28 ms·

Reminds me of iPhone 1. Everything you've said is reminiscent of the reviews of the first iPhone.

by Johnie 3y ago

nylonstrung 3y ago
iPhone 1 was the effectively the first mass market smartphone This however is coming after a decade of existing AR/VR consumer electronics and still misses the mark
- HatchedLake721 3y ago
  > iPhone 1 was the effectively the first mass market smartphone ... no? Windows Mobile, BlackBerry, Palm, Nokia, Symbian, Maemo?
- serf 3y ago
  first mass-market smartphone with mass appeal maybe, but it wasn't the first mass-market smartphone by a long shot.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
JKCalhoun 3y ago
Or the first Newton.
ekianjo 3y ago
the price is quite different though
nightski 3y ago
The iPhone was subsidized by mobile carriers and/or interest free payment plans. I don't see that same path for this VR device, but maybe I am missing something.
- mbreese 3y ago
  The original iPhone wasn’t subsidized… it was bought outright. It was only after Apple proved the potential of the iPhone did the carriers get on board (and even then, it was limited support for quite a while).
  - martimarkov 3y ago
    Pretty sure AT&T had exclusivity there for some time and didn’t get that for free..
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > The original iPhone wasn’t subsidized… it was bought outright. It was only after Apple proved the potential of the iPhone did the carriers get on board (and even then, it was limited support for quite a while). Completely untrue. The original iPhone required a 2-year contract with AT&T/Cingular. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_(1st_generation)#Release https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_(1st_generation)#Releas...
    - mbreese 3y ago
      The contract was a requirement, but it wasn’t subsidized like you’re thinking. Other phones at the time were cheap and subsidized as part of the contract. The iPhone, by comparison, was freakishly expensive and I don’t think Cingular was subsidizing it. And I don’t remember there being any penalties with cancelling the contract. But I already had an AT&T/Cingular account, so I’m not sure about the contract info. The contract issue had more to do with how the phone interacted with the network. IIRC, AT&T was an exclusive provider because of the backend requirements (visual voicemail notification maybe?). I assume the contract was in part because they wanted to recoup those expenses. Here’s a news article from the time that says that AT&T didn’t actually start subsidizing the phone until the 3G arrived. https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/wireless/phones/2008-07-31-att-iphone-stephenson-apple_N.htm https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/wireless/phones/2008-07... Also, the subsidy might have been from Apple, if anyone… Apple got a kickback of $10/month per iPhone user. They might have used that to keep the price lower, but that wasn’t from ATT’s side of the account until the 3G followup. https://www.wired.com/2008/01/ff-iphone/ https://www.wired.com/2008/01/ff-iphone/
nedt 3y ago
And before that the iPod. CmdrTaco wrote: "No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame." Couple of years later the Nomad was gone.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway2037 3y ago
  If anyone does not understand the reference, "CmdrTaco" was the editor of Slashdot many years ago. Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Malda https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Malda
  - khazhoux 3y ago
    If anyone does not understand the reference, "Slashdot" is a link-sharing site oriented at tech news, that was popular many years ago as HN is today. https://slashdot.org https://slashdot.org
    - ben_w 3y ago
      Ah, memories from 20 years ago. How time flies. I wonder what new site, and what new euphemism, will replace the "hug of death" and "the orange site" in 2044? (Hopefully not robots that go around actually hugging people to death…)
    - robarr 3y ago
      Was it not a mailing list before a site? I let the next guy explain what a mailing list was.
mgh2 3y ago
Sales: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39184136 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39184136
- landswipe 3y ago
  Fools and their money are quickly departed.
gofreddygo 3y ago
Reminds me of Lisa.
super256 3y ago
Most of the issues listed by @zmmmmm are the same issues plaguing other VR headsets for a decade now: motion blur, pixelation, distortions, fake looking colors. Apple didn’t fix any of them.
- curiouscavalier 3y ago
  I think this is the main thing — plenty of other headsets showed how these aspects are problematic. I very much appreciate just how hard a problem things like hand tracking, distortion, etc. are to solve, but I was hoping (perhaps unreasonably) we’d see a break through in at least one of them. It also feels like Apple design choices got in the way somewhat. Two things that surprised me most are the FoV and limited DCI color space coverage — now I get why they didn’t readily share that spec earlier.
- throwaway2037 3y ago
  > fake looking colors I never heard this complain before. Can you explain more?
  - Crestwave 3y ago
    See the video in the OP at timestamp 5:00 to 5:20. The review from The Verge touched on it as well; essentially, at the end of the day, it's still a bunch of displays showing you camera feeds of the real world. And both displays and cameras have a lot of flaws—low field of view, motion blur, pixelation in low lighting, and a much more limited set of colors compared to our actual eyes. VR avoids this since they just make up their own designed world instead, while most AR glasses avoid this by having actual transparent glasses and reflecting images off them instead. The Vision Pro is more ambitious and tries to pull off both AR and VR, resulting in these compromises.
diebeforei485 3y ago
The first gen iPhone had a much better UX than other phones, so missing a few features like copy and paste was palatable. I do think future generations of AVP will do well. Iterating and applying learnings and customer feedback will make this a good product.
- enos_feedler 3y ago
  You could say that about literally any product. The most important factor that will determine success is the starting point. Initial conditions matter. I actually believe this a developer tool from start to finish. It will end of life a lot quicker than we expect. The real product is going to be lightweight glasses we wear all day. But when? How many iterations of the AVP to meet the developer needs for seeding this future product that might be 10+ years away?
  - diebeforei485 3y ago
    > The most important factor that will determine success is the starting point. Initial conditions matter. So, I don't know if I agree with this considering Apple has such a large cash cushion. They can easily make missteps the first few generations until they figure it out. Early Apple Watches focused on luxury and personal communication with loved ones. But later iterations de-emphasized all that and pivoted to being a health and fitness band and some subset of iPhone features like cellular phone calls and texts (instead of the weird heartbeat sharing stuff we saw at launch of the 1st gen device)
- 8note 3y ago
  The iPhone also came with a great data deal for the time, as I recall.
  - vel0city 3y ago
    Not really. I had a cheaper unlimited AT&T unlimited data plan than the original iPhone data plan, and that included 3G data! The trick was to just buy the smartphone outside of the plan. Then you get unlimited data at half the price. I'd pull gigs of data a month on my "dumbphone".
nvarsj 3y ago
This iPhone trope has gotta die. I worked at Motorola when the iPhone came out. Every single engineer knew this thing would blow everything else out of the water. It was one of the largest leaps in consumer tech devices ever. I assure you the Vision Pro is nowhere close to that.
- IggleSniggle 3y ago
  I remember being angry that my Moto Razr V3 had the power to run awesome software but as a teenager I didn't have an easy way to boot stuff up on it. IMHO it was a perfect phone, except there was no way to run what I wanted. The best I could do was program text messaging services and use those. They discontinued the phone rather than give consumers the freedom to just use the hardware. I thought the iPhone was dumb, but when the App Store came out that was game over. I really missed the convenience of having buttons and being able to text with my phone in my pocket, but at least it was consumer programmable... even if you had to pay a $100 premium to become a "Developer" in order to do so. Eventually the Moto X came along. I thought it was the perfect phone. Its voice assist features worked better than most voice assist features even today. You could easily do everything you wanted to do with the phone in your pocket and your earbuds in. It had the perfect size screen. It had a great ambient-on watch-face screen that looked nice sitting on your desk among clutter. The dimple in the back was a really nice touch, it made it like a worry-stone[0] in your pocket. It had a lower resolution, but I kinda liked that about it. I think Motorola was bought or something, but whatever the reason, the next phone in the series ditched every single thing that made the Moto X special. Those two devices were both my favorite mobile computing devices, and probably the closest I've come to getting fan-angry about a company screwing up their own magic. More to the point: you might have been able to see it at Motorola, but even looking back, I don't understand why Razr couldn't have won against the iPhone. The Razr was a surprisingly capable little machine! [0] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worry_stone https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worry_stone
  - eep_social 3y ago
    You’re gonna love this — Motorola was bought by Google in an attempt to jumpstart their hardware business but it turned out to be a failed acquisition. They ended up grabbing the patent portfolio and selling off the rest of the biz fairly quickly.
bunderbunder 3y ago
Can you elaborate on this? The first iPhone, yeah, it had some detractors, but I don't think the kinds of criticisms the parent poster gave ever really applied to the iPhone. To succeed, the iPhone didn't have to be this utopian product; it just had to be more useful than its main competitor, which was dumbphones. People who complained that it was missing features the Blackberry had were working from an unstated major premise that the iPhone was initially targeted at enterprise users, and I think that everyone who wasn't too busy being a pundit to see how the world works could see that that quite transparently wasn't the case. There was even a time period where I had both an iPhone for personal use and a Blackberry for work. And I think the criticism about entertainment is spot-on. By contrast, despite being extraordinarily limited compared to even the very next modal, the first iPhone was fantastic for entertainment, precisely because it was good for fostering shared experiences. It didn't take long after the device came out before you'd see groups of people clustered around an iPhone, looking at photos together on that big, vibrant, gorgeous screen. That was something that none of its competitors could do. And you better bet that people saw that happening and started wanting to have one of their own so they could have fun, too. I do think we're still in the "wait and see" phase for this product, but, unlike some of the original iPhone criticisms or cmdrtaco's original dismissal of the iPod, the criticisms this article points out feel really personally relevant to me.
andrewparker 3y ago
iPhone 1 launched without cut/copy/paste
starkparker 3y ago
And the touch bar, and the magic mouse, and ping, and mobile me, and hi-fi. They're just a consumer goods company. Sometimes they make good things people don't appreciate at first. Sometimes they make bad things that people don't appreciate ever. Their track record is better than the mean, but comparing every criticism of a first-gen Apple product to the iPod/iPhone launches is unserious. Of course some people panned any given new thing on Earth. And this isn't even in response to someone predicting that AVP would fail, but just that the 1st-gen AVP is an immature product. The 1st-gen iPhone was an immature product! It's delusional (and discrediting to Apple!) to think the iPod, iPhone, OS X, Intel Macs, M1 Macs, etc. were as mature at launch as the later iterations we associate those technologies with now.
- throwaway2037 3y ago
  Does "AVP" mean Affordable Viable Product?
  - rrdharan 3y ago
    Apple Vision Pro (assuming you were genuinely asking).
    - throwaway2037 3y ago
      facepalm Thank you to correct me. Yes, I was asking sincerely!
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
vikramkr 3y ago
I checked a couple of those old reviews and a couple things that seemed to be a common take with the iPhone that definitely aren't holding now: - incredible amounts of hype - loving the design - loving the touchscreen and input (directly contrasting folks worrying about the eye tracking now) - a sense (at least from cnet and pcmag) that it's really just an overgrown iPod so they keep comparing it to an iPod (compared to the vision where folks get that it's a new category for apple and have good comps outside anyway ) There are definitely similarities in terms of complaining about missing features that apple's probably going to add soon anyway (keyboard showing up in portrait and stuff). Lots of complaints about not supporting flash but we know how that went. Also apparently the headphone jack position was annoying. What I'm not seeing in the current vision reviews - and maybe it's impossible to see this in real time - is some feature that has the chance to change literally everything that people arent able to comprehend just yet. These reviews being relatively dismissive of this web browsing on your phone thing is absolutely hilarious in hindsight. The only similar thing in the vision is - the passthrough eye thing maybe? Nothing else seems particularly baffling. I'm glad I read some of those reviews. The vibe I'm getting is - the iPhone was doing something fundamentally weird with this whole smartphone thing that reviewers just didnt get, so they kept reviewing it as an iPod with really bad voice calling and a browser and being confused by all the hype. The vision though? It's a vr/mixed reality headset, we know what those are like, and apple didn't throw any real curveballs.
- vikramkr 3y ago
  An addendum - I'm surprised at how spot on so many of these iPhone 1 reviews are outside of the not getting the browser thing (and even there folks complaining about how web2.0 is taking off and there's no js/java/flash support? Good point!). Keyboard should work in portrait mode, voice calling is bad, 3g support is needed, no multimedia messaging. No replaceable battery and not user servicable enough. Camera is OK but needs dramatic improvement. Typing urls is very hard. And of course, no games, no 3rd party apps, no app store. After hearing all these memes for however long about how the media just didn't get the iPhone or something - yeah no they did pretty well
  - cwalv 3y ago

Reminds me of iPhone 1. Everything you've said is reminiscent of the reviews of the first iPhone.

by Johnie 3y ago

Reminds me of iPhone 1. Everything you've said is reminiscent of the reviews of the first iPhone.

iPhone 1 was the effectively the first mass market smartphone This however is coming after a decade of existing AR/VR consumer electronics and still misses the mark

HatchedLake721 3y ago
> iPhone 1 was the effectively the first mass market smartphone ... no? Windows Mobile, BlackBerry, Palm, Nokia, Symbian, Maemo?
serf 3y ago
first mass-market smartphone with mass appeal maybe, but it wasn't the first mass-market smartphone by a long shot.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

JKCalhoun 3y ago

Or the first Newton.

ekianjo 3y ago

the price is quite different though

nightski 3y ago

The iPhone was subsidized by mobile carriers and/or interest free payment plans. I don't see that same path for this VR device, but maybe I am missing something.

mbreese 3y ago
The original iPhone wasn’t subsidized… it was bought outright. It was only after Apple proved the potential of the iPhone did the carriers get on board (and even then, it was limited support for quite a while).
- martimarkov 3y ago
  Pretty sure AT&T had exclusivity there for some time and didn’t get that for free..
- lapcat 3y ago
  > The original iPhone wasn’t subsidized… it was bought outright. It was only after Apple proved the potential of the iPhone did the carriers get on board (and even then, it was limited support for quite a while). Completely untrue. The original iPhone required a 2-year contract with AT&T/Cingular. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_(1st_generation)#Release https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_(1st_generation)#Releas...
  - mbreese 3y ago
    The contract was a requirement, but it wasn’t subsidized like you’re thinking. Other phones at the time were cheap and subsidized as part of the contract. The iPhone, by comparison, was freakishly expensive and I don’t think Cingular was subsidizing it. And I don’t remember there being any penalties with cancelling the contract. But I already had an AT&T/Cingular account, so I’m not sure about the contract info. The contract issue had more to do with how the phone interacted with the network. IIRC, AT&T was an exclusive provider because of the backend requirements (visual voicemail notification maybe?). I assume the contract was in part because they wanted to recoup those expenses. Here’s a news article from the time that says that AT&T didn’t actually start subsidizing the phone until the 3G arrived. https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/wireless/phones/2008-07-31-att-iphone-stephenson-apple_N.htm https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/wireless/phones/2008-07... Also, the subsidy might have been from Apple, if anyone… Apple got a kickback of $10/month per iPhone user. They might have used that to keep the price lower, but that wasn’t from ATT’s side of the account until the 3G followup. https://www.wired.com/2008/01/ff-iphone/ https://www.wired.com/2008/01/ff-iphone/

nedt 3y ago

And before that the iPod. CmdrTaco wrote: "No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame." Couple of years later the Nomad was gone.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
throwaway2037 3y ago
If anyone does not understand the reference, "CmdrTaco" was the editor of Slashdot many years ago. Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Malda https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Malda
- khazhoux 3y ago
  If anyone does not understand the reference, "Slashdot" is a link-sharing site oriented at tech news, that was popular many years ago as HN is today. https://slashdot.org https://slashdot.org
  - ben_w 3y ago
    Ah, memories from 20 years ago. How time flies. I wonder what new site, and what new euphemism, will replace the "hug of death" and "the orange site" in 2044? (Hopefully not robots that go around actually hugging people to death…)
  - robarr 3y ago
    Was it not a mailing list before a site? I let the next guy explain what a mailing list was.

mgh2 3y ago

Sales: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39184136 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39184136

landswipe 3y ago
Fools and their money are quickly departed.

gofreddygo 3y ago

Reminds me of Lisa.

super256 3y ago

Most of the issues listed by @zmmmmm are the same issues plaguing other VR headsets for a decade now: motion blur, pixelation, distortions, fake looking colors. Apple didn’t fix any of them.

curiouscavalier 3y ago
I think this is the main thing — plenty of other headsets showed how these aspects are problematic. I very much appreciate just how hard a problem things like hand tracking, distortion, etc. are to solve, but I was hoping (perhaps unreasonably) we’d see a break through in at least one of them. It also feels like Apple design choices got in the way somewhat. Two things that surprised me most are the FoV and limited DCI color space coverage — now I get why they didn’t readily share that spec earlier.
throwaway2037 3y ago
> fake looking colors I never heard this complain before. Can you explain more?
- Crestwave 3y ago
  See the video in the OP at timestamp 5:00 to 5:20. The review from The Verge touched on it as well; essentially, at the end of the day, it's still a bunch of displays showing you camera feeds of the real world. And both displays and cameras have a lot of flaws—low field of view, motion blur, pixelation in low lighting, and a much more limited set of colors compared to our actual eyes. VR avoids this since they just make up their own designed world instead, while most AR glasses avoid this by having actual transparent glasses and reflecting images off them instead. The Vision Pro is more ambitious and tries to pull off both AR and VR, resulting in these compromises.

diebeforei485 3y ago

The first gen iPhone had a much better UX than other phones, so missing a few features like copy and paste was palatable. I do think future generations of AVP will do well. Iterating and applying learnings and customer feedback will make this a good product.

enos_feedler 3y ago
You could say that about literally any product. The most important factor that will determine success is the starting point. Initial conditions matter. I actually believe this a developer tool from start to finish. It will end of life a lot quicker than we expect. The real product is going to be lightweight glasses we wear all day. But when? How many iterations of the AVP to meet the developer needs for seeding this future product that might be 10+ years away?
- diebeforei485 3y ago
  > The most important factor that will determine success is the starting point. Initial conditions matter. So, I don't know if I agree with this considering Apple has such a large cash cushion. They can easily make missteps the first few generations until they figure it out. Early Apple Watches focused on luxury and personal communication with loved ones. But later iterations de-emphasized all that and pivoted to being a health and fitness band and some subset of iPhone features like cellular phone calls and texts (instead of the weird heartbeat sharing stuff we saw at launch of the 1st gen device)
8note 3y ago
The iPhone also came with a great data deal for the time, as I recall.
- vel0city 3y ago
  Not really. I had a cheaper unlimited AT&T unlimited data plan than the original iPhone data plan, and that included 3G data! The trick was to just buy the smartphone outside of the plan. Then you get unlimited data at half the price. I'd pull gigs of data a month on my "dumbphone".

nvarsj 3y ago

This iPhone trope has gotta die. I worked at Motorola when the iPhone came out. Every single engineer knew this thing would blow everything else out of the water. It was one of the largest leaps in consumer tech devices ever. I assure you the Vision Pro is nowhere close to that.

IggleSniggle 3y ago
I remember being angry that my Moto Razr V3 had the power to run awesome software but as a teenager I didn't have an easy way to boot stuff up on it. IMHO it was a perfect phone, except there was no way to run what I wanted. The best I could do was program text messaging services and use those. They discontinued the phone rather than give consumers the freedom to just use the hardware. I thought the iPhone was dumb, but when the App Store came out that was game over. I really missed the convenience of having buttons and being able to text with my phone in my pocket, but at least it was consumer programmable... even if you had to pay a $100 premium to become a "Developer" in order to do so. Eventually the Moto X came along. I thought it was the perfect phone. Its voice assist features worked better than most voice assist features even today. You could easily do everything you wanted to do with the phone in your pocket and your earbuds in. It had the perfect size screen. It had a great ambient-on watch-face screen that looked nice sitting on your desk among clutter. The dimple in the back was a really nice touch, it made it like a worry-stone[0] in your pocket. It had a lower resolution, but I kinda liked that about it. I think Motorola was bought or something, but whatever the reason, the next phone in the series ditched every single thing that made the Moto X special. Those two devices were both my favorite mobile computing devices, and probably the closest I've come to getting fan-angry about a company screwing up their own magic. More to the point: you might have been able to see it at Motorola, but even looking back, I don't understand why Razr couldn't have won against the iPhone. The Razr was a surprisingly capable little machine! [0] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worry_stone https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worry_stone
- eep_social 3y ago
  You’re gonna love this — Motorola was bought by Google in an attempt to jumpstart their hardware business but it turned out to be a failed acquisition. They ended up grabbing the patent portfolio and selling off the rest of the biz fairly quickly.

bunderbunder 3y ago

Can you elaborate on this? The first iPhone, yeah, it had some detractors, but I don't think the kinds of criticisms the parent poster gave ever really applied to the iPhone. To succeed, the iPhone didn't have to be this utopian product; it just had to be more useful than its main competitor, which was dumbphones. People who complained that it was missing features the Blackberry had were working from an unstated major premise that the iPhone was initially targeted at enterprise users, and I think that everyone who wasn't too busy being a pundit to see how the world works could see that that quite transparently wasn't the case. There was even a time period where I had both an iPhone for personal use and a Blackberry for work. And I think the criticism about entertainment is spot-on. By contrast, despite being extraordinarily limited compared to even the very next modal, the first iPhone was fantastic for entertainment, precisely because it was good for fostering shared experiences. It didn't take long after the device came out before you'd see groups of people clustered around an iPhone, looking at photos together on that big, vibrant, gorgeous screen. That was something that none of its competitors could do. And you better bet that people saw that happening and started wanting to have one of their own so they could have fun, too. I do think we're still in the "wait and see" phase for this product, but, unlike some of the original iPhone criticisms or cmdrtaco's original dismissal of the iPod, the criticisms this article points out feel really personally relevant to me.

andrewparker 3y ago

iPhone 1 launched without cut/copy/paste

starkparker 3y ago

And the touch bar, and the magic mouse, and ping, and mobile me, and hi-fi. They're just a consumer goods company. Sometimes they make good things people don't appreciate at first. Sometimes they make bad things that people don't appreciate ever. Their track record is better than the mean, but comparing every criticism of a first-gen Apple product to the iPod/iPhone launches is unserious. Of course some people panned any given new thing on Earth. And this isn't even in response to someone predicting that AVP would fail, but just that the 1st-gen AVP is an immature product. The 1st-gen iPhone was an immature product! It's delusional (and discrediting to Apple!) to think the iPod, iPhone, OS X, Intel Macs, M1 Macs, etc. were as mature at launch as the later iterations we associate those technologies with now.

throwaway2037 3y ago
Does "AVP" mean Affordable Viable Product?
- rrdharan 3y ago
  Apple Vision Pro (assuming you were genuinely asking).
  - throwaway2037 3y ago
    facepalm Thank you to correct me. Yes, I was asking sincerely!

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

vikramkr 3y ago

I checked a couple of those old reviews and a couple things that seemed to be a common take with the iPhone that definitely aren't holding now: - incredible amounts of hype - loving the design - loving the touchscreen and input (directly contrasting folks worrying about the eye tracking now) - a sense (at least from cnet and pcmag) that it's really just an overgrown iPod so they keep comparing it to an iPod (compared to the vision where folks get that it's a new category for apple and have good comps outside anyway ) There are definitely similarities in terms of complaining about missing features that apple's probably going to add soon anyway (keyboard showing up in portrait and stuff). Lots of complaints about not supporting flash but we know how that went. Also apparently the headphone jack position was annoying. What I'm not seeing in the current vision reviews - and maybe it's impossible to see this in real time - is some feature that has the chance to change literally everything that people arent able to comprehend just yet. These reviews being relatively dismissive of this web browsing on your phone thing is absolutely hilarious in hindsight. The only similar thing in the vision is - the passthrough eye thing maybe? Nothing else seems particularly baffling. I'm glad I read some of those reviews. The vibe I'm getting is - the iPhone was doing something fundamentally weird with this whole smartphone thing that reviewers just didnt get, so they kept reviewing it as an iPod with really bad voice calling and a browser and being confused by all the hype. The vision though? It's a vr/mixed reality headset, we know what those are like, and apple didn't throw any real curveballs.

vikramkr 3y ago
An addendum - I'm surprised at how spot on so many of these iPhone 1 reviews are outside of the not getting the browser thing (and even there folks complaining about how web2.0 is taking off and there's no js/java/flash support? Good point!). Keyboard should work in portrait mode, voice calling is bad, 3g support is needed, no multimedia messaging. No replaceable battery and not user servicable enough. Camera is OK but needs dramatic improvement. Typing urls is very hard. And of course, no games, no 3rd party apps, no app store. After hearing all these memes for however long about how the media just didn't get the iPhone or something - yeah no they did pretty well
- cwalv 3y ago