The game plan is the same as the game plan for the Mac, but they’re going to run it in a fraction of the time because they already have the playbook. Apple’s not in the business of “intentionally taking a loss,” Apple is in the business of slowly iterating products into platforms over strategic time spans. That’s exactly what they’ll do here.

The OLED displays are severely supply constrained; I doubt Apple can produce more than one or two million in 2024. With so few units available, there are more than enough dyed-in-the-wool Apple fans and die hard VR geeks with $4k to burn to guarantee that it will be sold out until 2025.

This first million will create an ecosystem for the platform in the form of third-party software and enthusiast communities. The successful launch will entice more suppliers to make the OLEDs, increasing availability and reducing cost. That paves the way for a sans-Pro Apple Vision for $2,500 sometime in 2025 or 2026. The cycle repeats: more users, bigger community, more evangelists, more word of mouth, more software, cheaper components, and then Apple ships Apple Vision Air in 2027 or 2028 for $1,500. Then in 2030, Apple Vision Air 2 comes out but the original is still for sale at $999.

Now we’re looking at Apple’s standard good/better/best product matrix that they use for the iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, and Mac, and we’re also looking at a relatively Mac-like price range starting at a grand but with options running well above $5k.

The original Mac sold for $2,495 in 1984 which is about $7,000 adjusted for inflation. Apple’s kicking this new platform off for half the entry price. No one knew what the heck the Mac was supposed to be for in 1984 either, but the entire desktop computing paradigm was forged in its image. We’re now looking at a second Mac.

The shift in this thread from “I hate when tech companies lie about how well their products work” to “CEOs who insist their products work before selling them are big meanies” in the span of about 5 replies is wild.

Ken Kocienda, the engineer who led the team that created the original iPhone keyboard and predictive text system, wrote a book titled “Creative Selection: Inside Apple’s Design Process During the Golden Age of Steve Jobs.” So there’s at least one real engineer for you who speaks highly of Jobs.

They aren’t nameless. They write books and go on podcasts, their thoughts on Jobs are available to us. Plenty of them praise Jobs for driving them to do their best work.

It’s not false advertising because it did everything it was advertised to do in the introductory demo when it went on sale six months later. Google is the one faking their demos.

We all know the bubbles will still be green

account from “An instance dedicated to nature and science”

asked to provide evidence for claims

refuses

Cullen

Seems like he’s talking about… Twilight?

It doesn’t. The episodes just get longer and more boring as the show progresses. The cancellation isn’t exactly a mystery.

“”““loudly declare””“”

Adira tells Stamets their pronouns, and Stamets says “okay” approvingly. That’s it. That’s the full extent of what you are calling a “big deal.”

You understand that even in a society where everyone is allowed to “just be,” accidental misgendering is still going to happen and corrections will still need to be communicated, right? Marco misgendered Nico on their first appearance, so Nico must have corrected him. You are effectively arguing that enby representation is only acceptable if actual conversations about gender occur off-screen.

A “multi episode story arc”? You mean these 90 seconds? The only way this bit of character and relationship development could be less “heavy handed” would be if it didn’t happen at all.

but as someone else pointed out it’s still not super common for gay characters, especially male characters, to be shown as being romantically involved, which can be jarring when you’re not used to it. Dunno, it’s weird.

Yep, many people still struggle with it. What do you think it would take to change this?

That’s not a particularly unique perspective, many Trekkies choose to process Star Trek as “historical documents.” There’s a movie about it.

What I don’t understand is why you’ve assigned this theoretical camera crew the intent of “get the camera on the gay dudes, stat” when “get the camera on the relationship between the two main characters” is a much simpler explanation. There are entire episodes dedicated to Odo & Kira, Paris & Torres or Trip & T’Pol relationship drama. Stamets & Culber screen time pales in comparison, and at least Stamets & Culber have some chemistry.

It’s 24XX, who the hell is still getting bent out of shape about homosexuality 400 years from now?

I’m pretty lukewarm on Discovery, I’ve seen all of it but most episodes only once, so maybe I just don’t remember it. Who got bent out of shape over Stamets and/or Culber being gay?

That’s true, it could have been worse. She could have been as stupid as she is ugly.

True story, when I was 7 I got this game for Christmas, installed it on the spot and started playing, but this lady was so intimidating that I got spooked, quit, and didn’t touch it again for years

Picard uses android

He has unlimited data

I’ll see myself out

Of course Janeway made the right choice. Anyone who says otherwise is either trolling or sexist. No one would care if it was Picard splitting Guiker or Sisko splitting Quira.

People don’t hate the episode, they hate the “debate.”

Pfft, Geordi is the least of Worf’s problems at that table. Data is literally a walking computer, Troi can read minds, and Riker is evidently the greatest poker player who ever lived.

This line was foreshadowing Lorca’s origin. You see, mirror Musk was actually competent, making him the precise inverse of real Musk.

I don’t care that the timing is suspect and there’s another Musk reference in Discovery, I’ll die on this hill.