of more recent work. Capabilities of much of the tech going into this Apple thing will be quite different.