>
64% of US adults wear eyeglasses.??? I do too. What does this have to do with anything? The lens is irrelevant for something that projects right onto the retina (trivial to correct for). Hell, I'd love it for that reason alone, would be a huge improvement for my computer usage.
>We're already basically at the limits of physics for making CPUs faster and heat dissipation is a huge issue even for products that you don't have pressed against your face and eyes all the time.
Lol? Also that you think this is relevant either is kind of confusing.
>Humans interact chiefly via sight.
Yes, hence why wearable AR/VR displays are obvious.
>But it has still been "obvious for ages" that wearable displays are going to be some big inevitable hit? No it hasn't.
Yes, it has.
>And why on earth would Apple have made this tech a priority ten years before it was viable as a consumer product?
For the same reason they were thinking about the "iPad" and then "iPhone" (tablet consideration actually came first internally even though in 2004 it was redirected toward the phone first) long, long before it "viable as a consumer product" duh. You don't get out ahead of things by waiting until after your competitors do it to get started, you make it happen early with your own R&D.
>No, Apple's desktop computer operation has not been "neglected" lately; they actually have been giving the Mac a lot of care and feeding, as evidenced by the really nice new MacBook Pro re-design, and the Mac Studio.
This is just pathetic. You cite the MacBook Pro as support for desktop computers and consider just this last year as a trend. I've been using Apple systems since the late 80s. Desktop systems have absolutely been massively neglected in the last decade. The Mac Pro got updated TWICE in TWELVE YEARS (the first of which was total shit), and that was after Apple pushed it massively up market vs their reliable good tower. The Mac Mini also had multiple years of just being left to sit there. There was zero in between them except the AIOs. And we're not talking about big redesigns but just basic normal CPU updates and the like that every single other computer manufacturer on the planet does like clockwork as a matter of course.
They might, maybe, be turning that around now but a single release does not make a trend. And that desktop systems were a distant last place in Apple's priorities vs iDevices or notebooks has been extremely obvious and is utterly uncontroversial since the 00s. That's just a statement of fact. In terms of raw income the balance shifted dramatically mid 2000s in favor of notebooks, and then of course later to iDevices. The Intel transition was driven primarily by the needs of the notebooks, not that everything else didn't come along for the ride. And Apple's corporate structure doesn't do multitasking boring stuff that well in exchange for doing single stuff incredibly well.
??? I do too. What does this have to do with anything? The lens is irrelevant for something that projects right onto the retina (trivial to correct for). Hell, I'd love it for that reason alone, would be a huge improvement for my computer usage.
>We're already basically at the limits of physics for making CPUs faster and heat dissipation is a huge issue even for products that you don't have pressed against your face and eyes all the time.
Lol? Also that you think this is relevant either is kind of confusing.
>Humans interact chiefly via sight.
Yes, hence why wearable AR/VR displays are obvious.
>But it has still been "obvious for ages" that wearable displays are going to be some big inevitable hit? No it hasn't.
Yes, it has.
>And why on earth would Apple have made this tech a priority ten years before it was viable as a consumer product?
For the same reason they were thinking about the "iPad" and then "iPhone" (tablet consideration actually came first internally even though in 2004 it was redirected toward the phone first) long, long before it "viable as a consumer product" duh. You don't get out ahead of things by waiting until after your competitors do it to get started, you make it happen early with your own R&D.
>No, Apple's desktop computer operation has not been "neglected" lately; they actually have been giving the Mac a lot of care and feeding, as evidenced by the really nice new MacBook Pro re-design, and the Mac Studio.
This is just pathetic. You cite the MacBook Pro as support for desktop computers and consider just this last year as a trend. I've been using Apple systems since the late 80s. Desktop systems have absolutely been massively neglected in the last decade. The Mac Pro got updated TWICE in TWELVE YEARS (the first of which was total shit), and that was after Apple pushed it massively up market vs their reliable good tower. The Mac Mini also had multiple years of just being left to sit there. There was zero in between them except the AIOs. And we're not talking about big redesigns but just basic normal CPU updates and the like that every single other computer manufacturer on the planet does like clockwork as a matter of course.
They might, maybe, be turning that around now but a single release does not make a trend. And that desktop systems were a distant last place in Apple's priorities vs iDevices or notebooks has been extremely obvious and is utterly uncontroversial since the 00s. That's just a statement of fact. In terms of raw income the balance shifted dramatically mid 2000s in favor of notebooks, and then of course later to iDevices. The Intel transition was driven primarily by the needs of the notebooks, not that everything else didn't come along for the ride. And Apple's corporate structure doesn't do multitasking boring stuff that well in exchange for doing single stuff incredibly well.