Re:Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right
by int_19h on Friday March 15, 2024 @04:39PM
(#39720472)
By this logic, a computer is just a bunch of transistors. And transistors are just fancy electric circuits.
Re:Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right
by visitor4712 on Friday March 15, 2024 @06:59PM
(#39721557)
and a human is this ...
Element Symbol Percent mass Percent atoms Oxygen O 65.0 24.0 Carbon C 18.5 12.0 Hydrogen H 9.5 62.0 Nitrogen N 3.2 1.1
Re:Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right
by tr3ntg on Saturday March 16, 2024 @08:44AM
(#39725419)
yes, you’re making my point. The companies that excel at this technology are the same ones that are dominating the general computing space.
Edit: but point taken, we could go down the rabbit hole forever. Definitely not as cut and dry as I was making it out to be
Re:Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right
by adammarples on Friday March 15, 2024 @06:35PM
(#39721398)
If you look at it as purely additive, then sure. If you look at it like this, the era or the horse drawn carriage ended with the motor car, it doesn't get to claim any of the car's influence, despite being a precursor, then no.
I see statements like this about AI too. How can something be bigger than the technology it is built on? The AVP is a computer. AI is a computer accessed through the internet... any computing device that accesses another computing device is further extending the "impact of computers and the internet." I don't get it. Maybe I'm too caught up on the semantics.