this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2024
96 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37720 readers
526 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
alyaza@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org
gyrfalcon@beehaw.org
rs5th@beehaw.org
SemioticStandard@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social
Los@beehaw.org
coldredlight@beehaw.org
remington@beehaw.org
96
Only 150+ apps have been designed specifically for Apple's Vision Pro, so far | TechCrunch (techcrunch.com)
submitted 9 months ago by Moonrise2473@feddit.it to c/technology@beehaw.org
93 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I left the headline like the original, but I see this as a massive win for Apple. The device is ridiculously expensive, isn't even on sale yet and already has 150 apps specifically designed for that.

If Google did this, it wouldn't even get 150 dedicated apps even years after launch (and the guaranteed demise of it) and even if it was something super cheap like being made of fucking cardboard.

This is something that as an Android user I envy a lot from the Apple ecosystem.

Apple: this is a new feature => devs implement them in their apps the very next day even if it launches officially in 6 months.

Google: this is a new feature => devs ignore it, apps start to support it after 5-6 Android versions

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] P1r4nha@feddit.de 3 points 9 months ago (4 children)

It's half a kilo strapped to the front of your head. There's lighter products out there right now that can do similar things. I don't see this first iteration as anything revolutionary.

[–] nicetriangle@kbin.social 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

I feel like they could have cut down on the weight and price a considerable amount by not having that goofy screen on the front. Probably a bump to battery life too.

[–] P1r4nha@feddit.de 1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

For sure. I wonder if it's even worth it or just look creepy to look at a pair of two eyes deep in the uncanny valley.

[–] nicetriangle@kbin.social 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

My personal theory on it is that what they really want is a device with an actually clear screen kinda like a Hololens, but not shitty and huge. Unfortunately technological hurdles prevented them from doing that, so this was their solve.

I suspect this eyes-through-the-device form factor is philosophically a branding element to them so they're faking it until it can be real to maintain some consistency.

I could be totally wrong though and it's more simply trying to "humanize" the things or some such. They're an idiosyncratic company sometimes. I would also not be surprised if they release a cheaper model in the future without it.

[–] P1r4nha@feddit.de 1 points 9 months ago

With the amount of verbiage and ex-employees they've taken over from Magic Leap it's not far fetched they were looking into a see-through device as you describe.