this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
595 points (94.1% liked)
Technology
58303 readers
12 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They are people who paid $4000 to be a voluntary QA team.
Is Apple heading down the road of Windows now? Release beta software and use the scream test to debug it?
Nah, it just has no apps, a poor battery life and like all new Apple product lines will be massively put to shame by its successors.
It doesn't have a poor battery life it has a poor battery design. If they put a decent battery on the damn thing it would be okay, it's not particularly power hungry but apple just give it a gnat's testicle of a battery.
The design makes perfect sense. You can trivially add an additional pack with capacity if that's your use case. The included pack does the power management and has enough for plenty of people without being in the way, and it's as simple as plugging in any source of USC-C power at appropriate specs to extend it.
That would be a fine argument if the device didn't cost more than my mortgage repayments. But for device that expensive, they absolutely need to put a decent battery on the thing.
A "decent battery" is bigger and more weight to carry around that plenty of use cases don't want or benefit from. It's not small for cost reasons. It's because it's a worse device if you force it to be huge.
The price is high, but only if you ignore how much tech is in it. A lesser but close dumb display from anyone else is thousands in its own.
Yes it's got lots of cool tech in it, none of which does anything. Excuse me while I go and watch Netflix on a display that costs 1/10 of the money yet has thousands of times the functionality.
Being overly complicated doesn't mean it's worth money.
Don't buy it if you don't want AR.
But it's beyond idiotic to trash the first device on the market actually capable of functional AR because you personally don't care about the tech people have been waiting decades for.
There isn't a single use case that wouldn't improve with a longer lifespan of the device.
It is nothing but Apple marketing bullshit to claim people want a small battery, and nothing but Apple greed to increase the profit by using worse components.
When that lifespan is at the cost of meaningful extra bulk you have to carry around, there are plenty.
It's not saving them money. It's because being required to carry a giant battery no matter what you want to do is a significantly worse product.
You mean selling unrepairable beta products of questionable usefulness at insane prices?
When iPhone was released App Store didn't even exist. A smartphone without apps is just a phone and VR glasses without apps are just a 360 degree monitor you wear on your face. I think Apple's reasoning here is to provide the hardware and see what people do with it.
When Apple released the first iPhone no one had an app store, originally Apple wasn't even going to have an app store it was all going to be web apps and then they realized that they could make more money with an app store. It wasn't a feature people expected, but people do expect apps now and they're not present.
We absolutely expected it when we realised no games or anything could be installed.
Can confirm, I had an Apple Newton. Hardware with no purpose is just hardware. So far, this seems like it's going where every VR headset goes. It's a solution looking for a problem.
for sure, and in the rest of the tech world, we call these devkits, not finished products. Apple is trying to convince rando non-dev apple fanboys to pay $3500 for the privilege of playing with devkits. And in many ways, it's a dead end, especially on input. what a shit show.
I would be potentially interested in developing an app for it there are some things holding me back.
It just doesn't seem like it's been properly released yet. It's a beta product with beta features and has been released as such except it has a non beta price. And also virtually no developers got early access so there's basically no apps.
Amen brother, same situation here.
you'll need an m1 or m2 dev box - so $800-3000+ for something with decent ram and storage. and you'll want an apple care subscription, $400 for two years (which won't actually pay for repairs, simply reduce the pain of them enough to justify); and you'll need to pay an apple dev id - $100 for indies, $250 for enterprise iirc; and you'll want to get some extra batteries to daisy-chain off the usb-c port on the existing battery because that shit only lasts 2.5 hrs at BEST. oh and spend another $100 on each devkit because they don't come with a fucking case.
it's like their dev chain is a fucking sadomasochistic loyalty test where the privilege to develop for the device's barren ecosystem costs more and more at each step. All for the honor of writing xcode apps that are running on ipad os++
fucking hell
Yeah the iPhone was successful at launch because it was a sleek blackberry and had iPod like capabilities. But it didn’t blow up until the App Store came out. I expect this product to do the same, and in the same way, companies to release competitive products with similar capabilities in a feature war until the newest releases are mostly talking about resolution and processor speed instead of new features
Now?