It blows my mind how many people preach this conspiracy theory. Marques Brownlee, the one tech reviewer who loves tech without being a fanboy in either direction, explains it best.
Ben Evans explains how new technology doesn't destroy jobs:
New technology generally makes it cheaper and easier to do something, but that might mean you do the same with fewer people, or you might do much more with the same people. It also tends to mean that you change what you do. To begin with, we make the new tool fit the old way of working, but over time, we change how we work to fit the tool. When CC Baxter’s company bought a mainframe, they began by automating the way they already did things, but over time, new ways to run the business became possible.
Lots of hot takes immediately dismissing the Apple Vision Pro. They're all short-sighted. Here are some historical fun facts about Apple products:
- iPhone did not get copy-and-paste until the third-generation iPhone 3GS.
- iPhone didn’t get mainstream adoption until the iPhone 4.
- Apple Watch did not have clear killer app until watchOS 3, when Apple doubled-down on Fitness & Health.
- The first-generation Apple Watch had as much compute power as two iPhone 4s.
- When AirPods were first released, it was ridiculed for its looks. Today, AirPods are the gold standard for wireless earbuds and headphone jacks are non-standard on modern flagship smartphones.
So what are people saying about Apple Vision Pro?
"It costs 7x as much as the Meta Quest…"
Yes, that's true. As Ben Evans puts it:
Meta is trying to catalyze an ecosystem while we wait for the right hardware - Apple is trying to catalyze an ecosystem while we wait for the right price.
Both paths are good bets…but I think Apple's vision is smarter.
Zuckerberg envisions everyone wearing VR headsets for most hours of the day, both at work and at home. His belief is that your digital life will be as important as your physical life. To Zuckerberg, living in the digital world is socializing, not isolating.
Apple disagrees. Tim Cook has said for years that the goal is to have AR enhance the real world around you. The Vision Pro is built from the ground up to let interact with both the real world and the digital world at the same time.
Nilay Patel of The Verge, summed it up the best:
Meta Quest 2 is a mid-range Android smartphone on your face.
Apple Vision Pro is a MacBook on your face.
In the pre-iPhone era, the smartphone was thought of as a cell phone with apps. Then Apple launched a mobile computer with a phone app.
If the "metaverse" is going to be a thing, Apple will make it just one dimension of spatial computing.
"The 2-hour battery isn't even long enough for a movie! LOL"
Yup, and that's fine for this v1.0 model! This generation is targeted for developers and will only be used for indoor, stationary situations. The fun begins when it becomes portable, but we need developers to make that meaningful.
"Creepy Black Mirror vibes."
I gotta admit, the spacial camera demo of the father recording his kid's birthday while wearing Apple Vision Pro is a bit cringey…and we all know how Google Glass was rejected. But remember: there was a time when having a camera on a cellphone was considered creepy too.
We'll see how this pans out, but for now, Apple Vision Pro will clearly indicate to others when you are recording.
"I'm not going to walk around with ski goggles on my face."
I'm not planning on it either, lol. But that's fine, because Apple is playing a very, very long-game here.
Overall, Apple Vision Pro is a massive step towards AR glasses. This is a long stop-gap to get developers building on the AR platform until the product is portable to wear outside and affordable enough for the common consumer.
And if there's any tech company in the world that will miniaturize powerful hardware into something the size of a pair of sunglasses, it's Apple.
With Elon Musk killing off third-party Twitter apps with zero grace period and zero class, one of the absolute staples of my techie lifestyle was abruptly taken away from me.
Ever since Tweetbot launched in April 2011, it has been on my iPhone home screen. For over a decade, it was the literally first app I'd open when I wake up. Whenever I had a few minutes to spare because I was waiting for files to transfer or I was waiting in line, I would open Tweetbot. When I was following some breaking news in real-time; Kobe's death, Lakers championships, good presidencies, one shitty presidency, many world-wide tragedies, but even more inspiring moments.
Tweetbot — specifically, it's iCloud timeline position syncing — was one of the two anchors that kept me happily committed to the Apple ecosystem.
Even though Tweetbot is no more, its legacy will carry on in the form of Ivory for Mastodon.
Long live, Tweetbot.
With Elon's hostile takeover of Twitter and massive layoffs — which includes key engineers who maintain the infrastructure — it's starting to sound like Twitter is one server crash away from losing everything…
Hello, Mastodon. You're lookin' kinda good today.
Nokia and Blackberry were skating to where the puck was going to be, and felt nice and fast and in control, while Apple and Google were melting the ice rink and switching the game to water-skiing.
At the time, Nokia and Blackberry seemed to be leading the way to the future. There weren't wrong…but iPhone and Android completely changed the game.
I'm still not 100% bullish on NFTs but this is an enlightening way to look at them.
The biggest argument I've heard in support of side-loading and third-party app stores for iOS is:
I'm paying over $1,000 for my device. I should have the right to do whatever I want with it!
While I do agree with that sentiment, I firmly believe that would only lead to a shitty path for iOS. Marco Arment perfectly illustrates my my same sentiments:
I don’t expect side-loading or alternative app stores to become possible, and I’m relieved, because that is not a future I want for iOS.
When evaluating such ideas, I merely ask myself:
“What would Facebook do?”
Facebook owns four of the top ten apps in the world. If side-loading became possible, Facebook could remove Instagram, WhatsApp, the Facebook app, and Messenger from Apple’s App Store, requiring customers to install these extremely popular apps directly from Facebook via side-loading.
And everyone would.
Alternative app stores would be even worse. Rather than offering individual apps via side-loading, Facebook could offer just one:
The Facebook App Store.
Instagram, WhatsApp, the Facebook app, and Messenger could all be available exclusively there.
The majority of iOS users in the world would soon install it, and Facebook would start using leverage in other areas — apps’ social accounts, stats packages, app-install ads, ad-attribution requirements — to heavily incentivize (and likely strong-arm) a huge number of developers to offer their apps in the Facebook App Store, likely in addition to Apple’s.
Maybe I’d be required to add the Facebook SDK to my app in order to be in their store, which they would then use to surveil my users.
Maybe I’d need to buy app-install ads to show up in search there at all.
Maybe I’d need to pay Facebook to “promote” each app update to reach more than a tiny percentage of my existing customers.
This would be true for any conglomerate, including Amazon and Google. But I'm specifically concerned about Facebook.
We all know how much Zuckerberg hates Apple for implementing so many tracking-prevention measures that harms Facebook's business model. There's no doubt in my mind that Facebook would leverage its apps against Apple.
I support this.
At the very, very least, Apple needs to allow developers to offer alternative payment options:
- all in-app purchases must offer a Pay with iTunes option
- the Pay with iTunes button must be more prominent than any other payment option
iOS 14's "Live Tile" inspired widgets makes a lot of sense for AR.
If we're going to wear AR glasses for long periods of time, floating glanceable data that you can tap on for more info/interaction is more efficient than bouncing between apps in a floating grid of app icons.
And then when you're back at home or at the office, virtual monitors could theoretically replace the need for actual monitors.