2 ms·

> When is the last time they launched a "so so" product? All of them! The first version of the iPhone, iPad, iPod, watch, AirPods... They all had similar rev

> When is the last time they launched a "so so" product? All of them! The first version of the iPhone, iPad, iPod, watch, AirPods... They all had similar reviews. "Seems like a tech preview, not really ready for general use, too expensive", etc.

jamespo 3y ago
First iPod and iPad were fine.
- homefree 3y ago
  The first iPod had a wheel that physically moved and would get dirt and stuff stuck in it/have issues. The HDD would also freeze up. It was better than alternatives at the time, but it wasn't really until the click wheel it got really refined. The first iPad was similarly expensive, thick and underpowered. It wasn't until a couple generations in that it was good.
  - jamespo 3y ago
    They were both significantly better than alternatives and didn't cost 7x as much as this does vs meta quest 3.
- jedberg 3y ago
  The first iPod's wheel would break and skip all the time. And so would the hard drive. And the OS was really simple, and the syncing was terrible. The first iPad was ok only because it truly was "just a bigger iPhone". But they didn't really make features that were unique to the iPad and took advantage of its bigger screen for a few versions afterwards.
  - jamespo 3y ago
    The os was simple, it played music, that's it?
    - jedberg 3y ago
      It did, but finding your song wasn't easy when you had 1000s on the device. I would say the main function of an iPod OS is finding what you want to play, not actually playing it.
      - hollandheese 3y ago
        > It did, but finding your song wasn't easy when you had 1000s on the device. It was extremely easy if you tagged your mp3s properly.
      - actionfromafar 3y ago
        Way back then it also competed against actual cassette and CD Walkmans. So just playing was a big part of it.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
homefree 3y ago
Yeah - the first one is always at the edge of what's possible with the hardware capabilities at the time of launch at the quality level Apple demands. Then usually they refine it and end up defining the category. The idea of 'spatial computing' or a heads up display that augments your vision and gives you eye tracking input to manipulate UIs in your visual field seems clearer superior to looking at little glass displays (meta agrees). If you can project out a future where that hardware becomes better and better it's a pretty powerful interface paradigm. Eye tracking as an interface for this can get pretty close to telepathy if done well. I ordered one - it's the sort of thing you really have to play with yourself imo.

jamespo 3y ago

First iPod and iPad were fine.

homefree 3y ago
The first iPod had a wheel that physically moved and would get dirt and stuff stuck in it/have issues. The HDD would also freeze up. It was better than alternatives at the time, but it wasn't really until the click wheel it got really refined. The first iPad was similarly expensive, thick and underpowered. It wasn't until a couple generations in that it was good.
- jamespo 3y ago
  They were both significantly better than alternatives and didn't cost 7x as much as this does vs meta quest 3.
jedberg 3y ago
The first iPod's wheel would break and skip all the time. And so would the hard drive. And the OS was really simple, and the syncing was terrible. The first iPad was ok only because it truly was "just a bigger iPhone". But they didn't really make features that were unique to the iPad and took advantage of its bigger screen for a few versions afterwards.
- jamespo 3y ago
  The os was simple, it played music, that's it?
  - jedberg 3y ago
    It did, but finding your song wasn't easy when you had 1000s on the device. I would say the main function of an iPod OS is finding what you want to play, not actually playing it.
    - hollandheese 3y ago
      > It did, but finding your song wasn't easy when you had 1000s on the device. It was extremely easy if you tagged your mp3s properly.
    - actionfromafar 3y ago
      Way back then it also competed against actual cassette and CD Walkmans. So just playing was a big part of it.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

homefree 3y ago

Yeah - the first one is always at the edge of what's possible with the hardware capabilities at the time of launch at the quality level Apple demands. Then usually they refine it and end up defining the category. The idea of 'spatial computing' or a heads up display that augments your vision and gives you eye tracking input to manipulate UIs in your visual field seems clearer superior to looking at little glass displays (meta agrees). If you can project out a future where that hardware becomes better and better it's a pretty powerful interface paradigm. Eye tracking as an interface for this can get pretty close to telepathy if done well. I ordered one - it's the sort of thing you really have to play with yourself imo.