Anthropic's wants to sell us Claude Code with no model selection at all.
Opus seems to be overly eager of late to 'vibe' out entire solutions and build out things that you didn't ask for.
/goals is helping set the narrative that does it really matter if Sonnet and 3 Haiku agents got you to that end state...eventually...if its what you asked for?
For better or worse Opus is already handing off 80% of its work to background agents of Sonnet, Haiku, and likely a quantized Opus.
If anything I think the Vision Pro is more discreet on a plane! No big bright screen to annoy or distract other passengers with, plus I can keep my laptop nearly clamshelled on my lap while I work without having to use the tray table
The project has not been scraped or scrapped. Any outlet that reported that walked it back. It’s reportedly put on hold while they work on the glasses. Its fate might ultimately end up all the same.
I own a AVP and it’s super niche. Can’t blame Apple for putting their attention on the more wearable glasses form factor.
Also, in the year that I’ve owned my AVP I can count on one hand the amount of times I’ve been in full VR/immersive. And I use it everyday.
It is obviously walked waaaayyy back from the original plans, and any hype is well and truly dead. AR/VR in general are a tech dead end that sounds cool to some sci-fi enthusiasts and has some niche entertainment applications, but that's inevitably it, every time it rears its head.
For every comment like this there's 5 from actual users who enjoy it. I know multiple people who tried it in store and want it but don't have the money. It's a product for pro developers with money to spare who will create the initial ecosystem for future casual users.
I think the comments are a bit negative in this thread, however, Newton has nothing to do with Apple now. Or the last decade. Or the last 20 years. It's touching on 30+ years post launch now. Pointing at an "early idea" from 1993, is more the exception to the rule.
Products such as the ipod and then the iphone, were as the parent poster describes. Both ipod like devices, and the iphone were successors to other devices already on the market. It was how they were presented, packaged, and tailored that made them special and unique. Yet the launch of these devices are also in the range of two decades ago.
In the tech world, a few years is a long time let alone 20 or 30 years.
I'd say Apple is barely innovative now, and further, their 'early ideas' are long, long, long gone.
This is why it's such a shame that their products aren't as polished as they used to be. They still have a very strong capacity to do this, and I wish they would. It's a great market, and it's what a lot of people want. Take what's already on the market, as Jobs did with the iphone, or the ipod, and make it ... well, very nice to use.
Yet they seem to be stumbling here a bit, which is a shame.
There’s a native YouTube app. And I don’t find myself missing the others. But besides the background noise from YouTube and Apple Music/Podcasts I don’t really consume media in mine. It’s a work tool.
I do 4 hours a day minimum. Typically the first part of my day where I tend to have no meetings and can wear it uninterrupted. I’m sure I can get the virtual persona working in Meet and Zoom but I don’t want to creep anyone out.
I’m in Ultrawide at 4k via a MBP or a Mac Mini. Wireless keyboard and wireless mouse. Typically multiple Ghostty windows open, an IDE, and a web browser with a bunch of tabs.
If I have a podcast, YouTube or music playing in the background I do so via the AVP directly via the native app.
Though I like virtual environments I don’t use them much. The amazing pass through (I have a Quest 3 and it’s not even remotely comparable) allows me to feel like I’m still IRL and be aware of my surroundings. And to see and interact with my wife who’s also remote if she happens to pass by. This need to touch grass is the same reason I typically don’t wear AirPods while in them. You can really get sucked in with virtual environments and AirPods on.
No eye strain issues. Have had 20/20 my entire life and a year in still 20/20. We’ll see. It does get a little sweaty/heavy. I have the Apple double knit and the CM Global or whatever it’s called.
I do have a decent office monitor setup with a 43” OLED and LG Dual-ups. I don’t use it much since getting the AVP as I like moving around the house.
The Cayenna has never been a bad looking vehicle.
Like other German SUVs from that time it elevated an established design language into SUV form. If anyting it was criticized as lazy and unimaginative.
The real beef was Porsche enthusiasts (911 purists) thought SUVs were for unwashed masses and soccer moms.
They thought Porsche was jumping on the the relatively new (at the time) premium/luxury german SUV bandwagen establised by the X5 and ML500 (GWagen excluded).
Once they got over that they became customers.
This..thing...on the other hand is a tasteless abomination. Aside from the badges and tail lights there's nothing in it that's inherently Ferrari.
It’s another 24 carat gold Apple Watch. Makes sense in the design studio, if you have some insane blinkers on when it comes to how people associate with and interact with products in the real world.
Not sure what OPs reasoning was but you have to wonder if this far-more-human type of film criticism will see a revival in the age of AI assisted writing.
I always like to remind people that before talk heads were battling it out on cable news or ESPN we had Siskel and Ebert shaking things up. They made me realize that movies could carry subtext, nuance and meaning. They made reading ABOUT movies more interesting.
Siskel and Ebert the TV show was a good example of the dumbing down of criticism; that trend started already before the internet age. The twentieth-century American television medium simply didn't allow much informational depth and nuance. (Edit: after I posted this comment, I saw that the show's Wikipedia article notes that it attracted such criticsm, so it's not just my own opinion.) Ebert's newspaper criticism was rather better.
TV/Film has a way of naturally dumbing things down, the making of video content can get complicated, so the way your favorite book gets butchered into a movie is a natural consequence (RIP Tom Bombadil) between the writing style tailored for the screen, meeting episode length (gotta fit those ads in the time slot) YouTube pushes towards trending content lengths - like how every 4 minute topic is stretched into a 20 minute journey of how the creator came at the 4 minutes of content... The military brigade approach that film and TV employ to get the footage they need with continuity to some acceptable level etc. Writing about complex things has fewer (yet still infinite) hurdles.
Siskel and Ebert were limited by time/format, but they did actually talk about what was good/bad about the films they covered even if ultimately it got a thumbs up/down. That's better than a lot of people bother with now which is often just a number or a percentage.
Opus seems to be overly eager of late to 'vibe' out entire solutions and build out things that you didn't ask for.
/goals is helping set the narrative that does it really matter if Sonnet and 3 Haiku agents got you to that end state...eventually...if its what you asked for?
For better or worse Opus is already handing off 80% of its work to background agents of Sonnet, Haiku, and likely a quantized Opus.
Want model selection? Pay for the API.
reply