So are we all returning our vision pros as the news stories seem to indicate is the big wave? This is what you decide to do to start the show. I was saving this and now you're just going to drop this one right up front. Yeah, you are returning yours?
No, of course not. But I was trying very hard to make it sound believable. I'm a terrible liar, so I don't think I succeeded, but I was trying very hard. No, I didn't return.
I mean, truth be told, now we are getting into a topic that I don't think you intended, but it is exceedingly overpriced. It is exceedingly heavy. I don't think my particular nose construction is terribly compatible with it, and I'm stubborn and obstinately refusing to use the probably more comfortable two-sided strap. I'm still on the crank strap.
I feel like my particular nose construction is that all of the weight really wants to rest on my nose. And part of the problem is, I've heard other people not complain as much about the nose thing, but complain about the fact that the Vision Pro really wants to sit lower on your face than I think I would choose to naturally put it. And so if I put it where I think is most comfortable and not on my nose ridge or whatever, I'm sure there's an anatomical term for it. But if I sit where I want to sit, then it's like, please move heads up down.
It's too high or I've got the messages. But if you have a Vision Pro, you've seen it. If you've seen any of the videos, you've probably seen it. That's the Vision Pro equivalent of your hand just covering up the face ID camera on your iPad Pro.
Yeah, exactly. I could not think of it better than an LG. And so I have to have it ride a little bit lower than I want. And so for me, all of the weight tends to sit on my nose unless I really crank the crank strap really tight, in which case, then I can transition some of that weight onto my forehead or sometimes my cheekbones.
And that's better. But I was in a room at the library again today. And after like an hour and a half, two hours, it was hurt my schnapps a little bit. And comically, Aaron hadn't had a chance to try it until this past weekend.
We've just been so very busy. And for her, all of the weight was on her cheekbones. And immediately, I knew I should have put the dual strap or whatever it's called on there for. But we just wanted to go plow ahead with what I was trying to show her.
And it was so uncomfortable for her that she ended up having her pointers as load-bearing fingers under the Vision Pro, just to keep it from slamming into her cheekbones. I mean, I don't think Aaron has exceedingly prominent cheekbones. I think they're regular-ish cheekbones. Well, this is part of what the different...
Did you see people linked around that there's a thread on Reddit where the people were compiling basically what the light seal sizes mean? Oh, I did not see that. So there's the two digits and then the NOW at the end. They've figured out through various sleuthing and trial and error and stuff that it basically encodes each digit of separate.
It's not like 23 millimeter versus 33 millimeter. Like it's the two and the one or whatever. Those are two different indicators. They can both change up or down.
And one of the factors, I forget the specifics, but one of the factors is whether it sits high or low on your cheekbones or something like that. And so chances are, this is just for Aaron to comfortably wear it, she would most likely need a different light seal. Which I would totally buy. That being said, the scan that she did said the same as me.
That doesn't mean that that's the right answer. It's just the automated scan says she and I have the same one. But it very well could be that if we had all of them arrayed out in front of us, I mean, hell, maybe if not mine would be different. But I concur that it's very likely that maybe a different light seal would work better for her.
But certainly if she were to buy her own based only on the experience she had by scanning her face, she would end up with the same one I've got. I think one of the things that's hurting Division Pro's initial sales and reactions is they've made the system so complicated of how to fit it. And it seems like whatever the app is saying should fit you, maybe it's not always accurate or maybe they just are not good at presenting alternatives to people or whatever it is. It's a highly fit dependent device.
And I was thinking like, why do we not hear about this so much with the Quest headsets? I mean, obviously part of it is I think we are applying the stricter standards to Apple because everyone does and they always get more scrutiny. But I think part of it might also just be like, there's such a weight difference. Like Apple chose to make a very high-end headset.
It's a very heavy headset compared to its competitors. And maybe therefore, it is more sensitive to like different fit adjustments. And I was thinking like, is it a mistake to have made the Division Pro in such a way that the light seal or whatever whatever the fit mechanics of it are are not adjustable on the device? Now obviously that would introduce more mechanical complexity, probably a little bit more weight as a result of that.
But like, would it have been a better choice? I know Apple would never do this, but would it have been a better choice to have like some adjustment knobs or whatever, like on the actual light seal to have it be someone adjustable? I don't know, but it seems like there's a lot of areas where Apple's approach to this is you find your perfect fit or more often we automatically find it for you. Here it is, period.
And like if your perfect fit is a little bit different, they're just like, no, this is your perfect fit, period. Like, and there's just no alternative, right? I wonder if that's the method of tweak over time. So third party opportunity though, it's kind of like how third party sell tips for the AirPods Pro, right?
Like all the, you can buy foamy tips or plastic tips or tips or you can take them all over your ear. Because as far as I know, there is no weird DRM or parts pairing with the light shield, it's just fabric and plastic and a couple of little magnets. I would imagine that if this product ever becomes popular enough that it can sustain a third party ecosystem for light shields, like they start selling to lots of people, there'll be third party things that you can snap in there that are very differently shaped, maybe are adjustable, you know, like, I think the rigidity of the main screen part is tough to change at this point in the technology curve because there's a lot of stuff going on there that really kind of has to be carefully aligned. But the replaceable light shield is actually a good design for, if not Apple, doing this for third parties.
So yeah, we'll sell you a thing for less than $200 that goes between you and the main unit and maybe you can find one of these that fit you better. I mean, certainly like the quest line does have many third party like, you know, head gaskets or whatever you call head gaskets. It's in your car engine and it's on your head set too. Much easier to replace the VR head set ones though.
Very true. But I don't know, I do think that, I don't know how I got on this tangent, which I believe I did to myself, but I do really like this device. I wish it was cheaper. I wish it was lighter.
But it is really cool. And since I do feel like it is a compulsory purchase for this, for my job, both in terms of ATP and Colesheet, I feel like I kind of had to spend the money and I will wind about the money. I spent until the end of time because hi, have we met? Hi, this is Casey.
And I will have it until the end of time. Right. There. But I do really love the device and, you know, it is incredible for media consumption.
I think you and I will never see eye to eye as whether or not it's good as a secondary monitor for your replacement monitor for your Mac. And we're going to talk about that more later. But it is extremely, extremely cool. And now I don't play.
I mean, my time is run out at this point. I think is running out of your house right now. But I don't plan to return it. And I do really like it.
It is not a perfect product by any stretch. And I don't know if I go so far as to say, I love it quite yet, but I do really, really like it. And I'm enjoying having it at hand and using it. I see, I think it's cool, but I'm treating mine.
I'm ending up using it more like a dev kit than like a product that's going to really have a huge place in my life so far because I mean, first of all, look, Apple reaped what it sowed. There are no apps. There's no games. There's very little content.
Apple did this 100% to themselves. The developers are just largely not there. So there's not much for me to do with it besides watch movies. And the reality is, I don't watch that many movies.
And when I do watch movies, I'm rarely watching them alone. Yeah. I'm not sure I'm going to have all you for it. That's not to say that no one else has to use for this.
But just me, like I don't have a ton of use for it. I was really hoping the Mac screen angle of it would be very useful to me, especially now. I'm like, you know, in this weird housing transitional period where like, I really want a big monitor, but I can't really fit one in this rental house. And like, there's all sorts of, you know, uses that I thought I might be able to speak out of it that ends up not really working that well for me.
So for me, it's really just a dev kit. And it's a dev kit for a branch of my app that I'm not really working on yet because I don't have time. So I'm working on the iPhone version. And I think this is going to be kind of a story we keep hearing, like something like that.
We're like, it's going to be difficult again over time. It's going to be difficult for developers to justify investing time into the into the vision of this platform. If there's no customer base for it and it's not a lot of apps and content on it, it's going to be difficult for a lot of people justify buying one, especially with the other, you know, hard to justify factors like the price of the single person experience and, you know, some of the version one challenges limitations. Maybe I'm totally wrong.
And maybe this is selling like gangbusters way above expectations and maybe they can keep thinking that they don't need developers. But the reality is what Apple has shown in their interactions around apps or policy over and over again is they believe that they grace us with a platform full of users and we should kiss their feed and thank them and give them a third of our money or whatever, you know, because these are their customers. They're bringing to us effectively. Therefore, we are not really bringing a value to the platform that they are bringing the platform full users and we should be very thankful for that.
And I think what we're seeing here is maybe this is demonstrating the value of developers to the platform. If not a lot of people are finding much to do with it, that's because there's not a lot of apps and content for it. And that's because there's not a lot of third part of development for it. And so I maybe, I mean, I know Apple will not change their app or policy, but maybe at least this helps show them a little bit, like kind of where it hurts because they just did this huge launch of this huge platform and it's, I think it might be maybe a little bit of expectations.
It's probably what I'm saying, but I'm kind of feeling like, I think they thought there would be a lot more apps than there are. And I think they thought there would be a lot more developer interest in their husband. Maybe they thought there'd be a lot more content deals from the big content publishers and stuff. And maybe that's not really happening as quickly or yet either.
This platform is starving for apps and content. It just it's starving for them. It's just not there yet. And I hope it's coming.
But what if it's not like Apple's going to have to just make this work largely on their own because they've done such an effective job of alienating everyone else in the industry. Other than broad changes to app store policy, like, you know, like C level changes, I'm not sure what I would have done differently, but I do think and I can't help it wonder if seating dev kits to a handful of indies would have gone a long way, especially if it was in concert with Talk about it, you know, because I think the problem is if they had seated, let's say underscore for the second discussion, they shortly would have said, well, here's your dev kit. You may tell no one, you know, and then that's not really accomplishing much like, yes, then that gets an even more polished version of widget Smith in the store on day one than was already there, which is good. But I think the better approach would have been to hand underscore one and say, go to tell me and talk about it.
Get people excited if you can. I mean, not an edict. You know what I mean? Like, you know, if he's going bananas doing all of this work and having all this fun and underscore would talk about it.
And underscore would be a few of about it, not because he's full of garbage. He's not at all, but because he's just a person who finds the good in things. And so I think, you know, you see it in underscore, you see it at James Thompson or whatever. And and you start to build a little more enthusiasm in the indie community.
And I think and I mean, admittedly, as I'm saying this, I'm like, well, of course, you think that because you're in the indie community. And maybe that's true, but I don't know, I feel like it would have done a lot to build enthusiasm amongst anyone other than Disney and like unity or whoever it was. I don't even know if they got dev kits after soon. But you know, whoever it is, I got the dev kits.
It certainly didn't seem to be indies from what I can tell. And I feel like that was a missed opportunity. And it could have been that they wanted to and they just couldn't produce them in time or something held it up. I don't know.
But it sure seems like if you were doing these labs, which admittedly were pretty controlled, by the way, I went to a lab. I can't tell anything else. You know, even despite these controlled labs, I feel like if you had those labs, you must have had the quantity of devices at a stage in which they were complete enough that you could have seated a handful of like trusted indies as well as the Disney's of the world. And I wish they did.
And they didn't. And so like you said, they're they're reaping with this. And there isn't a lot on there. There's there's really not.
And I think part of this is exacerbated by your average iPad app is really not great on the vision pro in part because all the iPad apps are shown in light mode and all the vision pro apps, the native apps are not literally in dark mode, but effectively in dark mode. And part of it is because these iPad apps are designed for touch targets that are much smaller than I targets. And I found that with almost every iPad app, it's often prohibitively difficult to grab the right target without using a cursor of some sort and slack is to me the opinion of this. I think I brought this up several times, but like changing between different slacks, which is something I do constantly in that app is very, very difficult.
And I don't necessarily fault slack for this, but it's just that the targets are too small and then it becomes difficult to use slack and then it's like, well, I'm just going to get my work done on my computer then. And and so all of these iPad apps are kind of and there's not many vision pro apps because none of us had them. And so now what? And it's like it's exactly what you said, Mark.
Like where do you go from here? Apple? What are you going to do? Well, you've seen it's like maybe I think the launch of the vision pro kind of is that dev kit program.
You know, obviously a lot of people are buying them, you know, for their own, you know, uses their entertainment use, a lot of it just kind of status or YouTubers, you know, playing with it. But like, whatever it is, a lot of people buying them as early doctors. But I also think a lot of the early purchases are companies and developers who are wanting to start experimenting with their get on board with their try to, you know, look at porting their apps or whatever. And this is just that is their dev kit program largely.
And it'll just so happens that you'll also see them like, you know, people watching movies and first class and airplanes as well. The way it is now with there being almost no software and almost no content, it's not like a failure per se. It just really hurts the argument to buy it and it really hurts the experience of owning it when, you know, I think people are predisposed to to assume any new tech product is a fad that will fail and then laugh at it. That's a very common thing in media and to commentary culture.
And I think if everyone who buys the vision pro at first ends up not using it very much a few weeks later because they kind of ran out of stuff to do on it, that's not great for the reputation of that product and its launch. None of this should come into surprise to Apple like they saw coming up to the launch like they knew how many apps there weren't, you know, they knew which apps were being built native and which ones weren't they knew, you know, Netflix didn't have their native app submitted to them or whatever. You know, all the things that are missing, like they knew that going into it. So it isn't like a surprise to Apple.
Again, I hope that they are stepping on the gas behind the scenes in terms of their own content efforts. They're going to have to do most of this on their own. They're not going to get a lot of help from third party developers or third party content makers on this. They have to be making a ton of the 3D content.
They've been making a ton of the environment content, any kind of experiential virtual travel stuff. They have to be the ones to kickstart that themselves because no one else is going to do it with these numbers and with Apple having, you know, really alienated so many people over the last decade. And it's funny too, and we should probably move on from this. But I think what's kind of unfortunate about it is even though I'm, you know, I'm a little bit about everything, like this is an amazing device.
Leaving aside the physical comfort, which is a big deal, leaving aside the cost, which is a big deal. Like if you can get passed out or just forget it for a minute, this is a truly incredible device. And, you know, the 3D stuff, like consuming a 3D movie in it is very cool, but the immersive content of which there is very little, but we're hearing more and more rumblings that there's more coming. In fact, statements even that there's more coming.
The immersive content is what is the Tim phrase, it's blow away. It really just knocks your socks off. Was that a four-cellism? I think it was a four-cellism.
Maybe it was. I think you might be right, actually. I know that you say that. It has caught on since then.
It has spread. I think you might be right. But anyways, the immersive stuff is just it's unlike anything I've ever experienced. It's tremendous.
And for me, and I'm not saying it's true for you, Mark, or anyone else, but for me, I really like the Mac Virtual Display thing and Universal Control. It works pretty well. It's not perfect. It works pretty well.
And so, and you know, briefly using this on a train a few weeks ago was amazing. And so this is a truly incredible, incredible device. And even though, you know, we've kind of accidentally enumerated some of the crappy parts of it, it is incredible. And whether or not it's the future, it is a future that I am on board with and is super neat.
And I don't want to lose sight of that because I think we're coming across as two grumpy old men, which is accurate. But there's a good side to this as well that we're not giving it. We're not shining a light on. Like it is incredible.
And if you are lucky enough to be able to have one, it is very, very cool. And I really think that there's a lot of potential here. It's a question whether or not we'll realize it. And I think it's going to have a slower start than anyone thought.
Like, you know, because we were just saying a few weeks ago, like, this is going to be going to sales as many as they can make. It's going to be back ordered for we, you know, for the whole year, it's going to be back ordered, like, you know, it's going to be supply, constraint, whatever. I just looked and I can pick one of these up tomorrow or I can have a chip to be next week. And that's not good for the sales figures, I think.
Speaking of things with a lot of potential that may or may not have been realized, two different things. First of all, the 2015 movie Steve Jobs and second of all, our new member special about that movie. Oh, we recorded this month's members only special about Steve Jobs, the 2015 movie with Michael Fassbender and Kate Winslet and a bunch of other people. This is a movie about Steve Jobs and what four years after he passed away.
And so we, like I said, we don't remember special on it. If you are not a member, John, what you need to do in order to become a member. You're waking me up for my slumber to pitch the membership program? Yeah, you could have bought a bit of it.
You could have been a part of this. You opted out of the conversation, sir. Well, you just got through it. Tell me why I shouldn't get one.
I was trying to bring it back around. That was the whole point. If you want to get one, it's really easy. It sounds like there's no apps for it.
That's not what I want to watch. I made you leave soccer games that have already taken place because Apple just announced everybody in that comment. Anyway, put you to sleep before I talk about the good parts, apparently, because there are good parts, for sure. ATP.fm slash join if you'd like to become a member.
Not all of our members, specials are about movies, but some of them are. And this one is great sales pitch. It is accurate. It is accurate.
It is accurate. I know it was a lot of fun watching this and talking about it. I don't want to give anything away. But yeah, remember that if you go to ATP.fm slash join, you can join on a monthly or yearly basis.
You can also go to ATP.fm. It's actually common minute ago. Whoops. Anyway, ATP.fm slash gift.
If I'm not mistaken to gift yourself or someone else, a membership, hint hint hint. But yeah, we had a lot of recording this one. And if you become a member for any amount of time, you can go back in history books and listen to any of our member specials. And you can do that as long as you are a member.
So you can check that out. We've done one a month for almost a year now. I think there's something like that. I don't have a count in front of me, but we have a fair bit of member specials in the can at this point.
So check it out. ATP Movie Club Steve Jobs. And we'll put links on shown to the relevant information at.fm slash join. Let's start some follow up at 30 minutes in the recording.
Chase writes regarding the blur in the vision pro when you turn your head. I'm pretty sure that this is just typical sample and hold display blur. This also affects televisions and where the idea of motion resolution comes from impulse displays like CRTs and plasma have much higher motion resolution to combat this. LCDs can use backlight strobing and OLEDs can use black frame insertion and a blur busters, which apparently is a website I learned today.
Has a really good resource where you can read about blur of all kinds. A lot of headsets like the vision or the excuse me, the quest to three use very low persistence to get much better motion resolution. The downsides and brightness, the upside of the micro LED displays and pancake lenses that it allows the displays to be very close to the eyes and having the way closer to the head is better for comfort. The downside of pancake lenses is that they swallow much more light of the light coming off the displays than Fresno.
It's for now. For now. Yeah. But it's those lenses that are flat that look like a bunch of concentric circle ridges on them.
OK. So are other aspiric lenses will. So even if it displays 5,000 it's once you have colorful polarizers and the pancake lenses, the brightness we see can still end up very low. The other consumer headset using pancake lenses micro OLED displays is the big screen beyond three, which I've never heard of.
It is very dim, especially if you turn down the brightness to get acceptable persistence. Chase continues, I believe Apple is pushing persistence further than they should in order to get more brightness back because they want to push HDR as a thing on the vision pro. So on this topic, I'm for the motion blur in motion. I wish I had known to look for that when I had my demo because I would have.
I didn't notice it, but clearly Marco has an effort from other people as well. And I do wonder if I still wonder if this is what they're talking about. So the sample and whole thing, this happens on OLED TV as well. The deal with OLEDs is you light up a pixel and it stays whatever color you made it until you change it and it changes color really, really fast.
And you're like, that sounds great. This is a great display technology. What's the problem? The problem is if you watch something like a 24 frames per second movie, it will show a frame and the whole TV will show that frame just the exact frame exactly the way it is until the next frame comes.
And again, you may be thinking, that sounds like what it's supposed to do, right? Well, not really because if you think about what a movie projector does or what a CRT television does is both of those things will show the frame. And then it will basically blast it onto the screen like, boom, here's the frame. And then the frame will either fade away or quickly be replaced by black, like this plasma if you watch it in slow motion, it blasts color at the screen and then it just fades away.
Sometimes it plasms with blast some of the color, then the second part of the color and both of those will fade until the next frame appears and movie projector would show one frame of film, but then there'll be nothing as the next frame slides into view and then it will blast that frame on. So what it's really showing you is bright light, bright light, bright light, bright light. And in between the bright light, there's either total blackness or a fade to black. And I think what our brain does during these intervals is say, okay, well, there's like a train going across the screen.
Bright light, oh, there's the train. And then there's nothing or blackness. And then in second picture of the train appears and now it's moved a little bit to the right. And I bring those, oh, in between when I saw that first picture of the train and then there was blackness and then I saw the second picture of the train, I guess it must have moved between those two parts.
With sample and hold on an OLED where it just shows the train in the first position and just holds it there for one 24th of a second and then immediately shows the train in the new position. What it looks like to us, and you will see this on OLED television, if you have it set up correctly, is it stuttery? It looks like it's moving in segments. It's like, chunk, chunk, chunk, chunk, chunk, chunk.
It's like, why does it look smooth? I want to say moving the movie. The train smoothly moves from left to right. But suddenly when I watch it on my OLED TV, it's stuttering or something.
And it's not stuttering. It is carefully, if you have it set up correctly, it's showing one 24th of a second and then one 24th. And then when the thing is, it never goes black between the frames. It instantly changes from frame number one to frame number two instead of showing frame number one for a tiny fraction of a second and then showing blackness and then showing the next frame.
So this is a thing for headsets that have been rolled out and one of the innovations of Oculus, you can see John Karmack talking about this and everything. It's like, we need displays that can blast that frame really brightly for a tiny, tiny fraction of a second and then fade the black and do nothing until the next frame is ready because we want the brain to essentially fill in the second frame. And then the blank because if we show the frame the whole time until the next one is ready, even though we can do that with the lead screens, it looks jerky because your brain doesn't get a chance to fill in any of the intermediary spots. Like if you think about the train moving, you see the training position one and training position two, but if you blank out in between then your brain will fill in train position one point one point two one point three one before your brain will fill those in for you.
Those those frames don't exist, but your brain will fill you in. But if you never do that, your brain will say train is in position one. So don't position one. So don't position one.
Oh my God, it's in position two. What happened between it? It's sitting in position two and that appears jerky. This is a big thing with all the televisions, which is why people some people say I have to turn on motion.
I can't have it set up correctly. It looks wrong to me because when things look like there's a slow panning shot, I see every one of the one 24th frames that looks jerky to me. So that's what I would expect you would see in the headset. If that was a problem, you would be saying I turn my head and everything looks jerky.
But that's not what people are saying. They're saying it looks blurry. Maybe it's the same thing. Maybe it's misinterpretation.
Again, I wish I had known to look for this. I didn't notice either jerkiness or blurriness, but my eyes aren't graded. It was just half an hour demo. So I'm interested to see how this develops, but this story about Apple pushing brightness ring straight to me because things are very bright in there.
And obviously you can get more brightness by holding that image longer and not fading to black between or not fading to black as long. I'm curious, John, because when I went from plasma to OLED, I noticed this to where I remember watching the office, you know, this regular TV show shot, I assume on film or whatever. But I remember like panning shots, I noticed immediately the difference like, oh, wait, motion looks bad on OLED. Everything else looked great, but motion looked worse.
And my OLED, I mean, it was probably now seven or eight years old, so it's nowhere near cutting edge now. But I'm wondering like, do modern OLEDs today, are they better with things like black frame and turnt? Because I believe mine was one of the first ones that supported it, but it just is not fast enough of a TV. Like I tried it and it just looked terrible.
I could almost see the black frame. It was not smooth enough. Is it better now? So modern TVs are better at black frame insertion than your old ones, but still not good enough that I think you would ever want to use it.
Because here's the nature of the nature of OLEDs is they change really fast. And I think that makes it harder to do black frame insertion. The way they do it now to try to make it better is they like double or triple the frame rate so that the black frames are like faster. But OLEDs quote unquote problem is they change so fast.
Like LCD is there's all these tricks we have to play to make. The pixels change from one color to another really fast. OLEDs you don't need to play in tricks. They change really fast.
So that means they're changing really fast to blackness, which means you have a brief time that the light exists. And then immediately it's completely 100% black. And that's why you felt like you could see the blackness because it's not like it smoothly fades like a CRT like a dying star. That's not how it works.
So if we crank the frame rate up enough, can it fade to black between each frame? Yeah, there's it's really fast. But anyway, I'm saying like, can you just insert like, you know, a faded frame and another faded frame and like it? Yeah, I mean, that'd be a heck of a frame rate.
Yeah. So what you're getting out there is alternate solutions, which is basically what they do. But just to finish the black frame assertion, there are ones now that are fast enough that you can't see a flickering, but they do hit the brightness. And for the most part, you don't want to make your TV dimmer, especially OLEDs, right?
Because up until recently, OLEDs have not been, you know, people would have said I'm not bright enough for a very bright room. Now they are very bright, but then their competition is brighter still. Anyway, what they actually do, the actual solution to the stuttering problem is the good television have essentially added a form of motion smoothing that is like the most delicate form. Like you don't detect it as a soap opera effect, but it smooths that out just enough for it to not look jumpy to you.
So it's basically like motion smoothing, but turned down to the lowest possible setting, the lower than you'd ever imagine. And that basically cures the problem. And what that is doing is instead of making faded frames, it is essentially interpolating between frames, but just barely, just barely enough to make it. It doesn't take much 24 as close.
Like if the motion picture or even 30 frames, which is probably what the office was, you don't need much more frame rate above that. So they don't need to fill in a lot for it to just smooth out. I still watch mine in straight up 24 frames per second mode. I can still see it on slow-paying shots in movies sometimes, but it doesn't bother me as much as well as some people.
But yeah, that's one of the reasons you want a fancy TV because they will have a setting that says motion smoothing for people who hate motion smoothing. And it's like the turn it up to one or low or super low or whatever. And sometimes they also separate the different aspects of motion smoothing. So you don't have to apply both of them at the same time, even something to different values.
That is essentially the solution to dealing with 24 frames per second content, if you are sensitive to it, or 30 frames per second in the case of the office. Speaking of display technology and screens and trade-offs and division pro, as we were speaking about a minute ago, there's been this great series ever since the vision pro was announced and everything. There's a blog called KG On Tech by Simon and Carl Gutag. And Carl goes through is very knowledgeable about VR and displays and hardware and optics and how this works.
This kind of helps show the various trade-offs involved in the vision pros, screens and optics and what it does, why it is limited in certain ways, what the other, you know, headsets like the Quest and other thing, like what they do sometimes the same way or certain sources they make differently and why they choose differently and what the trade-offs are there. It's very, very interesting. So Carl had this article the other day about some of the trade-offs about the resolution inside the vision pro. There was a shot in the I fix it teardown video, the second I fix it down where they actually show that like the raw image on the actual little tiny screen panel and the image looks like it's being viewed through a fish island.
It's like, you know, very, it's curved, it's warped with a whole bunch of, you know, resolution spent on the middle of it and towards the edges it warps out. The screens have to kind of warp the image to make up for what the lenses in front of them are going to do as they, you know, project the image around to it so it looks like a giant field of view around your eye to give you that whole immersive effect. Since the image on the screens has that fish eye warping effect, whatever is in the center of the screen has way more resolution than what is in the periphery of each eye. So I think this kind of helps explain, first of all, some of the, you know, optical effects that you see when you're using a vision pro.
But also I think this might be part of my problem with the max screen mode. Whatever you're looking at in the vision pro, when you are looking straight ahead, that it has way more pixels, like per degree than whatever is on the edge of the screen. Now, if you turn your head, obviously you're going to turn the high resolution part of the screen towards what you're looking at. But if you are looking towards the corners of the screen only by moving your eyes and not by turning your head, then what you are looking at has way less resolution than what's in the middle of the screen.
And also other, you know, there's other kind of optical trade offs that you get when you're looking near the edges. So for instance, when you're looking towards the middle, both eyes can see what you're looking at in their respective screens. Their screens don't overlap perfectly. The left eye screen can see a little bit further on the left and the right eye screen can see a little bit further on the right, then their opposite screens can.
If you're looking past like the overlap area, where like if you're looking, you know, far to the left, only your left eye might be seeing that in its screen. So that's even less information. And it's in the lower as, you know, warped, warped edge of the screen optic trade off, you know, pipeline. So I think maybe my problem with the max screen mode is that you don't have to think about that kind of stuff when you're using a physical monitor.
A physical monitor has the same resolution across the whole thing. And you can just move your eyes and not move your whole head. And you will see pretty much the floor is loosening. Yeah, your eyes aren't super perfect in all ways either, but they're, you know, I think they have fewer trade offs than the screen.
That's what we said last week. I was saying about like when you move your eyes, your field of view moves with your eyes. So you know your eyes only see the things that are in focus that are directly in the center. You can move that center.
But when you're in the headset and you move that center by moving your eyes, the screens don't care. They don't. They don't. They don't.
They don't. Imagine if that high res center of the screen followed your eyes as you move them around, like maybe the screens are motorized. They're saying in front of your people or something. That's what happens in reality in reality.
You move your eyes and you know, your field of view is just as janky, even probably jankier than the screen, which is why Foviated rendering works as well as it does. But you get to move it wherever you want. And so you can take the dead center, highest resolution part of your eyes and point it at the Apple menu. But if you keep your head straight and you point your eyes at the Apple menu inside the vision pro, yeah, the Apple menu is probably going to look pretty janky because it's on the corner of the screens and the screens didn't move when you're eyes did.
I've been trying to figure out, you know, ever since I got the vision pro, why is it that everyone else says the max screen is sharp and it's not that sharp for me? And I think this might be one of the reasons that like I think the people for whom it's working well for maybe they are just moving their head more. Because they're multi-monitor people like Casey, right? Well, coming together or maybe they are making the virtual window smaller in the vision pro field of view.
Well, that's not what I'm doing. But you're maybe you're turning your head because you're used to having like your your three 5k monitors, you're constantly turning your head in real life. So you're used to it. I guess I mean, I haven't really thought about it that much, but yeah, I mean, it stands to reason.
That's true. I mean, I was using this earlier today and I thought to myself like, what is Marco talking about? You really don't supposedly improve this in the 1.1 beta like the max screen sharing is a little bit sharper for people. So when that update comes and just be clear, I'm not trying to imply that Marco, your fault of it or lying or anything.
It's just it's so funny to me that this device is so personal and based in a way that I don't think that any of us have ever really dealt with. It's based on your own like bodies, abilities and physiology. Is that what I'm looking for? You know what I mean?
Yeah, and habits and habits like turning your head right. And so I think I made a big thing about this episode. I'll just briefly say again, like I'm not trying to imply Mark that you're wrong or you're lying or anything like that. It's just so weird to me that your experience does not match mine on what is effectively identical hardware.
And it's just a funny quirk of this, you know, brave new world we're entering. It turns out our eyes and brains are not identical hardware. Yeah. Maybe that's the problem.
It's going to all be solved by screens that are four times as big with eight times the resolution. Yeah, no problem. I'm sure we'll be right there. Hey, you know, we got written on Mac monitors eventually.
It's just got to be patient. I think there's always going to be certain trade-offs. You know, there are, for example, like certain principles of optics. They're going to make some of this stuff more difficult, but certainly the higher resolution they can get those screens, you can paper over a lot of those problems or you can you can dramatically minimize them.
Kind of like on the iPhone screens where, you know, I think most modern iPhones essentially use the pen tile sub pixel pattern where you don't even get an R.G. and a B sub pixel for every quote unquote pixel on the screen, right? Like if you zoom in on the screens, they use this pattern where like I forget which one of the sub pixels are shared with the every pixel. You're like, how can that look good?
What a garbage screen they couldn't even give every pixel on R.G.B.? That must look terrible. The answer is no, you can't tell they're so small. Like nobody notices nobody cares, right?
Because they're so small. Yeah, I mean, even like, I mean, please designers out there cover your ears for just this moment. When I like draw icons and think about like font weights and icon stroke widths for my app, you used to have to think about like, are you going to make everything like exactly, you know, like 1.5 points or 3 points or whatever it was, so it would perfectly line up on pixel boundaries. It's inter-multiple.
Yeah. Like, and so it would look good on retina screens and non-written screens. It would perfectly align with everything. And these days, I don't think about that anymore.
Like once we went to 3x density iOS screens, which I believe happened at the same time, I believe that was all with the iPhone 10 and forward, I have yet to find any stroke width that I choose to use that looks blurry or bad compared to other ones. So now I just, I just do this, I'm like, all right, I want this icon to be semi bold. I want this one to be medium. You know, like I just do that and kind of let the system do what it wants with thicknesses.
And they're not always perfect in your multiples. And it turns out it's totally fine because we have such incredibly high density on the screens now. So I think with Vision Pro, I think you're like, once down way down the road, I don't think this is coming soon, but way down the road, maybe 10 years from now, when they can double the resolution of the screens or more, I think a lot of these problems will get a lot less noticeable. But until then, it's just going to be trade-offs that we live with, and that's just the reality of the technology we have so far.
Tony D. Taranto writes, adding to the categories of ATP listeners with jobs in every profession, I am a professional coral conductor in longtime listener to the show. This is my favorite corner. It really is.
I had a funny thought while listening to John Describe, Window Management, VisionOS, and episode 574, specifically about how our eyes normally function as input devices and not output devices. In the course of my work and in my professional training at music school, I've learned an important thing that most people who aren't conductors don't think about. When giving cues conveying information, it's important what you do with your arms and hands, but it's arguably more important what you do with your eyes. I contact in directing your gaze as an even stronger form of communication and control than arm and hand gestures.
From when I first started conducting technique in college, when I first studied conducting technique in college, I had to train my gaze as much, if not more, than my gesture to achieve the desired result from the group. I just wanted to provide this as an example of how, although I'm no Superman, I feel like I use my eyes as an output device for my work. I was conductors, they just see all the people in the course or the orchestra's tiny instruments to be controlled by their eyes. Well, there was a line for the movie, wasn't it?
You know, they play the music, I play the orchestra or something like that. That was spoilers received, Bob's come on. HTTP.offence. When you put a folder out of some of the doc, you can't drag things into it.
It's one of those things that could be fixed in numerous ways, for example, you just disallow dragging folder out of the doc if you're not going to support it. But it hasn't been because apparently nobody cares, but you have dragging things to the doc. We get away with it because in the grand scheme of things the doc is pretty big on most people's monitor. Most people don't have their doc smaller than the menu bar, but yeah, try it.
Take something if you have a folder in the doc, take a file and try to drag it into the folder and go past the folder. Go all the way to the screen edge and you'll notice the folder's like, nope, nothing's on top of me anymore. It's crappy. I might have been filed a feed back on it years ago.
Maybe I'll file it again. I'm sure other people have, but I don't think Apple cares. But it's sad they should. Apple, this is why the unrelated Apple extends their modem licensing deal with Qualcomm through March of 2027.
So to recap, Apple bought what was Intel's modem business peers back? Intel's some modem business. Right. And they said, without saying, oh, we're going to make our own modem, so we don't have to continue to pay Qualcomm.
And then they realized, oh, this is harder than we thought. And they continue to pay Qualcomm. And now they've apparently realized, no, it's still harder than we thought. And so they are extending their deal even further, reading from Mac rumors.
Apple has extended its modem chip licensing agreement with Qualcomm through March 2027. Qualcomm said today during its first earnings call of 2024, Apple's existing agreement has now been extended for two years. So we can expect to see Qualcomm modems and the next several iPhone generations. I'm great for Apple.
I still think they really should make that modem and maybe think about integrating it into the SOC or near the SOC. But the first thing I make one that works, good luck. I keep mine also like, you know, just because they have a license deal with Qualcomm through 2027, doesn't necessarily mean that Apple is not going to ship some modems before then. It probably means that.
But this could be like Apple is going to need Qualcomm's chips until, you know, through March 2027 for some parts of their lineup. So it's possible that next year, one of the iPhones gets it or some variant of it, whether it's the iPhone SE. If they're going to want to start this slow, I think it's not going to debut in the pro phone probably. I think they're probably going to be wearing it.
Like, you know, put it out in the SE first or something like just, I don't know what they're going to do. But like, given how hard it's been, I don't think this is a bet your flagship product. I don't think they can make enough of them. I don't like it's the TSMC would do it for them or whatever.
But yeah, I think given how this has gone, a gradual, gradual rollout of Apple's modems is a good idea. Remember last time they used Intel modems in their phones and you either get the Intel modem or the Qualcomm one. And nobody wanted the Intel one because it wasn't great. And that was kind of on their flagship phone.
Yep, I had the Intel one. That was the AT&T iPhone 7. Yeah. So it's not good.
One stop. It's tough. So I hope Apple does take this slow. Keep extending that deal, lock in whatever deal you have to go with Qualcomm.
I know these two companies hate each other, but you kind of need cell modems for cell phones. Indeed. Going back many episodes now, probably five or 10 episodes, we're talking about patents. And an anonymous person wrote in to say Apple employees are heavily incentivized to file patents.
It's one of the few ways to make additional income at Apple outside of your normal job responsibilities. Apple has an entire department and online portal to streamline the process. I can't find the exact numbers right now, but I believe employees receive at least $1,000 of patents accepted and approved. The caveat, of course, is that Apple owns all of the intellectual rights to the invention.
I don't mean to sneeze at $1,000. $1,000 is a lot of money, but like that seems to be right. Yeah. Yeah, for Apple for it.
Like that does seem like a little it seems lower than I would have guessed. Well, that's Apple's MO. Their whole rep is that they don't pay as much as their competitors because everyone should just be happy to be working there because Apple. But yeah, that was like my bother.
Anyone share stock. We're sponsored this episode by Celtrios. This is a schmup, a shoot him up game. They actually sponsored us a while ago and they're back with even more updates.
So here's the idea. It's a shoot him up. So tiny ship, big weapons, waves of foes and powerups and obstacles. And all of this is brought to you with no ads, no in-app purchases, no subscription and nothing is locked.
You can play Celtrios over and over again as long as you want with lots of customization options to keep it fresh and Celtrios is available exclusively for Apple platforms, Mac, iPhone, iPad and Apple TV. So Celtrios has 13 different stages. You can start from each other when you want. You can also, of course, resume play later if you quit the app.
You have a million different possibilities when you're configuring your ship, dozens of abilities and, of course, you know, randomizing options, full screen options, huge amount of ways to play both, you know, kind of mechanically. And then also just how your ship is configured. It's great. Celtrios also has a huge high quality soundtrack.
Over 45 minutes of music and Celtrios keeps expanding. There have been over 75 free updates to it so far and the entire thing was made by an independent developer. So, of course, this is right in my heart, you know. So Celtrios supports one or two players at a time.
On the Mac, you can do various input methods with iOS, the second player in the game controller, but hey, it works. So it's just a great shoot him up or shoot him up kind of game. I love this genre of game. It's so fun.
You know, like the old arcade games taken to the extreme with all the modern capabilities. It's wonderful. So get Celtrios if you love traditional shmups or you just want a quality game that's fun to play again and again with none of those usual annoyances of other modern games. Mac only Celtrios is available on Steam with a free demo or head over to the Apple App Store to get Celtrios for iOS and TVOS.
Thank you so much to Celtrios for sponsoring our show once again. Harvey Simon writes in regards to the magnetically attached Apple Watch bands that are rumors magnets screw with compasses. Apple watches have compasses. There go.
Apple is unlikely to add magnetic attachments or Apple Watch bands. So, I mean, I'm not an expert in magnets, but that makes sense to me. If you're waiting for extremely powerful magnets to be connecting your Apple Watch band, maybe that won't work well with the compass feature of the watch. Time will tell.
I think working around magnetic strength limitations is not that hard because again, I'm not a scientist, but I'm pretty sure a magnet of strength falls off dramatically with distance. It does. And if you have fixed magnets inside the Apple Watch that are always in the same position, I would expect it would not be super hard to just calibrate that out from the sensor. That third party watch fans might throw a monkey wrench into that.
It will depends where the magnets are the magnets in the body or are they in the band? I would imagine that in both places. The one that works well, the case is also have magnets in them and third party ones tend to be stronger than Apple's in my experience. Maybe.
But I think if they're in the watch body, which I mean, actually, does the charging disk on the bottom? Are there any magnets on the watch side of that? They probably are. I would imagine.
There's electricity, so there's also magnetism. It's complicated. Yeah. Anyway, so I think they could design around this.
I don't think it would be that big of a deal. We'll say, well, this is still just a rumor. We haven't seen anything concrete on the watch strap thing since we talked about it, except for vague notions of watch strap magnets. OK, well, so give me a drawing.
Give me something. We don't have any. Fair enough. All right, and then finally for follow up this week, more on the line or letter of credit from Brian coffee.
As someone who also works in commercial banking specifically, problem commercial loans, I need to clarify the comments on the requirements to get a letter of credit. Drawing a letter of credit. Yes, Apple could draw on the letter of credit, but in the agreement, they must have a good and valid reason. The typical use for a letter of credit is for international shipping, where you ship the goods before getting paid.
The letter of credit ensures the overseas recipient won't stiff you. The shipper who got stiff must go to their bank to work with the ship E's bank to claim that the shipper never got paid. And with regard to getting a letter of credit, a letter of credit is a credit product of the bank. Once a letter of credit is drawn upon, it instantly becomes a loan.
A company can get an unsecured letter of credit if they're producing enough cash flow to show their quote unquote good for the money, if the letter of credit ever gets drawn upon. If a potential borrower doesn't have strong enough cash flow to support this, there are alternatives. Smaller businesses can put up their homes or retirement accounts collateral. You could also be 50% secured or really any percent secured depending on the strength of your cash flows.
All this is to say, you don't absolutely have to put a million in cash in the bank, but you do have to show a bank that you could reasonably come up with a million if you had to and prove it. So it's not exactly handing a bank a million bucks or a million euros, but it's not that far away either. Yeah, I mean, like any bank thing, if you can convince something to do something for you, then fine, but yeah, I feel like the bank basically wants to know you have something that we can get. You have something that we can get a million dollars from, even if we need to like, repossess your home or whatever.
So it's not as bad as you must have a million dollars in cash, but I feel like you still kind of have to have somewhere to get a million dollars for a bank to agree to this because that's kind of the whole deal. Once you have a really friendly bank and it's like, we like your face. We think it's fine. Yeah, we'll front you a million bucks because we like your face.
That sounds reasonable. Yeah. All right. Let's move on to some topics and of course we have a little bit more vision pro to talk about.
And John, you seem to be very enthusiastic to talk about personas, baby. So what you got? It's kind of like when we talk about eyesight last week. The reason this feature exists is obvious and I think is not really going to go away.
So personas are the little fake computer people that you use to represent yourself when you're on a FaceTime call. And the reason for them is obvious being on a video call in a Zoom meeting for your work in a FaceTime or whatever. It's so common today. It's a very common part of using computers.
But if you got weird see goggles wrapped to your face, how do you get yourself into a video call? Do you let your max web cam show your weird ski gogley face? I think people would find that off putting even with the creepy eyesight things on it. So Apple solution is, hey, we'll make a little computer version of you.
And when you're in your FaceTime call or a Zoom meeting, the little computer puppet of you will talk. And that problem is not going to go away until we're actually wearing glasses, just like regular glasses, but there's many, many years in the future if it ever comes in any form. So you're going to need some way to show your face in these meetings. I guess the solution is, oh, we're having a Zoom meeting.
Why isn't your video turned on? Oh, I'm wearing a headset, so you can't see me. I'm not sure that's necessarily going to fly. And you wouldn't want it to because there's a lot of bandwidth, a lot of communication that happens from your facial expressions.
So Apple's solution to this is these weird creepy computer models. And as weird as they are, I think Apple's going to keep plugging away at this. They've taken a lot of flack for this during the rollout because they look kind of creepy and scary. I don't think Apple is going to be scared away nor should they, because I think video conferencing is not going away.
And it's going to be a long time before these things on our face don't look like Seagulls and kind of hide everything about our most things about our face. So I think I just need to keep plugging away at it as embarrassing as it is now. And as for how embarrassing it is, like the last episode I think we do it about it, we showed Casey's persona and the graphic for that episode. They look silly, but only if you have a more, I think you have a more appreciation for them.
If you have any experience with this type of thing before and most of my experience with this type of thing comes from video games and similar tech where they would put your face in the game, make a skin for your player character or whatever. And the things that have been built into games have been so much worse than what Apple did. They really are one of the best instances I've ever seen of this picket technology. And we'll put a link in the show notes to someone demonstrating this.
The thing I think that's most impressive about Apple's two things. One, that they're able to make something that looks as good as it does. I know you're hearing that you're like, what do you mean? I mean, I think it's a terrible look like a death mask.
It could be so much worse. It could be so much worse. I guess they'll blur the edges to hide their sins or whatever, but they're doing an amazing job with a face scan that you can do. Not a professional scan.
Go look at things where they have a famous Hollywood actor in a video game and they have that person go into a full motion capture studio and have them stand there with balls on their shoulders and lasers shooting them for a million angers, incredibly controlled environment. They spend the entire day getting their face scanned and they put them in the game and they look awful. And this is, oh, just hold this key, I was in front of your face for two seconds, turn to the side and Apple's doing a better job. So that's impressive.
But the second thing is it's demoed in this video. How well it tracks the expressions you're making with your face. So you're wearing ski goggles and you're raising your eyebrows and you're blinking and you're twisting your mouth and you're sticking out your tongue and you're smiling and you're frowning and you're farrowing your brow. And somehow Apple's able to detect all those things.
Some of those things are happening inside the headset. Some of those things are happening outside the headset. It is phenomenal what they do. Now, does the little puppet look like you once doing that?
You know, it's got the same perfect fake teeth and everyone's got the same weird artificial tongue. And it's not, you know, if you can make the W shape with your tongue, the avatar's not going to, right? It does a really good, I think it does a good enough job, kind of like a really well articulated puppet would do, of letting the people who are on the Zoom call with you or whatever. No, what expression you're making?
Are you, you know, are you happy about that? Are you skeptical? Are you angry? Are you not paying attention?
Like, I feel like they do an amazing job of matching the movements of the various parts of your face and reflecting those. No, it's not perfect. It's not capturing all the subtleties of your acting performance. It might not even really look like you.
But kind of like I was, you know, talking about the cartoon eyes. Sometimes just sort of a, not a cartoon eyes, but like a decomposed, less granular version of the video. So, you can compose less granular version of you captures a lot of it. It's the reason animation can look so good.
Animation doesn't look photo realistic, but the right lines in the right places can be very expressive in animation, and I feel like that's what Apple's going for. This isn't exactly you, but if they catch enough, if they put the right lines in the right places, they can convey most of the information in your faces expressing. And again, I'm really impressed that some of that expression is underneath the goggles and some of it is outside, and they put it back together into a cohesive hole. So, I'm not, I don't relish seeing any spersonas talking to me, but I think this is just one of those hard problems that Apple, and anybody who wants to do what Apple is doing, has to be resigned to tackling over the next several decades, because it's not going to go away again until we just get plain old glasses.
Until then, people are going to want to be meaning, and people are going to want to see their faces, and they're going to want to be able to use their faces again, but talk about our coral conductor as an output device, because that's part of the way we communicate with other people. You want to be able to scout with someone meaningfully and have that have an effect on them in the meeting. Yeah, I want to build on what you were saying earlier. Like as a technical achievement, it is stunning how good these are at expressing what your face is expressing.
Because remember, you've got cameras on the inside that are figuring out when you're blinking, because the persona reflects that, that figure out when you're raising your eyebrows, because the persona reflects that. I don't recall if it reflects where your eyes are looking, but I think it does. Yeah, it does, pretty sure. And it certainly, you can turn your face left and right, not down, and then your smile.
Like that's happening outside the device. And granted, there are cameras, you know, pretty much everywhere on this thing, but still there's, you know, it's outside the device that you're smiling or sticking. You're tongue out like you had said. And whether or not, like, leaving aside the creepiness factor or the uncanny valley, which again, just like I was saying in the beginning of the show, like that's a big thing to just push under the carpet, but leaving that aside, the technical achievement is really just phenomenal and stunning how good it is.
And you know, I had a, I do a monthly face on Call of James Thompson. We had one this morning and because we jumped on the call, I don't know either of us, but we both kind of assumed it. You know, we jumped on the call, you know, started off the calls in our vision pros with our personas and so on and so forth, and had a good laugh about it and, you know, chuckled about how regularly we both looked, and we hung up and, you know, got on the computer like we usually do. But I mean, I think if we'd stuck with the personas, it would have been awkward for a few minutes.
And this is a very common refrain from people who've done it, you know, would have been awkward for a few minutes. And then it would have felt pretty normal all in all. And I think that's how it typically ends up. Like I'm not saying it's not weird.
I'm not even necessarily saying it's not creepy, but I don't know. You settle into it and again, as a technical exercise, it is beyond compare. Did you look at the Charlie Chapman video, by the way, the one that I was referring to? Do you have a chance to look at it?
I think I skimmed through it super quickly, if memory serves. Some of the things he does, for example, are like puffing air underneath his, like, into his lips and into his cheeks and also talking out of like the side of his mouth. Like that's what I'm talking about, but it's not just like a puppet where it's like, I can tell when you're opening your mouth and you set a T sound. So I'll make it look like you're making a T sound with your tongue.
Like you can do weird stuff with your face that is not normal, like, you know, puffing your lips up and, you know, talking weird, like, and it's, I mean, is it tracking it exactly? No, but they're accounting for the fact that you might do that and they're mapping it to whatever their little puppet model is of your face. Going far beyond just simply making it so that your mouth moves when you talk. Please, everyone should definitely look at this video.
And again, the fact that his whole head is all fuzzed out and he looks like a weird death mess himself. I mean, I think you are correct at how incredibly impressive this accomplishment is, but it's still not good enough. And I think this is kind of, this is larger the story of Vision Pro in general right now. Most products, like most new groundbreaking products, you tend to have mostly like routine, you know, stuff that has been done before plus like one or two big new challenges.
That's not the Vision Pro. The Vision Pro is a very small number of things that have been done before. Like here's an M2 based, you know, iPad based OS in a computing environment with Windows and stuff. And then they tackled 10 different massive challenges at least.
And they have achieved remarkable things. They're way ahead of the industry in so many ways with the Vision Pro. But the problem is they're not selling the Vision Pro and pitching the Vision Pro to people in the VR industry. They're not selling and pitching the use of personas to only gamers.
They've tackled these massive problems and they've done very respectable jobs in their solutions to them. But the problem is they're still not where most people want them to be. And they probably have some kind of like resentment whenever people criticize it on some level. Like I bet there are people in Apple who are like, how can you criticize the personas?
Because look at how amazing they are compared to the state of the art. And that's true. But when you're presenting them as an alternative to people, then people are going to hold them to a much higher standard. That's why they made the studio display camera so cruddy.
Like the Vision Pro in many ways, it's pitching itself as an alternative to various aspects of reality. That people are very good at noticing the differences between the real stuff and the fixed stuff. And they have achieved remarkable stuff. And yet it is still not good enough for what most people expect as like the basics.