Apple’s strategic position is to be the main device by which apps and AI can gain access to end users. This puts them in a nice position to charge a toll on everything that passes through their device. Now if someone were to come out with a new type of device and a new paradigm that could disrupt iPhone as the main device, Apple would be in trouble.
Not long ago, Zuck seemed really confident about metaverse/AR/VR. Apple took the disruption threat seriously and countered with AVP. Now it looks like metaverse flopped. I suspect the priority of AVP has gone down inside Apple accordingly.
Hadn't the Metaverse already well and truly flopped before the AVP came out? It's a cool device, but when it was released I felt like Apple was a couple years late and 3499 dollars short.
Interesting view, but not quite. The Big Changes in computing happen when both the mode of access, the demographic, and the primary use case change. So historically computing evolved from corporate server + batch -> real time "personal" scientific and technical -> mass market commodified PC for business and gaming -> social media, entertainment, and 'personal bureaucracy' (tickets, bank statements, and such) on mobile.
At each step the tech gets smaller and more physically accessible, the use case gets more interactive and less demanding and serious, and the demographic gets wider and less technically educated.
Apple owned a huge part of the last change with the iPhone.
What's the next step in the series?
Clearly it's not a huge device you strap to your face.
But it's also not an easy question to answer. What is the next step after social media?
From a software POV it's AI, but where's the matching hardware? The next gen has to be even smaller, multimodal, but still physically interactive, likely always on.
Glasses are the closest, but not there yet.
So I think we're still in the early Nokia mobile stage. The concept exists and the current tech is beginning to be workable, but the gamechanger refinement and perfection of the concept is still a way off.
It’s definitely glasses. Once you try any even low res HUD glasses like the Vuzix Z100, or even the Vision Pro, you might realize how annoying it is that phones, tablets, and even books subtly force you to look downwards all day.
There’s no reason I shouldn’t be able to for example take a stroll in the park and read my email, song lyrics, etc.. without craning my neck downwards or holding my phone right in front of my face. The content should just be where my eyes are looking. Even laying on the couch to watch a movie is annoying when you have to hold your arm up and shift the balance of your iPad all the time to stop getting tired. Just put it in front of me. For input, I favor a ring you can scroll and squeeze.
I’ve thought about hanging a book-holder from the ceiling by a string for this reason. Maybe a ton of helium or a quiet drone would work too. I think thats’ the frontier..having our current setups but just floating around us.
The tech is workable. The issue is the AVP is heavy and big. So I'd say we're still at the Motorola brick phone not even the Nokia stage yet. Shrink the AVP down to glasses size and I'll agree on the Nokia analogy.
I’d argue the fact that the hardware is still big and clunky means the tech isn’t workable. If it was about as light and easy to get on and off as a chunky pair of ski-goggles I think they’d have been onto something, but big and heavy with no “killer app” or feature makes it a tough sell.
VR gaming is a niche even among hardcore gamers. There’s some value in spatial computing for just being a more ergonomic way to do computer stuff (i.e. not being in a fixed position all day, being able to walk around while you work) but it’d need to be able to hit everything a Mac can do with no compromises to be worth it at that price (and at the cost of making you look goofy). So far it seems like it’s only found real utility in some very specific industrial and scientific research contexts, which is very cool but probably isn’t the lane a mass market consumer products manufacturer wants as their play long-term.
I agree with you, but the critical thing about AVP (just like iPhone, just like iPod, just like Mac) is the user interface. The device is just hardware to deliver the UI.
Apple’s UI work on AVP is under-appreciated. It’s been improving over the years, as real usage showed the need for things like shared world anchors and coordinates, prediction for pose estimation, etc.
The hardware isn’t ready yet. At this point I half-think the UI won’t be truly real until we have BCI (brain-computer interface for the offended party above). But it may well take a decade to really land what an always-on, sometimes-invisible AR UI looks like and how it works.
I found the AVP UI work to be bad honestly. I walked right up to a surface to touch it, you can't. Holding my eyes still so it registers what I'm looking at, not what I'm touching, was horrible and super unintuitive.
Everything has to be half the size or less, 3-4 times faster use less power etc… plus an even better more integrated operating system, not just with the device itself, but with the whole family of Apple devices, ecosystems and there are no shortcuts to get there and the cost will be the cost.
Maybe but Apple doesn’t really have to worry because Meta basically is a website company, operating systems and high end hardware are beyond them (and no you can’t buy your way in there are no shortcuts not at that level), but the Apple Vision has its own problems.
The processors have to be what? Three or four times faster and the battery life has to be at the level of a MacBook Pro with everything squeezed into a device half its current size how many years away is that 3-4 years? And don’t forget the accessory processors that Apple designed specifically for that Vision Pro.
Are smart glasses not the modern, practical implementation of the metaverse. I don’t think Meta were banking on games and low-poly avatars for their next generation of revenue, it was more about building (and then — hold onto your lunch please — monetizing) new forms of social connectivity. The only difference is that your permanent social camera went from being in-game to in-reality.
To be fair to Ed, I’d describe his usual argument (at least currently) as saying that Meta, MS, google are “mature” companies trying to be maintain the high valuations and growth of a young company, which they no longer are.
If you take this to be his argument, then dan’s numbers are more consistent ed’s claim.
Of the three Google is in the best position. Meta and MS are in trouble. Zuckerberg will survive because he has control of his company, but Nadella is not going to survive Copilot if it don’t work.
Agreed. With steak, the main point is to let the quality of the meat speak for itself. Too much input from the cook and you just get in the way of this.
Absolutely. I don’t know how strong their case is or isn’t, BUT if you hire Jony Ive and a bunch of Apple device people in order to build something that is a threat to the “Apple tax” revenue machine, they are coming after you without a doubt.
It seems like the widely-covered news stories that support OpenAI’s narratives originate from things that happened inside OpenAI.
It wasn’t an outside benchmark evaluation, or an external security researcher that uncovered the rogue agent behavior at this time, it was OAI itself. It wasn’t a notable outside mathematician that used AI to disproved Erdos’ unit distance conjecture, but OAI itself.
Im not saying these things are fabricated, but maybe the curated result of an effort to shape a narrative.
There's is poor people who exploit other poor people. Poor people that sends children to work for example. Only the rich can exploit? You are not using the definition of exploitation from the dictionaries. A stronger or armed person has a power differential with a weaker person. A smarter and less smart person too.
So, exploitation doesn't seem to be related exclusively to wealth inequality. It's a moral thing, not a matter of wealth differences.
A simple narrative of "us-good VS them-bad" is reductionistic.
> Can someone breakdown to me how this makes any sort of economical sense?
Capital markets are excited by AI.
By tying his rockets to AI with his vision of “orbital data centers”, Elon turned an $8 per share IPO (at least according to financial times and morgan stanley) into a $135 per share (1.8T) IPO.
To be clear: Morgan Stanley says that they are skeptical of this, but that’s their perception of where the value is supposed to come from based on SpaceX’s pitch
Somewhere, someone may be painting an equally reductive picture of you and your position.
You two are obviously smart people, but have you considered that maybe you are unconsciously being backed into a position that is just as absolutist as those you are arguing against? That you are just taking the opposite side in a binary argument where each side sees only one side of the coin?
I use these tools all day every day, and the feeble arguments against them that I’m referencing don’t match my experience from a year ago, let alone today. I rarely argue much about AI on HN anymore, it seems utterly pointless. It’s genuinely sad to me to see how many here are so blinded by rage and fear that they can’t have an honest conversation about the pros and cons of AI. Obviously not everyone, but that’s who my comment was addressing.
I also wouldn’t characterize my position as absolutist or one side of a binary. Interesting that you’d assume that.
Fair enough. I too use LLM coding tools all day everyday. If we’re specifically talking about the arguments in this thread, I have experienced both sides of the argument. Some use cases are more in-distribution than others. I wouldn’t dismiss either side out of hand. I see it more as a “yes, but…”
Except when it comes to image models. Imagine is extremely good and extremely cheap. I've been using it to generate book covers for ebooks (old novel short stories that never had a cover, for example) and it's phenomenal. Each cover is about 6 cents
There are many possible futures, but the one that will come to pass is the one we collectively allow to happen. To a degree, of course.
A future that I like to imagine is one where LLM scaling laws hit a plateau. Plateau-level LLMs become commodities. They get distilled into small sizes. Everybody can have plateau-level local LLMs. People discover that it’s better to be a local-powered independent centaur than to be a reverse centaur for a mega-corp.
Apple’s strategic position is to be the main device by which apps and AI can gain access to end users. This puts them in a nice position to charge a toll on everything that passes through their device. Now if someone were to come out with a new type of device and a new paradigm that could disrupt iPhone as the main device, Apple would be in trouble.
Not long ago, Zuck seemed really confident about metaverse/AR/VR. Apple took the disruption threat seriously and countered with AVP. Now it looks like metaverse flopped. I suspect the priority of AVP has gone down inside Apple accordingly.