I use it every morning with my keyboard to watch videos, get caught up on emails and messages, and sometimes call friends. I don’t use it quite as much in the evenings when my wife is around since I like to be able to show her what I’m doing, so I’ll use my laptop instead.
Shared augmented reality is the killer feature that I'm still waiting for. I'm really surprised that Apple didn't have that from the start. We could have things like going through your photo collection together. Or collaborating on a virtual sculpture. Or discussing ideas in front of a virtual blackboard. There are a lot of really cool things you could do with shared augmented reality.
Maybe Apple scheduled this feature for a later release? This is something that can probably be done efficiently 100% in software.
Shared photos is likely very doable, as it's just photo id, physical location, and scale/orientation. Place a picture above the fireplace and both headsets could render it exactly the same and see it.
Video would work well, audio might be a little harder to sync exactly correctly.
It shouldn't be much more complicated than what we currently have with first-person 3D shooters. All devices in an augmented room would have some existing shared data that doesn't need to be transferred. It's only the updates that need to be sent over the network.
It's hostile to the people who don't want to sign up. In other words, it drives away the "free loaders" and increases conversions. I have to agree, I hate to say this but they are probably doing this because it works.
Thank you - was really trying to understand why OC was being sniped at with a Grand Theft Auto reference (much less what the ref was supposed to imply...)
It's a 30% cut for Apple; for a price of x, the underlying cost, excluding the cut, is 0.7 * x. But you're paying x, which is 100% - x / (0.7 * x) more, or 42.8%.
If that 30% take goes away, you think prices will come down by 30%? Or do you think companies will get 30% more profit?
Software and other similar goods occupy an interesting space. They obviously take time, effort, and other resources to produce. People should be compensated for that. And people who want to enjoy what's been created should be the ones to compensate for that enjoyment, i.e. if I watch a movie, I should pay to watch that movie in some manner. If I use software, I should pay to use that software.
Subscription models, purchase of physical media, etc. are all valid options and each has their place.
However, and here's the point, there comes a point where you've collected enough compensation to cover the cost of producing that item. Everything after that is pure profit. And if you're selling at pure profit, the only reason you're looking to avoid that 30% is to claim it yourself. Because you could just give away the product at this point.
And if you want to bring in overhead into this, Apple has overhead as well. And they do deserve to be compensated for what they bring to the table.
"You're overpaying by 30%" feels like an argument the competing large corporations want to convince people of as to have the populace on their side. When the reality is that, if that 30% goes away, their profit just increases by 30%.
This depends on the product. Some of them will have strong competition and therefore a direct relationship between costs and prices, so if you lower costs (fees), you lower prices.
Others won't lower prices because their customers aren't as price sensitive. But then they get more revenue, which causes more competitors to enter the market, which, if it doesn't push down prices, increases quality and choice.
Whereas if the money goes to Apple, they add it to their undifferentiated enterprise-wide cash mountain and the customer sees no discernible benefit of any kind.
> And if you want to bring in overhead into this, Apple has overhead as well.
We know what the overhead of processing payments and hosting apps is. It's not 30%. That's a monopoly rent.
In the land of hypotheticals it may work like that.
But in reality, once a customer is used to paying a price, and is willing to pay a price, prices don't decrease.
And we already have a metric ton of Clash clones, To Do lists, and whatevers. The amount of choice on the platform is already pretty large.
And once again, if people are paying for the item already, what incentive is there to dump more money into the product? No, you capture that as more profit.
As to "it's not 30%". It's not for a single app. But Apple works at a large scale. They have to host even the apps that are pure costs for them. There aren't many companies that operate at that scale. And of them: Valve takes 30%, Sony takes 30%, Microsoft took 30%, Google took 30%. Google and Microsoft are only now looking to reduce their percentage.
And while it's probably not 30%, it's definitely not 0%.
> Instead of monetizing users by selling their data (facebook / google etc) they simple charge high actual fees.
The amount of money companies get from selling data is equivalent to low fees. Like low enough that the main reason it's advertising is that collecting amounts of money that low end up dominated by processing fees and cognitive friction.
> The idea that apple is a monopoly is laughable if you like at any historic definition of a monopoly.
Have you actually looked at any historic definition of a market power? "Market with only two players" meets pretty much all of them, to say nothing of the fact that the market for iOS and Android apps are different because they have almost entirely non-overlapping sets of customers.
The existence of geographic monopolies is not controversial, but customers can cross the border to buy from a competitor - the barrier that prevents competition is the cost of travel.
So why is it hard to understand that cost of leaving the Apple ecosystem creates a barrier that effectively makes the Apple App Store a monopoly for the distribution of iOS apps?
The existence of alternatives on another platform doesn't help customers who can't afford the costs of switching or (worse) owning multiple platforms.
> Bad…link speed…and bad…link width…were other concerning PCIe faults. These faults can be difficult to detect without some sort of automated tool…
Most modern PCIe PHY now have the ability to serve interrupts when down-training occurs much like they would for AER errors or hard link failures. Does FB use their own silicon in these data centers? Having this feature enabled is crucial when you get up to gen4 speeds. Weirdly I don’t see any detail about the gen used here though.
OP claims it shouldn’t be “difficult to detect (...) because the hardware is working” because most commercially sold host controller chips would generate interrupt and report errors, unless Facebook is using something nonstandard that don’t.
The hardware is reporting the errors to the kernel but not crashing the system. It's "difficult to detect" because unless you are specifically monitoring for those stats, the only issue you'll see is degraded performance on an occasional machine (assuming you are watching carefully enough to even discern the performance delta). Some of the error counters are even predictive of an issue rather than something that is actively impacting performance. The FB software is basically scraping those messages and bus stats into JSON that can be consumed by their monitoring infrastructure.
A C++ implementation of minesweeper (with no assets except for the font used for the numbers). I’ve been writing C++ professionally for 4 years now but I’m looking to familiarize myself with parts of the language I haven’t used before.
I'm staying at [large SV company] for now BECAUSE OF their reputation of hiring smart engineers, so that I will be able to hopefully get a gig at a more employee-friendly company later in life. New grads that were in my position often don't have much of a choice, and being offered the ability to pay off my student debt almost immediately at 22 seemed irresponsible to pass up. It's been 4 years and my mental health has degraded for sure (and the work I am doing is not glamorous in the slightest) but my savings are piling up and the thought that this is only temporary (and will give me a nice financial cushion) will keep me going until it's unbearable.
So when do you decide to leave? Do you have a magic dollar amount? A particular mental health symptom you're waiting to develop? I'm not sure what you're waiting for. Four years at a company is a long time; it's not like you'd be accused of nonsense like job-hopping.
