Apple Vision Pro's development graveyard exemplifies Apple's '1,000 no's to every yes'

Pundits continue to hold up clear signs of restraint as failures while asking Apple to behave like Meta, OpenAI, Google, or anyone else but themselves, especially when discussing Apple Vision Pro. Apple is the only one that knows if Apple Vision Pro is a success or failure. If any of Apple's thousands of employees dare leave the company, or if one of hundreds of internal prototypes doesn't make it to production, you better believe punditry will be there to let us know.

The critical analysis almost always suffers from the same problem: asking Apple to chase the puck to where it is today, not where it is going. Look, there are a dozen Steve Jobs-isms that I can throw in here that should tell you exactly how Apple operates. It is one of the most scrutinized companies on Earth, and yet, reporting in the 'Power On' newsletter from Bloomberg can't help but ask Apple to change its behavior.

That Apple essence may confound analysts and pontificators, but one thing has held true in its long history: don't bet against it. The focus of the week is on Meta's new 'VR Glasses' that are neither VR nor glasses. Sure, they weigh 1/6 less and cost 1/3 the price, but they're also half the spec. Apple Vision Pro has a weight problem, absolutely, but let us not pretend that Apple is actually okay with sacrificing fidelity and scope for that simple metric. Even this report shows the lengths of the research and prototyping Apple went through to try and get a smaller device sooner, but chose to say 'no.'n

But of course, in light of Meta's 'yes' with Meta VR Glasses, Apple's no's need to be seen as a failure. I'll let Apple's 2013 WWDC introduction video do the talking on this one (if it isn't taken down). I mean, given the reporting from folks who have spent many long years in the industry, they seem to forget exactly who they are talking about. A thousand no's Apple has an untold number of active prototypes in development and magnitudes more in a graveyard out back. I have no doubt that Apple's secret projects division is working on everything from rollable OLED to drones. That doesn't mean we'll ever see any of these products, nor does it mean that every abandoned prototype is a sign of failure and mismanagement. Every time a project is canceled in spite of the sunk cost, that is a victory. But apparently three known abandoned internal prototypes are a sign of confusion, failure, and mismanagement. N107: compute offloaded to an external product like a Mac, not as much visual fidelity, likely comparable to XReal glasses N100: a 'Vision Air' attempt at moving compute to the battery pack while maintaining the closed VR design N109: a lighter, lower-cost version with a less powerful chip These are likely...

يواصل المعلقون الإمساك بإشارات واضحة للضبط باعتبارها فشلًا بينما يطلبون من Apple أن تتعامل مثل Meta أو OpenAI أو Google أو أي شخص آخر غير نفسها، خاصة عند مناقشة Apple Vision Pro. Apple هي الوحيدة التي تعرف ما إذا كان Apple Vision Pro نجاحًا أم فشلًا. إذا تجرأ أي من آلاف موظفي Apple على مغادرة الشركة، أو إذا لم يصل أحد النماذج الداخلية العديدة إلى الإنتاج، فأنت أفضل أن تصدق أن المعلقين سيكونون هناك لإخبارنا.

يعاني التحليل النقدي تقريبًا دائمًا من نفس المشكلة: طلب من Apple مطاردة الشوط حيث هو اليوم، وليس حيث سيذهب. انظر، هناك dozen من أقوال ستيف جوبز يمكنني طرحها هنا لتخبرك بالضبط كيف تعمل Apple. إنها واحدة من أكثر الشركات تدقيقًا على الأرض، ومع ذلك، لا يمكن للتقرير في نشرة 'Power On' من Bloomberg أن يمنع نفسه من طلب من Apple تغيير سلوكها.

قد confound جوهر Apple المحللين والمتحدثين، لكن شيئًا واحدًا ظل صحيحًا في تاريخها الطويل: لا تراهن ضدها. تركيز الأسبوع هو على 'نظارات الواقع الافتراضي' الجديدة من Meta التي ليست واقعًا افتراضيًا ولا نظارات. نعم، تزن 1/6 أقل وتكلف 1/3 السعر، لكنها أيضًا نصف المواصفات. لدى Apple Vision Pro مشكلة وزن، بلا شك، لكن دعونا لا نتظاهر بأن Apple موافقة حقًا على التضحية بالجودة والنطاق من أجل هذا المقياس البسيط. حتى هذا التقرير يظهر مدى البحث والنمذجة الأولية التي قامت بها Apple لمحاولة الحصول على جهاز أصغر في وقت أقرب، لكنها اختارت أن تقول 'لا'.

لكن بالطبع، في ضوء 'نعم' Meta مع نظارات الواقع الافتراضي من Meta، يجب رؤية 'لا' الخاصة بـ Apple على أنها فشل. سأعطي فيديو مقدمة WWDC لعام 2013 من Apple الفرصة للتحدث في هذا الأمر (إذا لم يتم حذفه). أعني، مع التقارير من الأشخاص الذين قضوا سنوات طويلة في الصناعة، يبدو أنهم ينسون بالضبط من يتحدثون عنه. لدى Apple عدد لا يحصى من النماذج الأولية النشطة في التطوير ومئات أكثر في مقبرة خلفها. لا أملك شكًا أن قسم المشاريع السرية في Apple يعمل على كل شيء من شاشات OLED القابلة للطي إلى الطائرات بدون طيار. هذا لا يعني أننا سنرى أبدًا أيًا من هذه المنتجات، ولا يعني أن كل نموذج أولي abandonado هو إشارة للفشل وسوء الإدارة. كل مرة يتم فيها إلغاء مشروع رغم التكلفة الغارقة، فهذا انتصار. لكن aparentemente ثلاثة نماذج أولية داخلية معروفة تم إلغاؤها هي علامة على الارتباك والفشل وسوء الإدارة. N107: الحساب المنقول إلى منتج خارجي مثل Mac، وليس نفس الدقة البصرية، وربما comparable لنظارات XReal N100: محاولة 'Vision Air' لنقل الحساب إلى حزمة البطارية مع الحفاظ على تصميم الواقع الافتراضي المغلق N109: نسخة أخف وأقل تكلفة بشريحة أقل قوة هذه على الأرجح...

Pundits continue to hold up clear signs of restraint as failures while asking Apple to behave like Meta, OpenAI, Google, or anyone else but themselves, especially when discussing Apple Vision Pro. Apple is the only one that knows if Apple Vision Pro is a success or failure. If any of Apple's thousands of employees dare leave the company, or if one of hundreds of internal prototypes doesn't make it to production, you better believe punditry will be there to let us know.

The critical analysis almost always suffers from the same problem: asking Apple to chase the puck to where it is today, not where it is going. Look, there are a dozen Steve Jobs-isms that I can throw in here that should tell you exactly how Apple operates. It is one of the most scrutinized companies on Earth, and yet, reporting in the 'Power On' newsletter from Bloomberg can't help but ask Apple to change its behavior.

That Apple essence may confound analysts and pontificators, but one thing has held true in its long history: don't bet against it. The focus of the week is on Meta's new 'VR Glasses' that are neither VR nor glasses. Sure, they weigh 1/6 less and cost 1/3 the price, but they're also half the spec. Apple Vision Pro has a weight problem, absolutely, but let us not pretend that Apple is actually okay with sacrificing fidelity and scope for that simple metric. Even this report shows the lengths of the research and prototyping Apple went through to try and get a smaller device sooner, but chose to say 'no.'

But of course, in light of Meta's 'yes' with Meta VR Glasses, Apple's no's need to be seen as a failure. I'll let Apple's 2013 WWDC introduction video do the talking on this one (if it isn't taken down). I mean, given the reporting from folks who have spent many long years in the industry, they seem to forget exactly who they are talking about. A thousand no's Apple has an untold number of active prototypes in development and magnitudes more in a graveyard out back. I have no doubt that Apple's secret projects division is working on everything from rollable OLED to drones. That doesn't mean we'll ever see any of these products, nor does it mean that every abandoned prototype is a sign of failure and mismanagement. Every time a project is canceled in spite of the sunk cost, that is a victory. But apparently three known abandoned internal prototypes are a sign of confusion, failure, and mismanagement. N107: compute offloaded to an external product like a Mac, not as much visual fidelity, likely comparable to XReal glasses N100: a 'Vision Air' attempt at moving compute to the battery pack while maintaining the closed VR design N109: a lighter, lower-cost version with a less powerful chip These are likely...

Pundits continue to hold up clear signs of restraint as failures while asking Apple to behave like Meta, OpenAI, Google, or anyone else but themselves, especially when discussing Apple Vision Pro. Apple is the only one that knows if Apple Vision Pro is a success or failure. If any of Apple's thousands of employees dare leave the company, or if one of hundreds of internal prototypes doesn't make it to production, you better believe punditry will be there to let us know.

The critical analysis almost always suffers from the same problem: asking Apple to chase the puck to where it is today, not where it is going. Look, there are a dozen Steve Jobs-isms that I can throw in here that should tell you exactly how Apple operates. It is one of the most scrutinized companies on Earth, and yet, reporting in the 'Power On' newsletter from Bloomberg can't help but ask Apple to change its behavior.

That Apple essence may confound analysts and pontificators, but one thing has held true in its long history: don't bet against it. The focus of the week is on Meta's new 'VR Glasses' that are neither VR nor glasses. Sure, they weigh 1/6 less and cost 1/3 the price, but they're also half the spec. Apple Vision Pro has a weight problem, absolutely, but let us not pretend that Apple is actually okay with sacrificing fidelity and scope for that simple metric. Even this report shows the lengths of the research and prototyping Apple went through to try and get a smaller device sooner, but chose to say 'no.'

But of course, in light of Meta's 'yes' with Meta VR Glasses, Apple's no's need to be seen as a failure. I'll let Apple's 2013 WWDC introduction video do the talking on this one (if it isn't taken down). I mean, given the reporting from folks who have spent many long years in the industry, they seem to forget exactly who they are talking about. A thousand no's Apple has an untold number of active prototypes in development and magnitudes more in a graveyard out back. I have no doubt that Apple's secret projects division is working on everything from rollable OLED to drones. That doesn't mean we'll ever see any of these products, nor does it mean that every abandoned prototype is a sign of failure and mismanagement. Every time a project is canceled in spite of the sunk cost, that is a victory. But apparently three known abandoned internal prototypes are a sign of confusion, failure, and mismanagement. N107: compute offloaded to an external product like a Mac, not as much visual fidelity, likely comparable to XReal glasses N100: a 'Vision Air' attempt at moving compute to the battery pack while maintaining the closed VR design N109: a lighter, lower-cost version with a less powerful chip These are likely...

Los comentaristas siguen sosteniendo señales claras de restricción como fracasos mientras piden a Apple que se comporte como Meta, OpenAI, Google o cualquiera más que no sea ella misma, especialmente cuando se habla de Apple Vision Pro. Apple es la única que sabe si Apple Vision Pro es un éxito o un fracaso. Si alguno de los miles de empleados de Apple se atreve a dejar la empresa, o si uno de los cientos de prototipos internos no llega a producción, mejor créanme que los comentaristas estarán allí para hacérnoslo saber.

El análisis crítico casi siempre sufre del mismo problema: pedirle a Apple que persiga el disco donde está hoy, no donde va a estar. Mire, hay una docena de dichos de Steve Jobs que puedo lanzar aquí que deberían decirle exactamente cómo opera Apple. Es una de las empresas más escrutadas del planeta, y sin embargo, el informe de la newsletter 'Power On' de Bloomberg no puede evitar pedirle a Apple que cambie su comportamiento.

Esencia de Apple puede confundir a analistas y pontificadores, pero una cosa ha permanecido verdadera en su larga historia: no apuesten en su contra. El enfoque de la semana está en las nuevas 'Gafas VR' de Meta que no son ni VR ni gafas. Claro, pesan 1/6 menos y cuestan 1/3 del precio, pero también son la mitad de las especificaciones. Apple Vision Pro tiene un problema de peso, absolutamente, pero no fingamos que Apple está realmente bien con sacrificar fidelidad y alcance por esa simple métrica. Incluso este informe muestra hasta qué punto llegó la investigación y prototipado de Apple para intentar conseguir un dispositivo más pequeño antes, pero eligió decir 'no'.

Pero por supuesto, a la luz del 'sí' de Meta con sus Gafas VR, los 'no' de Apple deben verse como un fracaso. Déjame que el video de introducción de la WWDC de 2013 de Apple hable por mí en esto (si no lo han bajado). Quiero decir, dado el informe de personas que han pasado muchos años en la industria, parecen olvidar exactamente de quién están hablando. Apple tiene un número incontable de prototipos activos en desarrollo y magnitudes más en un cementerio trasero. No tengo duda de que la división de proyectos secretos de Apple está trabajando en todo, desde OLED enrollable hasta drones. Eso no significa que alguna vez veamos alguno de estos productos, ni que cada prototipo abandonado sea señal de fracaso y mala gestión. Cada vez que se cancela un proyecto pese al costo hundido, eso es una victoria. Pero aparentemente tres prototipos internos abandonados conocidos son señal de confusión, fracaso y mala gestión. N107: cálculo descargado a un producto externo como una Mac, no tanta fidelidad visual, probablemente comparable a las gafas XReal N100: un intento de 'Vision Air' de mover el cálculo al paquete de batería manteniendo el diseño VR cerrado N109: una versión más ligera y de bajo costo con un chip menos potente Estos son probablemente...

Les commentateurs continuent de présenter des signes clairs de retenue comme des échecs tout en demandant à Apple de se comporter comme Meta, OpenAI, Google ou quiconque d'autre qu'elle-même, surtout lorsqu'ils discutent de l'Apple Vision Pro. Apple est la seule à savoir si l'Apple Vision Pro est un succès ou un échec. Si l'un des milliers d'employés d'Apple ose quitter l'entreprise, ou si l'un des centaines de prototypes internes ne parvient pas à la production, vous feriez mieux de croire que les commentateurs seront là pour nous le dire.

L'analyse critique souffre presque toujours du même problème : demander à Apple de poursuivre la rondelle là où elle est aujourd'hui, pas là où elle va. Regardez, il y a une douzaine de maximes de Steve Jobs que je peux lancer ici qui devraient vous dire exactement comment Apple fonctionne. C'est l'une des entreprises les plus scrutées sur Terre, et pourtant, le rapport de la newsletter 'Power On' de Bloomberg ne peut s'empêcher de demander à Apple de changer son comportement.

Cette essence d'Apple peut dérouter les analystes et les pontificateurs, mais une chose est restée vraie tout au long de son long histoire : ne pariez pas contre elle. Le sujet de la semaine porte sur les nouvelles 'lunettes VR' de Meta qui ne sont ni de la VR ni des lunettes. Oui, elles pèsent 1/6 de moins et coûtent 1/3 du prix, mais elles sont aussi moitié moins performantes. L'Apple Vision Pro a un problème de poids, absolument, mais ne faisons pas semblant qu'Apple soit réellement d'accord pour sacrifier la fidélité et l'étendue au profit de cette simple métrique. Même ce rapport montre jusqu'où Apple est allé dans la recherche et le prototypage pour essayer d'obtenir un appareil plus petit plus tôt, mais a choisi de dire 'non'.

Mais bien sûr, à la lumière du 'oui' de Meta avec ses lunettes VR Meta, les 'non' d'Apple doivent être perçus comme un échec. Je laisserai la vidéo d'introduction de la WWDC 2013 d'Apple parler pour cela (si elle n'a pas été retirée). Je veux dire, étant donné les rapports de personnes qui ont passé de longues années dans l'industrie, ils semblent oublier exactement de qui ils parlent. Apple a un nombre incalculable de prototypes actifs en développement et bien plus encore dans un cimetière derrière. Je n'ai aucun doute que la division des projets secrets d'Apple travaille sur tout, des OLED déroulables aux drones. Cela ne signifie pas que nous verrons jamais l'un de ces produits, ni que chaque prototype abandonné est un signe d'échec et de mauvaise gestion. Chaque fois qu'un projet est annulé malgré le coût engagé, c'est une victoire. Mais apparemment, trois prototypes internes connus abandonnés sont un signe de confusion, d'échec et de mauvaise gestion. N107 : calcul déchargé vers un produit externe comme un Mac, pas autant de fidélité visuelle, probablement comparable aux lunettes XReal N100 : une tentative de 'Vision Air' de déplacer le calcul vers le pack batterie tout en maintenant le design VR fermé N109 : une version plus légère et moins coûteuse avec une puce moins puissante Ces sont probablement...

Pundits continue to hold up clear signs of restraint as failures while asking Apple to behave like Meta, OpenAI, Google, or anyone else but themselves, especially when discussing Apple Vision Pro. Apple is the only one that knows if Apple Vision Pro is a success or failure. If any of Apple's thousands of employees dare leave the company, or if one of hundreds of internal prototypes doesn't make it to production, you better believe punditry will be there to let us know.

The critical analysis almost always suffers from the same problem: asking Apple to chase the puck to where it is today, not where it is going. Look, there are a dozen Steve Jobs-isms that I can throw in here that should tell you exactly how Apple operates. It is one of the most scrutinized companies on Earth, and yet, reporting in the 'Power On' newsletter from Bloomberg can't help but ask Apple to change its behavior.

That Apple essence may confound analysts and pontificators, but one thing has held true in its long history: don't bet against it. The focus of the week is on Meta's new 'VR Glasses' that are neither VR nor glasses. Sure, they weigh 1/6 less and cost 1/3 the price, but they're also half the spec. Apple Vision Pro has a weight problem, absolutely, but let us not pretend that Apple is actually okay with sacrificing fidelity and scope for that simple metric. Even this report shows the lengths of the research and prototyping Apple went through to try and get a smaller device sooner, but chose to say 'no.'

But of course, in light of Meta's 'yes' with Meta VR Glasses, Apple's no's need to be seen as a failure. I'll let Apple's 2013 WWDC introduction video do the talking on this one (if it isn't taken down). I mean, given the reporting from folks who have spent many long years in the industry, they seem to forget exactly who they are talking about. A thousand no's Apple has an untold number of active prototypes in development and magnitudes more in a graveyard out back. I have no doubt that Apple's secret projects division is working on everything from rollable OLED to drones. That doesn't mean we'll ever see any of these products, nor does it mean that every abandoned prototype is a sign of failure and mismanagement. Every time a project is canceled in spite of the sunk cost, that is a victory. But apparently three known abandoned internal prototypes are a sign of confusion, failure, and mismanagement. N107: compute offloaded to an external product like a Mac, not as much visual fidelity, likely comparable to XReal glasses N100: a 'Vision Air' attempt at moving compute to the battery pack while maintaining the closed VR design N109: a lighter, lower-cost version with a less powerful chip These are likely...

Pundits continue to hold up clear signs of restraint as failures while asking Apple to behave like Meta, OpenAI, Google, or anyone else but themselves, especially when discussing Apple Vision Pro. Apple is the only one that knows if Apple Vision Pro is a success or failure. If any of Apple's thousands of employees dare leave the company, or if one of hundreds of internal prototypes doesn't make it to production, you better believe punditry will be there to let us know.

The critical analysis almost always suffers from the same problem: asking Apple to chase the puck to where it is today, not where it is going. Look, there are a dozen Steve Jobs-isms that I can throw in here that should tell you exactly how Apple operates. It is one of the most scrutinized companies on Earth, and yet, reporting in the 'Power On' newsletter from Bloomberg can't help but ask Apple to change its behavior.

That Apple essence may confound analysts and pontificators, but one thing has held true in its long history: don't bet against it. The focus of the week is on Meta's new 'VR Glasses' that are neither VR nor glasses. Sure, they weigh 1/6 less and cost 1/3 the price, but they're also half the spec. Apple Vision Pro has a weight problem, absolutely, but let us not pretend that Apple is actually okay with sacrificing fidelity and scope for that simple metric. Even this report shows the lengths of the research and prototyping Apple went through to try and get a smaller device sooner, but chose to say 'no.'

But of course, in light of Meta's 'yes' with Meta VR Glasses, Apple's no's need to be seen as a failure. I'll let Apple's 2013 WWDC introduction video do the talking on this one (if it isn't taken down). I mean, given the reporting from folks who have spent many long years in the industry, they seem to forget exactly who they are talking about. A thousand no's Apple has an untold number of active prototypes in development and magnitudes more in a graveyard out back. I have no doubt that Apple's secret projects division is working on everything from rollable OLED to drones. That doesn't mean we'll ever see any of these products, nor does it mean that every abandoned prototype is a sign of failure and mismanagement. Every time a project is canceled in spite of the sunk cost, that is a victory. But apparently three known abandoned internal prototypes are a sign of confusion, failure, and mismanagement. N107: compute offloaded to an external product like a Mac, not as much visual fidelity, likely comparable to XReal glasses N100: a 'Vision Air' attempt at moving compute to the battery pack while maintaining the closed VR design N109: a lighter, lower-cost version with a less powerful chip These are likely...

Pundits continue to hold up clear signs of restraint as failures while asking Apple to behave like Meta, OpenAI, Google, or anyone else but themselves, especially when discussing Apple Vision Pro. Apple is the only one that knows if Apple Vision Pro is a success or failure. If any of Apple's thousands of employees dare leave the company, or if one of hundreds of internal prototypes doesn't make it to production, you better believe punditry will be there to let us know.

The critical analysis almost always suffers from the same problem: asking Apple to chase the puck to where it is today, not where it is going. Look, there are a dozen Steve Jobs-isms that I can throw in here that should tell you exactly how Apple operates. It is one of the most scrutinized companies on Earth, and yet, reporting in the 'Power On' newsletter from Bloomberg can't help but ask Apple to change its behavior.

That Apple essence may confound analysts and pontificators, but one thing has held true in its long history: don't bet against it. The focus of the week is on Meta's new 'VR Glasses' that are neither VR nor glasses. Sure, they weigh 1/6 less and cost 1/3 the price, but they're also half the spec. Apple Vision Pro has a weight problem, absolutely, but let us not pretend that Apple is actually okay with sacrificing fidelity and scope for that simple metric. Even this report shows the lengths of the research and prototyping Apple went through to try and get a smaller device sooner, but chose to say 'no.'

But of course, in light of Meta's 'yes' with Meta VR Glasses, Apple's no's need to be seen as a failure. I'll let Apple's 2013 WWDC introduction video do the talking on this one (if it isn't taken down). I mean, given the reporting from folks who have spent many long years in the industry, they seem to forget exactly who they are talking about. A thousand no's Apple has an untold number of active prototypes in development and magnitudes more in a graveyard out back. I have no doubt that Apple's secret projects division is working on everything from rollable OLED to drones. That doesn't mean we'll ever see any of these products, nor does it mean that every abandoned prototype is a sign of failure and mismanagement. Every time a project is canceled in spite of the sunk cost, that is a victory. But apparently three known abandoned internal prototypes are a sign of confusion, failure, and mismanagement. N107: compute offloaded to an external product like a Mac, not as much visual fidelity, likely comparable to XReal glasses N100: a 'Vision Air' attempt at moving compute to the battery pack while maintaining the closed VR design N109: a lighter, lower-cost version with a less powerful chip These are likely...

Pundits continue to hold up clear signs of restraint as failures while asking Apple to behave like Meta, OpenAI, Google, or anyone else but themselves, especially when discussing Apple Vision Pro. Apple is the only one that knows if Apple Vision Pro is a success or failure. If any of Apple's thousands of employees dare leave the company, or if one of hundreds of internal prototypes doesn't make it to production, you better believe punditry will be there to let us know.

The critical analysis almost always suffers from the same problem: asking Apple to chase the puck to where it is today, not where it is going. Look, there are a dozen Steve Jobs-isms that I can throw in here that should tell you exactly how Apple operates. It is one of the most scrutinized companies on Earth, and yet, reporting in the 'Power On' newsletter from Bloomberg can't help but ask Apple to change its behavior.

That Apple essence may confound analysts and pontificators, but one thing has held true in its long history: don't bet against it. The focus of the week is on Meta's new 'VR Glasses' that are neither VR nor glasses. Sure, they weigh 1/6 less and cost 1/3 the price, but they're also half the spec. Apple Vision Pro has a weight problem, absolutely, but let us not pretend that Apple is actually okay with sacrificing fidelity and scope for that simple metric. Even this report shows the lengths of the research and prototyping Apple went through to try and get a smaller device sooner, but chose to say 'no.'

But of course, in light of Meta's 'yes' with Meta VR Glasses, Apple's no's need to be seen as a failure. I'll let Apple's 2013 WWDC introduction video do the talking on this one (if it isn't taken down). I mean, given the reporting from folks who have spent many long years in the industry, they seem to forget exactly who they are talking about. A thousand no's Apple has an untold number of active prototypes in development and magnitudes more in a graveyard out back. I have no doubt that Apple's secret projects division is working on everything from rollable OLED to drones. That doesn't mean we'll ever see any of these products, nor does it mean that every abandoned prototype is a sign of failure and mismanagement. Every time a project is canceled in spite of the sunk cost, that is a victory. But apparently three known abandoned internal prototypes are a sign of confusion, failure, and mismanagement. N107: compute offloaded to an external product like a Mac, not as much visual fidelity, likely comparable to XReal glasses N100: a 'Vision Air' attempt at moving compute to the battery pack while maintaining the closed VR design N109: a lighter, lower-cost version with a less powerful chip These are likely...

Эксперты продолжают рассматривать явные признаки сдержанности как провалы, требуя от Apple вести себя как Meta, OpenAI, Google или любой другой, кроме самой себя, особенно когда речь идёт о Apple Vision Pro. Apple — единственная, кто знает, является ли Apple Vision Pro успехом или провалом. Если кто-то из тысяч сотрудников Apple осмелится покинуть компанию, или если один из сотен внутренних прототипов не дойдёт до производства, вы лучше поверите, что эксперты будут там, чтобы сообщить нам об этом.

Критический анализ почти всегда страдает от одной и той же проблемы: просить Apple гнаться за шайбой туда, где она находится сегодня, а не туда, куда она направляется. Посмотрите, там есть дюжина изречений Стива Джобса, которые я могу вставить здесь, чтобы вы точно поняли, как работает Apple. Это одна из самых тщательно проверяемых компаний на Земле, и pourtant, отчёт в рассылке 'Power On' от Bloomberg не может удержаться от просьбы Apple изменить своё поведение.

Эта сущность Apple может сбивать с толку аналитиков и проповедников, но одно осталось верным на протяжении её долгой истории: не ставьте против неё. Фокус недели — на новых 'VR-очках' Meta, которые не являются ни VR, ни очками. Да, они весят на 1/6 меньше и стоят на 1/3 дешевле, но их характеристики также вдвое хуже. У Apple Vision Pro есть проблема с весом, абсолютно, но давайте не притворяться, что Apple на самом деле согласна жертвовать верностью и масштабом ради этой простой метрики. Даже этот отчёт показывает, до каких lengths дошла Apple в исследованиях и прототипировании, пытаясь получить меньшее устройство раньше, но выбрала сказать 'нет'.

Но конечно, на фоне 'да' Meta с её VR-очками, 'нет' Apple должны восприниматься как провал. Я позволю видео введения WWDC 2013 от Apple говорить за меня в этом (если оно не удалено). Я имею в виду, учитывая отчёты людей, проведших многие годы в отрасли, они, кажется, забывают, о ком именно они говорят. У Apple есть несчётное количество активных прототипов в разработке и на порядки больше в 'кладбище' сзади. Я не сомневаюсь, что отдел секретных проектов Apple работает над всем, от гибких OLED до дронов. Это не значит, что мы когда-либо увидим какие-либо из этих продуктов, ни то, что каждый заброшенный прототип является признаком провала и плохого управления. Каждый раз, когда проект отменяется несмотря на понесенные затраты, это победа. Но, apparently, три известных заброшенных внутренних прототипа являются признаком замешательства, провала и плохого управления. N107: вычисления перенесены на внешнее устройство вроде Mac, не такая высокая визуальная точность, вероятно, сравнимо с очками XReal N100: попытка 'Vision Air' перенести вычисления на аккумуляторный блок, сохранив закрытый дизайн VR N109: более лёгкая и дешёвая версия с менее мощным чип Эти, вероятно...

Pundits continue to hold up clear signs of restraint as failures while asking Apple to behave like Meta, OpenAI, Google, or anyone else but themselves, especially when discussing Apple Vision Pro. Apple is the only one that knows if Apple Vision Pro is a success or failure. If any of Apple's thousands of employees dare leave the company, or if one of hundreds of internal prototypes doesn't make it to production, you better believe punditry will be there to let us know.

The critical analysis almost always suffers from the same problem: asking Apple to chase the puck to where it is today, not where it is going. Look, there are a dozen Steve Jobs-isms that I can throw in here that should tell you exactly how Apple operates. It is one of the most scrutinized companies on Earth, and yet, reporting in the 'Power On' newsletter from Bloomberg can't help but ask Apple to change its behavior.

That Apple essence may confound analysts and pontificators, but one thing has held true in its long history: don't bet against it. The focus of the week is on Meta's new 'VR Glasses' that are neither VR nor glasses. Sure, they weigh 1/6 less and cost 1/3 the price, but they're also half the spec. Apple Vision Pro has a weight problem, absolutely, but let us not pretend that Apple is actually okay with sacrificing fidelity and scope for that simple metric. Even this report shows the lengths of the research and prototyping Apple went through to try and get a smaller device sooner, but chose to say 'no.'

But of course, in light of Meta's 'yes' with Meta VR Glasses, Apple's no's need to be seen as a failure. I'll let Apple's 2013 WWDC introduction video do the talking on this one (if it isn't taken down). I mean, given the reporting from folks who have spent many long years in the industry, they seem to forget exactly who they are talking about. A thousand no's Apple has an untold number of active prototypes in development and magnitudes more in a graveyard out back. I have no doubt that Apple's secret projects division is working on everything from rollable OLED to drones. That doesn't mean we'll ever see any of these products, nor does it mean that every abandoned prototype is a sign of failure and mismanagement. Every time a project is canceled in spite of the sunk cost, that is a victory. But apparently three known abandoned internal prototypes are a sign of confusion, failure, and mismanagement. N107: compute offloaded to an external product like a Mac, not as much visual fidelity, likely comparable to XReal glasses N100: a 'Vision Air' attempt at moving compute to the battery pack while maintaining the closed VR design N109: a lighter, lower-cost version with a less powerful chip These are likely...