riobard

I'm sure temperature ceiling will just work like debt ceiling.

I don't think the glasses by itself will have much computing power, at least in the near term the primary computing will be offloaded to phones. The glasses should mostly work as a display and position sensors.

It's still the same old concept of "magic surfaces", using screens, glasses, or projectors (all implementation details) to realize it is irrelevant.

Speaking of implementation details, projecting light on real-world surfaces absolutely sucks for this concept to gain adoption: issues like angular distortion, color accuracy, brightness, and energy efficiency are unsolvable. Don't waste time beating this dead horse (again).

Economy of scale currently favors the screen approach, but it's awkward to integrate multiple screens from different vendors to provide a seamless experience.

Both screens and projectors require multiple units to achieve the demo scenes. Screens would have to be mounted on much more surfaces of the home, while at least one projector is needed for each room. The cost adds up quickly.

That leaves us the only hope with smart glasses. Actually, smart glasses are also a type of projector——casting light not onto real-world surfaces, but directly into our eyes. It has the benefit of requiring just one unit for each viewer, and it could adapt to any kind of space, not limited to just surfaces. It has no inherent shortcomings of angular distortion/color accuracy/brightness. Its energy efficiency is the best and will keep improving. It just needs many more iterations to miniaturize so it can be just the size/weight of normal eye glasses to be unnoticed.

> There is one aspect in which the Mac is the perfect agent host: Apple has, for decades, invested in a combination of scriptability, automation, and accessibility APIs (these are very often the same thing) that makes it remarkably well-suited to computer use.

It's the software that matters here, not the hardware.

Maybe they could start a Archive@Home project for volunteers to donate unused disk space for the greater good.

If you haven't yet got any portable drives in the drawer, chances are high that you rarely need to copy large amount of files around anyway. In which case free tier of cloud sync services would be preferred for the majority of users.

At this particular point in time, yes SSD is expensive. But 5~10Gbps USB 3.0 SSD had been very affordable for a long time before 2025.

what's the latency when someone pressed the button and you hear the bell?

For the time spent finding the ethernet adapter, plugging the cable, configuring IP addresses, and testing with pings, any decent portable SSD drives should have finished copying tens of GB of data.

Unified memory is about address space. The bandwidth is still determined by bottlenecks to the processor. CPU/RAM links are still fairly narrow.

> because all those cheap smart home things like roku sticks and pet feeders and so on are built for cost and a decent 5Ghz chip is just too much to ask.

Cost certainly is the primary factor in the decision, but you definitely want those low-bandwidth but long-range devices OFF your precious 5GHz band.

Unless you want the same crappy experience of 2.4GHz band in 5GHz.

It's slightly better than the aggregate number :p

When talking about network bandwidth, it is custom to measure in bit-per-second therefore the "bps" notation. If you convert to bytes, it is highly recommended to use "b/s" notation instead, i.e 150MB/s, to avoid confusion.