HN user
You say ‘we’ as if everyone is the same. Some people care, some people don’t. It only takes a a few who don’t, or who feel the ends justify the means. Because those people exist, the people who do care are forced into a prisoners dilemma forcing them to develop the technology anyway.
We lack the motivation precisely because of information warfare that is already being used.
The solution is for culture to adapt. This is the role folk tales once played - carrying the knowledge of various different kinds of danger.
AI shouldn't be a part of warfare, IMHO.
Nor should nuclear weapons, guns, knives, or cudgels.
But we don’t have a way to stop them being used.
this one article is not the only source of information that exists
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/6a34e8f6-362a-45de-9c8b-3fc...
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/6a34e8f6-362a-45de-9c8b-3fc...
Stop focusing on just the article and do some background reading.
Wrong. They did remove PWAs in safari. The old icons just become links with no special PWA features, and new ones can't be created.
Read it more carefully. PWAs are no longer supported, even in safari. Any old PWAs that were already in the launcher just become web links. They happen to open in safari, but they are not PWAs, and no new such links can be created.
This is just a way to not delete the old links from the user's launcher until they have had time to create new bookmarks in the browser of their choice.
If you are going to argue the this somehow advantages Safari, you aren't being serious.
You aren’t making sense. How does it grant safari an advantage if no browser has PWAs?
Not just non-safari browsers.
USB c hardly makes a dramatic difference to consumer choice, not that it’s bad.
Do you expect me to take you seriously after your last few comments? Who in their right mind would have a technical discussion with you?
That’s not what’s happening here. PWA’s are disabled altogether in the EU to avoid exactly this favoritism.
What are you talking about?
I think you’ve made my point quite nicely.
How exactly does it discourage users from switching away from safari?
People keep saying things like ‘affront to regulation’, but the regulation wasn’t written to make iOS more open. It was written to enable certain other middlemen more access to specific parts of iOS.
If the EU wanted to force iOS to be an open platform, they could have written a law to that effect.
I wish people would realize that just because the EU is regulating Apple and it’s fun to see power be brought to bear against Apple, it doesn’t mean the EU is actually competent to regulate the market.
In this instance I’m pretty sure it is the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law was to allow competing browser engines to be on an equal footing.
You know as well as everyone else does that PWA’s require the browser to be able to integrate with the platform at the level of the OS which would break iOS’s security model.
You might want the EU to force iOS to be an open platform, but I don’t think that was their intent when they made the requirement to allow alternate browsers.
Well they obviously don’t expect to sell it to everyone at the current price. For what it’s worth, it costs about the same as the MacBook Air with SSD did when introduced without even factoring in inflation. Today that product is the world’s best selling laptop.
I have tried them side by side. It’s complete and utter bullshit to say that the video quality is comparable. Price doesn’t change the fact that the quality is a lot lower.
If you want to say Quest is better for most people because it’s cheap enough to still be worth it, I won’t argue with that.
But that’s not what Mark said, and he’s flat out lying.
To some extent yes. The hardware has simply not been good enough. What’s changed is that Vision Pro crosses the threshold.
Vision Pro is obviously too expensive for anyone who isn’t an early adopter, but it’s the first consumer headset that is good enough to even consider for anything other than games, and frankly even then it is only just good enough.
Of course he thinks it’s the better product, but weirdly nobody else takes that seriously.
It is far better for people who want to play games, but far worse for anything else.
He’s straight up lying when he tries to pass off Quest’s passthrough and software as comparable.
Seems like he’s worried.
Exactly. I think they knew what they were doing. If you have the disposable income, it’s worth it for the movie experience alone.
For me, as someone who can code, it’s a no-brainer. It’s definitely a serious purchase, but having a computer that makes it this easy to create immersive 3D experiences is well worth it.
I think that’s all Apple had in mind for this 1.0.
Agreed. Which is why I think they should come up with an official standard that does.
If you mandate that the winning protocol be interoperable you end forward progress on that protocol.
If you mandate an official protocol be available alongside others, that protocol can be kept up to date by committee.
You’d think the EU might want to harmonize regulations around billing calls between countries!
It’s obviously not going to appeal to most people because of the price. Apple isn’t stupid and knows this. Reviewers complaining that it’s too expensive for the mainstream are being stupid when they say this.
Also, if what someone wants, is lots of monitors for their Mac. Why not buy a bunch of monitors? It seems also stupid that people harp on this point. It’s good that you can bring your Mac screen into Vision Pro, but that’s clearly meant so you can use the two devices together.
The big problem for reviewers is the lack of native apps, especially those that take advantage of volumetric windows and immersive spaces.
I say it’s a problem for reviewers rather than Apple, because it’s so compelling to develop for this platform that I have no concern about what we’re going to see over time. People complain that there aren’t more apps at launch, which is a valid complaint, but there isn’t much Apple could do about it because you need experience with the device to know how to design for it. People rushing to get things ready for launch day haven’t had that even if they had access to the hardware.
This is going to change steadily over time.
This - they should just mandate RCS, or maybe actually invest in developing a modern European standard and then mandate that. It’s not like they don’t have research universities with CS departments who could be part of a standards body.
I don’t mean they should limit alternatives - just that they should require a modern, E2EE standard on all phones, and then we can all just shut up about this.
That’s the kind of odd construction I frequently see from people shilling crypto.