3 ms·

That actually makes a ton of sense and I don't know why you are being downvoted! In AR there's much more space, so padding and rounded corners matter less, and

That actually makes a ton of sense and I don't know why you are being downvoted! In AR there's much more space, so padding and rounded corners matter less, and in VR you don't want control surfaces obstructing the view completely. It's useful to be able to see there's "something" behind that navigation icon. Even if you can't distinguish it clearly at least you won't walk into it. Not saying it's a good bet for Apple or for users, but it seems that's the bet they are making.

owebmaster 1y ago
> but it seems that's the bet they are making. That's absolutely obvious. What people are arguing is that this is a terrible move for many reasons. 0.1% of iphone users have a Vision Pro and Apple just degraded the experience for all of us.
- rickdeckard 1y ago
  They don't do this for Vision Pro. They do this because there might soon be a disruptive AR-product (e.g. some nextgen Meta RayBan's) which gets adopted as companion device by the iPhone userbase and then gradually shifts their usage away from the iPhone to that other product. So Apple needs to expand their ecosystem with all its stickyness to AR, as this ensures that even if competing AR products will be more appealing, they will all be inferior because only Apple's AR-product will allow you to mirror your whole iOS experience with all apps and content.
  - owebmaster 1y ago
    Ok, preparing for another corporation's takeover of the AR market is indeed a much better strategy (for Apple). Still, is it worth worsening the experience for all your current customers? Apple simply doesn't care about them, just hoarding cattle.
    - rickdeckard 1y ago
      Well...yes, they are cattle. And the cattle doesn't like when someone says that, but Apple's most lucrative asset is that it is gatekeeper to a group of consumers with above-average spending power. Most of what Apple did in the last years was to ensure that their customers cannot be reached without Apple being paid.

owebmaster 1y ago

> but it seems that's the bet they are making. That's absolutely obvious. What people are arguing is that this is a terrible move for many reasons. 0.1% of iphone users have a Vision Pro and Apple just degraded the experience for all of us.

rickdeckard 1y ago
They don't do this for Vision Pro. They do this because there might soon be a disruptive AR-product (e.g. some nextgen Meta RayBan's) which gets adopted as companion device by the iPhone userbase and then gradually shifts their usage away from the iPhone to that other product. So Apple needs to expand their ecosystem with all its stickyness to AR, as this ensures that even if competing AR products will be more appealing, they will all be inferior because only Apple's AR-product will allow you to mirror your whole iOS experience with all apps and content.
- owebmaster 1y ago
  Ok, preparing for another corporation's takeover of the AR market is indeed a much better strategy (for Apple). Still, is it worth worsening the experience for all your current customers? Apple simply doesn't care about them, just hoarding cattle.
  - rickdeckard 1y ago
    Well...yes, they are cattle. And the cattle doesn't like when someone says that, but Apple's most lucrative asset is that it is gatekeeper to a group of consumers with above-average spending power. Most of what Apple did in the last years was to ensure that their customers cannot be reached without Apple being paid.