5 ms·

Apple's taste for what to work on seems to have totally failed. Make a cheaper and lighter headset or start on glasses. Either way no one wants Apple Intelligen

Apple's taste for what to work on seems to have totally failed. Make a cheaper and lighter headset or start on glasses. Either way no one wants Apple Intelligence and least of all on the Vision Pro.

dmix 2y ago
Apple has plenty of money to burn on R&D projects that might be very important in the future. Everyone expects iPhone or nothing though.
- dylan604 2y ago
  How many iterations of fail did they go through before getting to the iPhone though? Have we forgotten about the Newton?
  - rchaud 2y ago
    Why would you have to go that far back? The iPhone's predecessor is the Moto ROKR, a music phone from 2005 made in collaboration with Apple. The design of the 2007 iPhone is primarily influenced by the Dieter Rams-y minimalism of the iPod and the LG Prada touchscreen phone from 2006.
    - dylan604 2y ago
      Because the Newton was Apple's first attempt at the handheld device that was clearly the precursor to the iPhone that was a failure. If you can't see the reason for the Newton reference, you're just not looking at it in the right way. Maybe try tilting your head and squinting
  - asadotzler 2y ago
    iPhone had over 10M users in year 2. AVP will have a couple hundred thousand users at the end of year 2. There's no polishing this turd, even hearkening back to other slow starts. This isn't a slow start to a ramp, it's hitting a brick wall with customers who simply don't want it, like Newton, like iPod HiFi, like original HomePod. It's a dud and the second year cannot fix that given Apple's tiny stock and almost non-existent demand for all of year 2.
geodel 2y ago
I have heard many people do want to generate poop emoji based on their photos in Image playground and watch it whole day on AVP. It could be game changer for them.
nozzlegear 2y ago
> Either way no one wants Apple Intelligence and least of all on the Vision Pro. I do want Apple Intelligence, I use it daily on my Mac. Agree on the Vision Pro though; I liked mine when I had one, but it was way too expensive for something that I was actively searching to find a use case for.
- cmdtab 2y ago
  What is apple intelligence used for? I haven’t seen a single feature aside from summaries.
  - dcrazy 2y ago
    On-device image generation (Genmoji/Image Playground)
    - gizajob 2y ago
      Pretty well every image I asked it to make, it came back with “I can’t do that for your Dave”.
    - plagiarist 2y ago
      I turned on their intelligence thing because I was excited to try image playground, but was underwhelmed. I left it on for a while because I forgot it existed, then turned it off.
    - rchaud 2y ago
      This is the kind of low quality software that would be labeled "bloatware" if Microsoft or a Wintel OEM stuffed it into their OS image.
      - cmdtab 2y ago
        Teenagers use it.
  - nozzlegear 2y ago
    I answered elsewhere about how I use it, but the summaries are really what I use the most. I also like being able to select text in any native app and have the AI summarize it; or if I wrote the text, have it proofread it or suggest rewrites using different tones. Basically I just like the native integrations you get by having it built in with the platform.
crowcroft 2y ago
With so many senior product designers walking out the door for many many years now it shouldn’t be surprising. Apple was never inherently good at coming up with new products, they brought in good talent and gave them a good environment to work in. Remove that and you remove the competency from the business.
creativenolo 2y ago
I think Apple played it well to test the market on a larger scale with few hardware compromises based on cost, rather than testing the market with something cheaper, less capable, and with the promise of being better in the future. There isn’t a huge amount the Vision Pro can’t do now or could do better in the future.
- asadotzler 2y ago
  Correct, they gave it everything they could in terms of tech and the fashion of that tech's packaging and it bombed. Even the best possible experience, produced by the most powerful tech company in the world, after a decade and billions of dollars invested, flopped when it confronted the consumer market. And there's not much it can do to improve now or in the future as they've already done pretty much everything you can do to build an HMD with today's technologies. There is no technology path between these goggles and a spectacles form factor. This tech, the "immersive" goggles, is a dead end and money spent on it would have been better spent on inventing the technologies we need for actually acceptable form factors, or pretty much anything else you can think of, actually.
asadotzler 2y ago
It is not possible to build a light enough and cheap enough HMD to reach the mainstream. Quest did that with a $300 device that's 20% lighter and they've had 5 years in market with similarly light and only slightly more expensive models and they stalled out under 10M users. Apple will not sustain investment in a low-millions of users product for 5 years and just as Meta is having it's "make or break" year for goggles, so will Apple after a few years in market with no traction. That's because these form factors cannot work. Even at half the weight, a feat that's probably a decade away, they're still a face-smashing PC held in place with straps that go around your head. There is no use cases outside of specialized industry where going into the office and donning even that light weight facial PC will be acceptable to normal people. It's a non-starter and always has been. Despite having the patents on what became the Vision Pro, Steve would have smothered that baby in the crib the day his team couldn't answer how women, half of the population, were going to deal with the caked on makeup and nastiness of that light seal after a few uses. That the Apple of today either didn't consider that, didn't care, or has the hubris to think they can force that on us is irrelevant. What matters is that Apple failed here to consider the user and seems to only have considered the competition and the stock price.
- gizajob 2y ago
  There’s some cryptic reference at the back of Walter Isaacson’s biography where Jobs is in bed, basically at deaths door, and playing with some kind of tv-like device that didn’t really make sense at the time because Isaacson couldn’t properly explain it. The section is something like Steve dying blissfully having seen the future of this tactile device, so it seems apparent now that he was playing with some kind of immersive prototype of the Vision Pro.

Apple's taste for what to work on seems to have totally failed. Make a cheaper and lighter headset or start on glasses. Either way no one wants Apple Intelligence and least of all on the Vision Pro.

dmix 2y ago

Apple has plenty of money to burn on R&D projects that might be very important in the future. Everyone expects iPhone or nothing though.

dylan604 2y ago
How many iterations of fail did they go through before getting to the iPhone though? Have we forgotten about the Newton?
- rchaud 2y ago
  Why would you have to go that far back? The iPhone's predecessor is the Moto ROKR, a music phone from 2005 made in collaboration with Apple. The design of the 2007 iPhone is primarily influenced by the Dieter Rams-y minimalism of the iPod and the LG Prada touchscreen phone from 2006.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    Because the Newton was Apple's first attempt at the handheld device that was clearly the precursor to the iPhone that was a failure. If you can't see the reason for the Newton reference, you're just not looking at it in the right way. Maybe try tilting your head and squinting
- asadotzler 2y ago
  iPhone had over 10M users in year 2. AVP will have a couple hundred thousand users at the end of year 2. There's no polishing this turd, even hearkening back to other slow starts. This isn't a slow start to a ramp, it's hitting a brick wall with customers who simply don't want it, like Newton, like iPod HiFi, like original HomePod. It's a dud and the second year cannot fix that given Apple's tiny stock and almost non-existent demand for all of year 2.

geodel 2y ago

I have heard many people do want to generate poop emoji based on their photos in Image playground and watch it whole day on AVP. It could be game changer for them.

nozzlegear 2y ago

> Either way no one wants Apple Intelligence and least of all on the Vision Pro. I do want Apple Intelligence, I use it daily on my Mac. Agree on the Vision Pro though; I liked mine when I had one, but it was way too expensive for something that I was actively searching to find a use case for.

cmdtab 2y ago
What is apple intelligence used for? I haven’t seen a single feature aside from summaries.
- dcrazy 2y ago
  On-device image generation (Genmoji/Image Playground)
  - gizajob 2y ago
    Pretty well every image I asked it to make, it came back with “I can’t do that for your Dave”.
  - plagiarist 2y ago
    I turned on their intelligence thing because I was excited to try image playground, but was underwhelmed. I left it on for a while because I forgot it existed, then turned it off.
  - rchaud 2y ago
    This is the kind of low quality software that would be labeled "bloatware" if Microsoft or a Wintel OEM stuffed it into their OS image.
    - cmdtab 2y ago
      Teenagers use it.
- nozzlegear 2y ago
  I answered elsewhere about how I use it, but the summaries are really what I use the most. I also like being able to select text in any native app and have the AI summarize it; or if I wrote the text, have it proofread it or suggest rewrites using different tones. Basically I just like the native integrations you get by having it built in with the platform.

crowcroft 2y ago

With so many senior product designers walking out the door for many many years now it shouldn’t be surprising. Apple was never inherently good at coming up with new products, they brought in good talent and gave them a good environment to work in. Remove that and you remove the competency from the business.

creativenolo 2y ago

I think Apple played it well to test the market on a larger scale with few hardware compromises based on cost, rather than testing the market with something cheaper, less capable, and with the promise of being better in the future. There isn’t a huge amount the Vision Pro can’t do now or could do better in the future.

asadotzler 2y ago
Correct, they gave it everything they could in terms of tech and the fashion of that tech's packaging and it bombed. Even the best possible experience, produced by the most powerful tech company in the world, after a decade and billions of dollars invested, flopped when it confronted the consumer market. And there's not much it can do to improve now or in the future as they've already done pretty much everything you can do to build an HMD with today's technologies. There is no technology path between these goggles and a spectacles form factor. This tech, the "immersive" goggles, is a dead end and money spent on it would have been better spent on inventing the technologies we need for actually acceptable form factors, or pretty much anything else you can think of, actually.

asadotzler 2y ago

It is not possible to build a light enough and cheap enough HMD to reach the mainstream. Quest did that with a $300 device that's 20% lighter and they've had 5 years in market with similarly light and only slightly more expensive models and they stalled out under 10M users. Apple will not sustain investment in a low-millions of users product for 5 years and just as Meta is having it's "make or break" year for goggles, so will Apple after a few years in market with no traction. That's because these form factors cannot work. Even at half the weight, a feat that's probably a decade away, they're still a face-smashing PC held in place with straps that go around your head. There is no use cases outside of specialized industry where going into the office and donning even that light weight facial PC will be acceptable to normal people. It's a non-starter and always has been. Despite having the patents on what became the Vision Pro, Steve would have smothered that baby in the crib the day his team couldn't answer how women, half of the population, were going to deal with the caked on makeup and nastiness of that light seal after a few uses. That the Apple of today either didn't consider that, didn't care, or has the hubris to think they can force that on us is irrelevant. What matters is that Apple failed here to consider the user and seems to only have considered the competition and the stock price.

gizajob 2y ago
There’s some cryptic reference at the back of Walter Isaacson’s biography where Jobs is in bed, basically at deaths door, and playing with some kind of tv-like device that didn’t really make sense at the time because Isaacson couldn’t properly explain it. The section is something like Steve dying blissfully having seen the future of this tactile device, so it seems apparent now that he was playing with some kind of immersive prototype of the Vision Pro.