I can tell you this much: this concept image is way off. Apple Glasses will never look like this.
More likely:
More likely:
Last edited:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iOS 13 Code Suggests Apple Testing AR Headset With 'StarBoard' Mode, 'Garta' Codename, and More [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This kinda posts are the one that makes me roll of the chair laughing... You act like you dislike things you cannot buy, and that to me is hilarious
I cannot buy / afford a Ferrari, but like it very much, there are plenty of things I cannot buy but still like, on the other hand there are plenty of things I can afford but dislike ....
Then there is the assumption, what makes you think he cannot afford it?
And finally, just because a company is making money does not mean they make only good products, heck no company is even too big to fail.
I mean your silliness works on many level here
People are entitletd to their opinion (wich is also free BTW), and if they differ from yours you can decide to ignore them or disagree with them, but talking about money just shows you have no arguments.
I absolutely am with you on the “money argument” & it literally makes me cringe when I hear people take that tack...
However, on your other point- I’d beg to differ.
In my opinion, Apple is most certainly too big to fail! Let’s say that, starting tomorrow, nobody on the planet ever buys another smartphone... they all become only interested in buying an abacus. A trillion dollar company would be well positioned to pivot & virtually overnight be known as the PREMIER abacus company. If 10 years later, literally zero people were to buy another abacus, and now everyone in the world was desperate to own a 7 foot tall teddy bear... few companies could handle the logistics & manufacturing to make that feasible. Apple could.
The ONLY way they could possibly fail is if the market moved to something else & they dug in their heels and absolutely refused to compete in that new area.
They’ve got the means to be a major player in ANY market!
If they announced tomorrow that they were considering getting into the commercial airliner business, for example, I can pretty much guarantee that Boeing & Lockheed would start sweating bullets!!
I thought we'd have some pretty awesome eyewear tech by 2020 but its definitely not the case. Its a huge area that can be classified as a totally new user base. Not many things nowadays can say that. But still no idea why its so hard for companies to make something affordable and have a lot of use without looking out of place.
Something you look at every day may look beautiful. And whoever decides on aesthetics of form will do so. Personally I am waiting (probably in vain) for a new Chinema 4K Display 24(!) inch, because my home should not be dominated by a giant monitor. Only then will I upgrade my computer (Mac Mini) appropriately. So there are quite different buyers, and you should not only think of yourself, the world is diverse.
[doublepost=1567436067][/doublepost]
I'm also waiting for an SE2 and an 'real' small Apple 4K-Display.
Yet I decidedly disagree with you: I hope that Tim Cook will be able to experience how the glasses suddenly break up many old habits again.
Just like it was possible for Steve with the iPhone.
If you don't have the technical imagination, get enlightened. If you look at the current state of technical possibilities, Apple could already sell something quite interesting today. But Apple doesn't do half-measures like others do. That's a good thing for the rest of us!
https://www.bynorth.com/focals
I am sure that Apple can build a much higher acceptance in navigation applications with glasses through its privacy dogma, for example by making credible video recordings in WatchOS impossible, and using the camera only for alignment with the surrounding. This is gonna be great. And: Google-Glassholes/ designable-Android DOA.
Last edited:
The thing is, Nokia tought the same, "hey we can adapt", and they did not, Boeing thinks it is too big to fail, and their reputation is running down the drain.
Will it takes time? sure, but adapting to business as you suggest requires a great leadership, wich you do not have if you have to "adapt".
Acting is better than reacting in business, (you know ...go where the puck is gonna be rather than where it is now).
Do I think Apple will fail? No, at least not in the near future, but no one is too big to fail.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but thats not the point.
All recent (and soon coming) Apple displays are just nice(?) packaging around a panel they bought elsewhere.
Sure maybe with a few extra bells and whistles just not with much innovation (from Apple). Such stuff will still sell just not in the numbers to make it something Apple should concentrate on as buyers can choose from 167328 different moniotors from other vendors which will do the job just as good.
So many bad assumptions here.
Apple is a fashion company. The glasses won’t look like Star Trek.
Apple is a privacy company. The glasses won’t record video, and won’t be banned.
Same with cars. Lame argument, sorry...
A question: If you (I know this is not the case with you) had a Porsche engine and a Ford car was built around it, would you be happy?
You currently won't find a small SE-like mobile in the infinity of current devices. Apple will check when the zeitgeist likes small handy devices again, when suddenly all people notice that their mobile phone doesn't fit in their pockets anymore, and their massive monitor, which shapes the room aesthetics, can only be seen from a distance.
nb. I don't understand why Apple displays aren't equipped with Face ID at all. With the declining iPhone sales figures, these great sensors will soon be lying on the ground in big bags.
Anybody got an idea about this?
Last edited:
They couldn't break into the wireless charging pad market. Or the smart speaker market. Or the social platform market. Or the digital maps market. Or the voice assistant market.
Hmmm. I regularly go out with only my Apple Watch and leave my iPhone at home. I use Apple Pay, can make/receive phone calls, get my messages....
Seeing as most cable/DSL modems have adequate WiFi built into them these days, and the market is already flooded with standalone routers fighting to be on the bleeding edge and dropping to the bargain bin after 8 months, cutting their AirPort line was a wise move. There's little they could bring to the table to differentiate themselves there.
Yet they are in the smart speaker, digital maps and voice assistant market, aren't they? But none of those markets they're in with the intention of making a meaningful profit, those are all more or less just complementary to the iPhone / their product ecosystem.
And of course they could get into the wireless charging pad market in a blink of an eye; it's just that they probably have no interest in that unless they can disrupt it, like they planned to with AirPower which as we know didn't quite work out.
Spot on assessment. Apple knows when it’s time to get out of products that have been commoditized. Printers and displays are two more examples.
@Seoras is right - Apple is trolling people with that tagline. It appears to be working as intended.
I've seen demos of AR/VR for technicians in the field. In one they used multiple high resolution cameras to examine a component and then only send the relevant information/overlays to a pair of glasses/goggles.
You need to use your imagination to think of new/interesting ways technology could be used instead of trying to be creative in your Apple bashing.
No. I’m not taking something out of context to propagate a lie (like you are).
An iPhone is only required for initial setup. After that you can use the Apple Watch independently.
How so? He isn't talking about the fact that you still need an iPhone to set up the Watch. Which also is just a matter of time until that won't be the case anymore, just like iOS devices eventually emancipated themselves from the Mac. Reasonable to assume a similar story for the AR glasses.
Apple's the one propagating the "lie". How is it out of context?
[doublepost=1567441402][/doublepost]
4.5 years and counting...
So you're talking about using the glasses as a screen rather than a camera. Why on earth would a doctor view a remote operation through AR glasses? What is he looking at locally that he wants the information to appear superimposed onto?
It's a complete non-starter. The doctor would use a high resolution screen or possibly some VR goggles, not AR.
What exactly are you trying to say?
For the iPhone, it took no less than 4 years IIRC until it gained independence from the Mac/iTunes for installing software updates, and I think even longer until initial setup didn't require iTunes anymore, not sure about the latter. The original iPhone didn't live to see that either.
However, did I say for the Watch it would be the exact same timeframe?
No, so who knows how long it will take for full independence.
Might be next year, might be later, but that's clearly the direction it's been heading ever since watchOS 2 introduced a native SDK enabling third party apps not tethered to the iPhone.
How is it a clear direction? No other smartwatch makes any demands of having a particular phone. Apple could have made the Apple Watch work without an iPhone from day one if it wanted to. It's clearly a deliberate ploy to tie people into an ecosystem with artificial constraints. There is zero evidence Apple ever intends to drop the iPhone requirement.