PodSearch

Upgrade

519: The Intelligent Trinity

 

00:00:00   [Intro music]

00:00:09   From Relay FM, this is Upgrade, episode 519 for July 1st, 2024. Today's show is brought to you by ExpressVPN and Factor.

00:00:20   My name is Mike Hurley, it is the Summer of Fun! I'm joined by Jason Snow. Hi, Jason.

00:00:27   Hi, Mike. Happy July. Happy July to you too. Yeah, we're in the deep into the Summer of Fun now, I feel like.

00:00:33   I feel like we really got it. We don't get to see what we're wearing, because we don't have video on

00:00:40   during the recording of this, but we do record the video and then post it. Yes. I'm wearing my Summer

00:00:45   of Fun t-shirt today. I'm... Dongle Town. OG Dongle Town, Orange Dongle Town t-shirt today. Beauty.

00:00:52   All right. I like it that we we often wear Upgrade t-shirts during the upgrade. I always wear Upgrade t-shirts on Mondays.

00:00:57   Unless I've had like a meeting or something and I'm wearing something a little nicer, I'll always wear

00:01:01   an Upgrade t-shirt on Mondays. I mean, what's nicer than an Upgrade t-shirt? But I get your...

00:01:06   You have to understand the context of it. We pre-recorded something for a future episode

00:01:10   on Friday, and that we did with video on for reasons that we'll get into later. We have some

00:01:18   special guests coming up, but when the video popped up, it revealed that Mike and I were both wearing

00:01:23   our Upgrade Colors R t-shirts, so that was hilarious. I love it. I have a snow talk question for you,

00:01:29   Jason. All right. It comes from Yoni who wants to know, "Will the 4th of July Lawn Tubeman be making

00:01:35   an appearance this year?" Okay, I think we need to explain this question. So I have a... This is good upgrade

00:01:40   law, this one, I think. Yeah, I have a blower and an inflatable Tubeman. They're called

00:01:46   Air Dancers, I guess. You know, it's like you see them in front of businesses and they

00:01:50   they wave around and stuff, and I have one that is... And then you can buy like a... It's like a

00:01:57   sock that goes on it, and then that's the Tubeman. So the blower can have different Tubeman put on it.

00:02:03   So at Halloween, I have an orange one, and I put the orange Tubeman out there, and the trick-or-treaters

00:02:08   love it. They would... I could create a whole religion or cult out of children in my neighborhood

00:02:17   worshipping the Tubeman, okay? It is catnip for the kids. But... And then I have a Santa. So at

00:02:24   Christmas time, I will put out the Santa, and I think that's a fun little twist on it. So we talked

00:02:28   about the idea that maybe I would get the Uncle Sam or the Eagle or really probably the American

00:02:34   Flag Tubeman. He's kind of got a blue face, and then there's stars below him, and then red and

00:02:38   white stripes below that. And I believe when we talked about this maybe last year or the year

00:02:43   before, then I went to the website and saw that it was like 50 bucks. I was like, "Do I really want

00:02:48   that? Do I want to...?" And I just didn't have the enthusiasm to do it. So once again, the answer is

00:02:53   no, I will not be doing it because I didn't buy the Uncle Sam. - Why are you so enthused about

00:03:02   Santa and Halloween but not about Uncle Sam? - I don't know. I just got the idea that... I bought

00:03:10   the Tubeman because I thought it would be fun. And Jamie and I had talked for years about getting

00:03:14   a Tubeman, much to the consternation of Lauren. Jamie and I were like, "Oh, we could get a Tubeman."

00:03:19   I thought, "Yes, we could. We could." The danger of talking to me, if you're in my family, about

00:03:23   something that seems ridiculous but you all share a laugh about it is that in the background I'm

00:03:27   thinking, "I could actually do that. We could actually do that. That's hahaha. Yeah, wouldn't

00:03:33   it be funny if we got a Tubeman?" I could buy a Tubeman. So yeah, I don't know. I just... I'm

00:03:41   often... Often we are not here on the 4th of July and we are this year and I could have gotten it.

00:03:46   And I just... I look at the price and I think, "Do I want to do this?" And it's always after

00:03:54   4th of July and I'm like, "Do I want to store this away for a future?" I should absolutely

00:03:58   do it though. But we'll figure it out. Oh, but Mike, you know, speaking of the 4th of July...

00:04:03   Yep. It's time for the American quiz. Mike, what is the capital of the United States? Is it New York,

00:04:19   Washington DC, Los Angeles, or Chicago? Washington DC. Alright, correct. In which year did the United

00:04:27   States declare its independence? Was it 1776, 1789, 1812, or 1607? 1776. That's very good.

00:04:39   Reference acknowledged. It was on the 4th of July. Is this happening now? Are we doing this now?

00:04:45   And one more for now. Which river is the longest in the United States? Is it the Mississippi,

00:04:50   the Missouri, the Colorado, or the Ohio? Mississippi River. Correct! Mississippi River.

00:04:55   You got three out of three on this portion of the Upgrade American quiz, but good news everybody.

00:05:04   In Upgrade Plus today, if you're an Upgrade Plus subscriber, we will continue the American quiz

00:05:12   with my little monkey sound that appears to have... Oh, the monkey died! Mike, you win! You're the

00:05:16   victor! The monkey died! Wow, we're deep in the law now. Like, so last year on Upgrade Plus,

00:05:23   on the 4th of July week episode, Jason surprised me with a big American quiz, which I thought... I

00:05:29   think it was the American citizenship test. Yeah, we've done that. I had you identify states in a

00:05:34   previous one. Yeah, I mean, yeah, this is what happens here. So look forward to the return of

00:05:39   the great American quiz... No sound, thank you... of Upgrade Plus. So you go to getupgradeplus.com

00:05:47   and Jason's going to try and get that horrible monkey sound to work, which upsets me greatly. So

00:05:51   we're just going to move on now. Thank you so much to Snout of Tioni for that Snout Talk question

00:05:56   as we move into some follow up. So we've got a bunch of follow up about the Vision Pro and a

00:06:02   cheaper Vision Pro, which was a conversation we had on the last episode. Robert wrote in and said,

00:06:07   "A Vision product at the $500 price point is important for a bunch of reasons, but it all

00:06:12   comes back to price elasticity of demand. The Vision is and will be an accessory product for

00:06:18   a long time. That is how Apple designed it. They don't want it to replace anything. Normal consumers

00:06:23   won't pay over $1,000 for an accessory to their $1,500 laptop to use software running on the

00:06:30   laptop. This is like the HomePod all over again." I want to read the second thing because I think

00:06:34   I kind of got together a little bit. Matt says, "I have to disagree with quite a few aspects of

00:06:39   your discussion about the Vision Pro, specifically around its job to be done and the price. Apple has

00:06:44   said that the Vision Pro is the future of computing. At any point in the past 20 years,

00:06:49   Apple's current vision of computing has cost anywhere from $1,000 to $2,000. Given that,

00:06:55   would you expect them to ever sell a $500 MacBook?" Well, so is it an accessory or is it a computer

00:07:02   is part of the question here. Yeah, I don't think I buy, given how they pitch it right now,

00:07:07   I don't really buy that it is an accessory. I think that if it was priced as a $500 device,

00:07:14   it would be probably considered more of an accessory. But I think that this is part of

00:07:19   what Apple is grappling with, is what is it? Where does it fit? They don't know. One rumor that I saw

00:07:25   was that they were even considering maybe going back to the idea of having it be partially driven

00:07:31   by an iPhone or a Mac in the low-cost version, which is bananas to me, but like that would

00:07:38   certainly put it as firmly as an accessory. I think if it's the future of computing, then sure,

00:07:44   it would cost a lot. The problem is the reality, which is the getting people to buy a Vision Pro

00:07:50   as the future of computing. Right now, they're not going to do that. They're going to buy a laptop.

00:07:54   They're not going to buy a Vision Pro. Like, "Oh, should I buy a laptop or a Vision Pro?" The answer

00:07:58   is going to be almost always a laptop, right? So how do you do this in the long run? How do you

00:08:05   make this product something that has room to evolve over time and become whatever it needs

00:08:11   to be? And I think one thing, what we were talking about last time is they need more users. They need

00:08:20   this thing to have more activity in it. Otherwise, it will be hard for it to grow. So one of the

00:08:26   reasons you build a cheaper product is because the lower that price is, the more people you'll get on

00:08:32   board with it. Yeah, I think it's like, I understand where both Robert and Matt are coming from,

00:08:41   because you've got the "How is Apple talking about it and what are they actually doing with it?"

00:08:47   And those are actually different things. I think realistically, Vision Pro will be the future of

00:08:55   computing in the way that the iPad was. In the sense that for some people, for a large amount

00:09:03   of people, it provides a good enough experience to be their primary computer, but it doesn't

00:09:08   really replace en masse what came before it. And I think the Vision Pro will be a similar thing.

00:09:15   So yes, you would ideally want to put it into the kind of the pricing bucket of an iPad,

00:09:22   which would be around $1,500. We also got a selection of feedback across Mastodon and

00:09:27   Threads in the feedback form about the idea of, you know, because I've said that I don't believe

00:09:36   that $1,500 is really a good enough price still to make a meaningful difference for the Vision Pro,

00:09:44   right? Like that was this price that we're talking about last week, that I'm not sure how much of a

00:09:48   difference $1,500 is to $3,500. And a bunch of people wrote in to say like, "Well, you know,

00:09:53   a laptop costs $1,500." But kind of my counterpoint to that is there, but there's a lot of stuff on

00:09:59   Mac OS. There's a lot of stuff, right? And there's a big inbuilt platform of apps and experiences

00:10:06   that are known to work in that environment. Plus there is all of the inbuilt social contract around

00:10:11   using a laptop, right? Where like, yeah, you could use all of your web apps inside of a Vision Pro,

00:10:18   but you're going to do that at the office? Like I just know at the moment, I'm not really sure that

00:10:23   the Vision Pro replaces it and neither is there really enough of a unique software ecosystem,

00:10:30   like enough of one to justify it. And I don't know if $1,500 as a price point would actually get

00:10:40   there. So I want to actually read a quote from an article that you wrote,

00:10:43   kind of, I think informed by the conversation we had last week where you said,

00:10:47   "Absolutely." "Apple needs to invest more in getting developers to build their apps on Vision

00:10:51   OS. And since the size of the near-term market opportunity sure won't, some of it inducement,

00:10:56   like maybe even money might be a good idea." It's like, that's, I think the thing of there needs to

00:11:01   be more apps. And I don't know if a $1,500 Vision Pro is going to excite enough developers more than

00:11:09   the $3,500 Vision Pro. I think what Apple needs to do is actually give the developer kits that

00:11:18   they seem to suggest they would give and they seemingly never did in a large enough kind of,

00:11:24   I don't think you have enough of them out basically. And I think that could be something

00:11:30   that could make a difference. You need more applications. Maybe a way to do that is to give

00:11:34   a bunch of developers free Vision Pros. Maybe that will encourage them enough to do it.

00:11:37   - Right. It might not even need to be a public program. It could literally be approaching

00:11:41   interesting app developers and saying, "We see you haven't done anything with Vision Pro.

00:11:45   We can get you one, please." And yeah, that would be a way, Apple Arcade is a way that you can drive

00:11:53   some of this 'cause that's a place where Apple actually does pay developers essentially to do

00:11:57   apps on their platform. I wonder though, if there should be some more, maybe even behind the scenes

00:12:02   deals made to induce other developers to actually make apps for the platform. And the idea here,

00:12:08   and productivity apps, entertainment apps, the idea here really is that have this few months into

00:12:14   Vision Pro, it seems like the biggest challenge for Vision Pro is content, is like you said,

00:12:21   you need things on it. And the chicken egg problem is for $1,500 as a user, I'll buy it for $1,500

00:12:31   maybe more readily than I'd buy it for $3,500. I mean, certainly that's the case, but you're still

00:12:36   also coming up against what's on it. And so when we talk about Apple not doing much immersive video

00:12:42   and that they're not being a lot of 3D video on there, and that there are not a lot of apps on

00:12:47   there, and that even like apps, a lot of Apple's apps aren't on there, which is part of the problem

00:12:52   here, but there's a broader problem too. If you're gonna lean in on spatial computing,

00:12:56   you really need apps to be there. If you're gonna talk about entertainment, which they have talked

00:13:00   about some, I think it's the best thing on it, they need more content there. And the other piece

00:13:06   of this is they also need better game content because that's content. And again, Apple and

00:13:12   gaming, I know it's a complicated thing, but I'll tell you, the one thing that has sold VR headsets

00:13:18   to people is games, traditionally in this market, right? It emerged from games. And Apple, I think

00:13:27   for some understandable reasons, when they launched the Vision Pro, they're like basically saying,

00:13:31   "No, we're not." Famously in their demo or in their video, when they introduced it, they said,

00:13:38   "Look, here is an iPad game being played with a handheld controller in Vision Pro." That was

00:13:44   their game story. And there are some games on the platform, but the problem is there's a whole class

00:13:50   of games that was traditionally the best games for other VR headsets that are not on the platform.

00:13:58   And again, I understand why Apple released the Vision Pro with just hand tracking. And every

00:14:04   other VR headset comes with handheld controllers, right? Or I don't know about every other, the

00:14:08   Quest certainly does, right? Handheld controllers have a lot of advantages. There's precision.

00:14:12   You don't even need to see your hands because they have their own tracking in them. So it's very

00:14:19   precise about where your hands are and your hands are on controller buttons that you can use. And

00:14:24   there's haptic feedback so that you get responses to what you do in space. And I understand why

00:14:30   Apple didn't do that because they're like, "No, no, no. We have really great hand tracking." And

00:14:34   they do. And I think as somebody suggested to me last week, a little bit like forcing the original

00:14:42   Mac out without arrow keys, because it was like, "We want you to use the mouse." I think Apple

00:14:46   wanted to say, "This is not just a game platform because at $3,500 it doesn't make sense as a game

00:14:51   platform." And we're really proud of our hand tracking and it's good for productivity. And

00:14:55   you know, every time I put on the Vision Pro, I still am so grateful that I don't have to do

00:15:00   the thing I do with the Quest where I have to not just put on the headset, but get the controllers

00:15:05   and put them nearby and then pick them up and make sure they've got their batteries in them.

00:15:09   And then I'm good to go. And the Vision Pro, I just put it on and then I can run the whole thing.

00:15:13   And I know that the hand tracking has gotten better on the Quest. Quest 3's hand tracking is

00:15:17   fine. It's not as good as Apple's. But the problem is that they're missing all of the titles, all of

00:15:24   the software that could get ported to Vision Pro and be good because they have decided to not

00:15:32   either build optional hand controllers or build an API so that third parties can build hand

00:15:37   controllers. And what I'm saying is I understand why Apple wanted to go out the door without them,

00:15:43   but it would be a really quick win for the platform if there was an API or there were

00:15:49   Apple hand controllers as an option so that you could bring a load of cool, fun, interesting games

00:16:01   into the store. The ones that have been brought over, like the simulators, the job simulator and

00:16:08   all that, are kind of wonky. The Fruit Ninja one that they did, I think it's terrible. I just can't

00:16:17   do it. And I am coming from somebody who's used a Quest and I know how good this should be, and it's

00:16:22   not. And it's because, as good as Apple's hand tracking is, it's missing a bunch of things that

00:16:27   make these games really good in terms of precision input from your movements and from pressing things,

00:16:34   as well as having the haptics there. So this is one of those things where it's like,

00:16:38   I understand why Apple's proud of its hand tracking, but it can't be dogmatic. I'm really

00:16:46   reminded of the whole idea of the Apple Pencil. Remember, if you see a stylus, they blew it.

00:16:51   The whole point of that was a touchscreen shouldn't have to have a stylus. It shouldn't

00:16:56   be mandatory. Well, a VR headset shouldn't have to have hand controllers. Absolutely true, 100%.

00:17:03   However, the Apple Pencil makes the iPad way better, and it's not a condemnation of the

00:17:08   touch on the iPad. It's because there's certain things where you want a little more precision

00:17:12   and the ergonomics make more sense, and so optionally you can add the Apple Pencil.

00:17:17   And if I'm looking at what they could do to Vision Pro as they're trying to get the price down to make

00:17:24   it more valuable, allowing hand controllers to exist for the platform so that you get a bunch

00:17:30   of games in there on top of your immersive video that is coming. It's coming. There's going to be

00:17:36   more of that and more 3D video and also, yes, productivity apps and all those things. At this

00:17:41   point, if you're in charge of Vision Pro, I feel like you need to be finding every possible way

00:17:47   to sell a $1,500 headset by the end of next year, and that includes getting a bunch of those games.

00:17:55   They've got that relationship with ILM Interactive. They did What If.

00:17:59   Well, could they get Vader Immortal to come over? That's a lightsaber game. You can't really do it

00:18:04   without hand controllers. But could they? I don't know what the contracts are with Meta or whatever,

00:18:12   if there are limits on that. But porting a bunch of really great games, or even knocking them off

00:18:17   in the case of things that are owned by Meta and aren't coming to the platform, it just seems like

00:18:21   this needs to be Apple's prime motivation to keep this thing going and growing.

00:18:27   I know that they're playing the long game here, but they also need some signs of life and some

00:18:31   progress in the next 18 months. So if they did this, they were like, "Oh, you can come

00:18:37   and play this game, but it requires hand controllers." Do you think that is a hurdle?

00:18:44   Do you think that is a problem, the requirement? It's not ideal that it's not in every box,

00:18:51   but I had a bunch of people write to me after I wrote this article saying it's actually exactly

00:18:55   what happened with the Apple TV. They made it that every game that was on the Apple TV at the

00:19:01   beginning, other than Guitar Hero, had to use the Siri remote. Yes. Oh my god, yes. No, no, no, no.

00:19:10   So I get it, but if Apple's not willing to put controllers in the box and it's already a very

00:19:16   expensive product, that's fine. I think they need to be good with the idea that there are a bunch of

00:19:21   game experiences that get better if you unlock the third-party controller or the Apple controller.

00:19:26   That is an option. Apple has had no problem selling straps and selling puffy cases and

00:19:33   selling optical inserts and other things for the Vision Pro. So why not sell some hand trackers you

00:19:41   can boast about that you built or you built for Belkin or whatever? So I get it, right? It's not

00:19:47   as clean as saying these games are available because it's these games are available asterisk.

00:19:52   But right now they're already having to tell the story of, well this game plays a lot better if you

00:19:56   pair a controller to it. Right? They literally had a paired third-party controller. Well the Apple TV

00:20:02   has some games that only work with a controller. For sure. Now. Yeah. Now. Currently. Now. Like

00:20:09   you have to have like a proper controller, right? So like there just isn't anything else. It's like

00:20:15   you need an Xbox controller or a PlayStation controller or whatever to play like one of the NBA

00:20:21   basketball games that they have in Apple Arcade or something like that. So yeah, it's not unheard of.

00:20:26   Right. Now if they want to get creative and have it be two pencil pros that you hold in your hands

00:20:32   and they have haptic and they have position, like okay, we could talk about that. But I feel like

00:20:36   they got to do something and this is just, again, I'm not saying, oh no, the Apple pencil or the

00:20:41   Apple pencil, the Vision Pro is doomed without hand controllers. That's not quite what I'm saying.

00:20:44   I'm saying for momentum to be built with the Vision Pro, I think at this point, as you're

00:20:50   going toward a $1,500, $1,000, whatever it is, lower cost version, you just got to turn over the

00:20:57   couch cushions and like look in there for anything that will motivate people to come to the platform.

00:21:04   And some of it is video content and some of it is apps and motivating developers to be on the

00:21:11   platform is part of the story. And this to me seems like another quick win. I'm not saying it's easy,

00:21:18   but I'm saying it looks like the amount of effort required to do it would probably get paid back

00:21:23   by the amount of software you'd be able to put on your platform. The Vision Pro is now available to

00:21:29   buy in China, Hong Kong, Japan, and Singapore. And pre-orders are available for Australia, Canada,

00:21:35   France, Germany, and the UK. So a lot of people pointing this out on Threads and Mastodon that

00:21:42   in the photos that Apple put in their newsroom piece for the Asian launches, all of the people

00:21:50   using the devices were using the dual loop band, not the solo loop band for their demos.

00:21:56   Mark Gurman has confirmed this is actually an official change for comfort reasons with

00:22:01   Apple retail that by and large, customers prefer, comfort wise, the dual loop band rather than the

00:22:07   solo loop band. Mark Gurman has also shared that Apple has changed the demo experience worldwide

00:22:13   with this release. You can now, if you go in for a demo, rather than looking at stock photos

00:22:20   or videos on the Vision Pro, you can send your own photos or videos to the device to look at those,

00:22:26   so you can get a more personal experience. And additionally, the retail employees are being told

00:22:31   that if a user wants to spend more time with a specific part of the experience, they're being

00:22:37   given more freedom to do so, to kind of go deep on, as they're calling it, on a particular app

00:22:44   or part of Vision OS. So they're trying to do more, it seems. Yeah, this goes back to our

00:22:49   conversation about the ways that Apple retail is adapting to selling the Vision Pro, right?

00:22:54   Because we talked about how there was a perception that the canned demo took too long,

00:22:59   and they got, again, and I go back to the inception of this product, clearly there were a bunch of

00:23:05   points, philosophical points that became kind of tent poles of this product.

00:23:12   And the screen that faces out is one of them, oh, we don't want to lose connection with this

00:23:19   product, so we're going to put eyes on the front of it and all of that. One of them was, we're going

00:23:23   to have a very particular way that we introduce this to people in retail stores, and we're going

00:23:28   to have a whole script and we're going to get everybody trained. And now they're reacting to it,

00:23:32   where, as we talked about a few weeks ago, they have shortened it up because they want to just

00:23:37   get it on everybody's head, because once you see it, you can be blown away by it. And so it's

00:23:42   interesting for this report that also we will find a way for you to see your photos and videos and be

00:23:49   blown away by that, which is pretty great. So they're learning, right? They're learning. But

00:23:55   when we talk about some of the technical stuff, when we talk about lack of hand controller option

00:24:00   or some of the other things they're doing, or trying to take things off of it like that front

00:24:05   face display, presumably, to make a cheaper version, I think it's all the same, which is

00:24:10   there were some very strong held beliefs about this product that I would say don't necessarily

00:24:17   make sense, but I understand how they probably emerged from an ongoing internal conversation.

00:24:23   And I don't want to be so reductive as to say there were a bunch of people who were like,

00:24:27   as reports would suggest, Johnny Ive saying sort of like very highfalutin things about,

00:24:32   "Oh, we don't want to cut people off and they really need to understand it." And that's part

00:24:36   of Apple's personality is being that kind of like controlling and visionary and not necessarily as

00:24:43   real realistic as maybe they should be. And then reality hits. And so it's good to see Apple

00:24:50   adapting and saying, "Oh yeah, maybe they should see their own photos and maybe we can't do the

00:24:55   full 30 minutes." And also maybe if they want to go a little longer, I mean, do you have 10

00:25:01   other people waiting to use the Vision Pro? Maybe let them play around a little bit longer if you're

00:25:05   closing the sale here. So that all, it's a good sign. I think the longer somebody uses a Vision

00:25:11   Pro, the more likely they are to buy one. 100%. 100% true. Yeah. I've been using mine more

00:25:19   since the 2.0 beta came out. I've written a bunch of articles on it. Like you, every time I...

00:25:27   Like when you're in it. Yeah, I suppose. And like you, I also find very much like once I'm in there,

00:25:35   I kind of want to stay in there. So I'm like, what else can I do while I'm in here?

00:25:39   Yeah, I like play around, like, you know, go to the apps and stuff. I'm excited that now

00:25:44   the UK is coming online soon. I'll be able to actually use my iCloud account, which will be

00:25:50   great. Or my App Store account, I should say. I also ordered a second solo band so I can do the

00:25:57   solo top thing that everybody does. You're gonna do solo top? All right. It's good. I really like it.

00:26:01   For those who don't know, that's the, there's a little 3D printed adapter you can buy on like

00:26:05   Etsy or whatever. And you put another solo, one of those adjustable solo bands on the top. So

00:26:11   you're creating a dual strap out of two of the adjustable bands. A bunch of us have done that.

00:26:16   And it's really nice. I understand why Apple didn't want to do it because it probably costs a lot of

00:26:20   money. And I'm guessing that number one thing that will be the case in the, in the low priced, lower

00:26:26   priced Vision Pro next year will be, they'll just use the cheap dual band. I mean, the cheap dual

00:26:31   band seems to... Yeah. Like, and that's another case where I think that that 3D knitted band was

00:26:37   very kind of over engineered and very precious and beautiful. And then people use it and they're like,

00:26:42   I need something more. And they're like, all right, we made this dual strap thing for you.

00:26:47   And then you'll have to buy a nice strap separate if you want. Yeah. There are some weird ways that

00:26:52   could get the price down, right? It could be like, all right, this is the starting price. It doesn't

00:26:55   include, it includes one band and no battery. You can plug it in, right? And keep like to power or

00:27:01   you can buy a battery if you want to be mobile with it. There is a bunch of weird ways that could

00:27:07   get that starting price down, but it would degrade the experience, but that might be what they need

00:27:12   to do if they want to kind of get that price down. Get more people out there. This episode is brought

00:27:18   to you by ExpressVPN. Going online without ExpressVPN could be a little like leaving your

00:27:23   laptop unattended while you're going and, you know, buying something at a coffee shop. Most of the time

00:27:28   be fine. You could see it out of the corner of your eye, but would you take the risk? You know,

00:27:32   you'd ask someone to look after you, you know, grab it for yourself. When you connect to unencrypted

00:27:36   networks. And for me, this is mostly in hotels, but it could be in airports and places like that.

00:27:41   Your data isn't fully secure. Someone on the same network could gain access to your information.

00:27:47   This could be anything that you're searching. This could be personal information of your own,

00:27:52   stuff that you don't want in someone else's hands. And ExpressVPN can stop this by creating a secure

00:27:57   encrypted tunnel between your device and the internet. There are tons of reasons to choose

00:28:02   ExpressVPN over other VPN options. It's incredibly secure. It would take someone with a supercomputer

00:28:10   over a billion years to get past ExpressVPN's encryption. Now I don't know about you,

00:28:14   that's a long time. It's easy to use. ExpressVPN is. Just fire up the app, click one button and

00:28:20   you're protected. I keep it in my menu bar on my Mac. And whenever I'm somewhere, whenever I am in,

00:28:26   if I'm in a coffee shop, if I'm in a hotel, if I'm in an airport, I make sure to turn on ExpressVPN

00:28:32   because then I feel comfortable. You know, I'm sharing a network of everyone. I don't know what's

00:28:36   going on in that network. I want my information to stay private. It's very easy to do that.

00:28:40   And ExpressVPN works on all your devices, your phones, laptops, tablets, and more. So you can

00:28:44   stay secure on the go. Plus it's been rated number one by top tech sites like CNET and The Verge.

00:28:50   Another thing that I love about ExpressVPN, especially when I'm traveling, is I'm able to

00:28:55   connect to my ExpressVPN and route the traffic back through that one of their servers in the UK.

00:29:00   So I can still get access to all of the content and streaming services that I would have when

00:29:04   I'm home. It's really convenient. Secure your data online today by visiting expressvpn.com/upgrade.

00:29:11   That is e-x-p-r-e-s-s vpn.com/upgrade. You can get an extra three months of ExpressVPN for free.

00:29:19   Secure your online data today. Go to expressvpn.com/upgrade. Our thanks to ExpressVPN for their

00:29:25   support of this show and Relay FM. It's time to lawyer up, Jason Snell. Clunk, clunk. So we

00:29:32   mentioned on the last episode that we were recording a few days in advance and we expected

00:29:37   that the European Union would be publishing something and they did. The EU has found Apple

00:29:43   in breach of the DMA over a variety of reasons, including their anti-steering rules. They have

00:29:50   also announced that they are investigating the core technology fee and all of the steps that

00:29:54   Apple make users go through to install alternative app marketplaces, which is another form of

00:29:59   steering. The European Union is essentially unhappy with the ways in which they're saying

00:30:04   Apple is limiting the ability for developers to freely enable alternative payment methods

00:30:09   and sideloading of apps without also needing to accept the new business terms, which they are also

00:30:15   unhappy with. When I was reading through the European Union's press release that they put out,

00:30:20   it felt like they were taking every element that Apple has done to comply and say,

00:30:28   "We're not happy with this." And what it kept bringing me back to was the term malicious

00:30:32   compliance, right, which we were talking about when Apple first put out their DMA

00:30:36   response where for weeks me and you were sitting here on this show and picking it apart and being

00:30:41   like, "I don't know about that. I'm not sure about that." And this term was being used a lot online

00:30:45   about malicious compliance, which is like they're essentially complying with what the European Union

00:30:50   is asking them to do, but they're doing it in such a way that makes it very unattractive for

00:30:55   developers to want to opt into this or users to want to opt into this. And it seems like the

00:31:00   European Union is saying exactly that. Right. Yeah. I mean, this is the question is how do they

00:31:06   handle this? And we talked about Apple's approach here of basically doing as little as possible

00:31:12   and engineering things in a way that it changes what Apple does as little as possible. And I

00:31:16   think some of this maybe comes down to the way that the DMA is written and the way the regulation

00:31:24   works, where it seems like they're basically expecting a company to embrace what they've been

00:31:32   told to do to the fullest extent and do it. And I look at that and think, how would you expect a

00:31:40   company to react to that? It's unrealistic. Of course Apple's going to do the minimum it can

00:31:46   to fulfill the law while retaining as much control as possible. Of course they're going to do that.

00:31:52   And so you need a system where there's a little more clarity and they come to some agreement on

00:32:00   it. And that's not the system that's happening with Apple in the EU where they've come to any

00:32:04   agreement on anything. It's more like Apple will try to slide something through and then see what

00:32:08   gets flagged. And then we go from there and everybody figures out what the next steps are.

00:32:15   And there's somewhat of a lack of clarity. And then there's also Apple just trying to pick

00:32:19   apart. Right. Again, Apple's not interested in the spirit of the law. And I think that the European

00:32:24   Commission is interested in the spirit of the law. Apple's not. Apple's like, look, you said to do

00:32:28   this thing. You didn't say we couldn't add a core technology fee. So we're going to do that. And

00:32:33   that is the challenge in regulating them is you need to, if you're a regulator, you need to be

00:32:39   able to point to the language in your document and make your rulings about policy and say, no,

00:32:45   this is, you missed the point here. And if they are able to do that, then Apple will have to

00:32:53   change its ways. But this is why this is so messy is that Apple's not going to go along with it.

00:32:59   And I know all of us can say, look, Apple, this could all have been avoided if you had just behaved

00:33:05   in a different way. I think Apple's approach is no, why should we? We're just going to keep

00:33:11   fighting it. And I think it's different in some places like China where Apple also complies with

00:33:15   regulations. But I think that Apple is told what is required in China. And it's very clear.

00:33:20   And also China is an authoritarian state where you can't really appeal to the public in the way that

00:33:27   you maybe could in Europe and hope that they make changes. It's a different system. But here,

00:33:33   in this case, Apple's looking at the EC and the DMA and saying, well, this is how we're going to

00:33:40   play it. And I think it's up to the EC to provide more clarity about what they want Apple to do.

00:33:48   Because right now we're in this weird game where they're sort of like winking and making hand

00:33:51   signals and Apple's like, okay, you know, I'm not going to, Apple doesn't want to give away anything

00:33:57   it isn't forced to essentially. I don't begrudge in this scenario, Apple attempting to do what

00:34:05   they're attempting to do, right? Which is be legal, but within the ways that protect them the most.

00:34:13   But if you're going to do that, you're opening yourself up to a lot of criticism,

00:34:19   which I'm also very happy to give. Right. Right. And the danger that you will be

00:34:24   ultimately forced to do more than you would have been.

00:34:28   Where if you would have had to do this in good faith, you may have been able to make

00:34:33   some concessions where if you come to this in what is considered bad faith, you may be forced

00:34:38   to do things that you didn't want to do, which actually this just goes back to what we've been

00:34:42   saying on the show for years, where maybe if Apple would have made concessions earlier on,

00:34:47   they wouldn't be in this place anyway. Right. Before the DMA may never have existed

00:34:53   if Apple were maybe different about the way that they run the app store, but they wanted to do

00:34:57   things the way that they wanted to do. And I have a statement here that was given to 9to5Mac from

00:35:02   Apple where they say they are confident our plan complies with the law and estimate more than 99%

00:35:07   of developers would pay the same or less in fees to Apple under new business terms.

00:35:12   So basically there's two things going on here, which is one,

00:35:21   the EU commissioners had their preliminary findings where they're unhappy with steering,

00:35:27   and they're now opening another investigation, which includes the CTF, which includes

00:35:34   eligibility requirements for developers, like the membership of good standing wording they're

00:35:40   unhappy with, and also how complicated it is to download an alternative app marketplace,

00:35:46   where what they have found them in breach for is the business terms, which restrict developers,

00:35:53   you know, like you can only opt into this and it completely changes everything.

00:35:57   The way that alternative payment methods have all the scare sheets, they're unhappy with those,

00:36:02   and also some in-app purchase fee stuff. So it's a lot, honestly. This is what I mean,

00:36:07   when you actually read through it, which again, I will credit that I said this last time, I'll say

00:36:12   it again, the European Union's press releases are very readable in a way that I wouldn't have

00:36:16   expected from a government body. Like you can just read them and they're very clear.

00:36:22   They're essentially unhappy with every single part of it. So this continues and will continue

00:36:29   to go on for a long time. EU competition regulator Margaret Vestager has said that Apple's decision

00:36:37   to withhold Apple intelligence in the European Union is a stunning, open declaration of their

00:36:43   anti-competitive behavior. I want to read the full quote that she gave. "I find that very

00:36:50   interesting that they say we will now deploy AI where we're not obliged to enable competition.

00:36:57   I think that this is the most stunning open declaration that they know 100% that this is

00:37:02   another way of disabling competition where they have a stronghold already."

00:37:06   So this is not dissimilar to I think our initial take on this news that came out

00:37:15   during last episode, right? When we were recording, this news dropped and that there was,

00:37:21   I think, as I will speak for myself, had the take of like, "Oh, this is like another card they can

00:37:26   play to maybe try and drum up support amongst European users to be in opposition to the DMA."

00:37:33   And I've been reflecting since last week's episode and my opinions have changed slightly. Like I kind

00:37:41   of now hold two opinions about this where I still think that Apple are using these features as a way

00:37:49   to maybe try and get a leg up on Europe. However, I think I can see more of some legitimate concern

00:37:59   from them about any new feature, big new feature that includes data of any kind or any kind of

00:38:06   system like an ecosystem play. They need to be very hesitant about bringing those features into

00:38:14   any country that wants to attack their interoperability. Without confirmation from

00:38:22   the European Union, how does Apple know if Apple Intelligence will comply with what the DMA wants?

00:38:29   And if the DMA would require them to change it in some way, would that be an issue for their

00:38:36   privacy part of like the private cloud stuff? Because at the core, the DMA is going after

00:38:44   Apple's interoperability. Like that's what they want to break. But so does the Department of

00:38:49   Justice, right? We've got to remember that case still like floating out there. Their whole thing

00:38:54   is wanting to break up Apple's interoperability, even with like the Apple Watch and stuff.

00:38:58   So I don't know. Basically, I think Apple's taken advantage of this for where they can.

00:39:06   But I can see a scenario in which they do not feel inclined to mess with this legally,

00:39:14   especially considering like they're on the cutting edge, the bleeding edge of Apple Intelligence.

00:39:19   Like any more work they need to do to get Apple Intelligence out the door than they thought they

00:39:24   would is going to be a problem for them. So maybe they're just going to hold it off in the places

00:39:28   where they're not sure if they can launch it. So that's kind of my thoughts and reflection.

00:39:32   I don't know what you think now with a week and a bit. Well, this statement from Margaret

00:39:38   Bessinger is a moment where I thought like I have been very open to some of what the EC is trying to

00:39:46   do. Because it's a lot of addressing a lot of criticisms that we've had about Apple's control

00:39:55   over its market and over the App Store and some of the arbitrary rules that it sets that we think are

00:40:00   unfair. And so I've been inclined to say, yeah, you know, shake it up, right? Like make Apple,

00:40:06   you're right, these things are kind of unfair and Apple should do better. But this quote

00:40:11   makes me realize that the vision that she has and perhaps that the regulators,

00:40:20   you know, that work in this group have is much broader than that. And I think I'm deeply troubled

00:40:28   by it because what first off what she's saying here is anytime Apple withholds any feature from

00:40:36   the EU, they are telling on themselves that they are revealing that that is a plan to

00:40:45   disable competition. Everything Apple has withheld is they're doing it because it was another feature

00:40:53   designed to disable competition. And she's really kind of patting herself on the back here about

00:40:59   like protecting people from evil Apple, where everything that they do is another way using

00:41:08   her words of disabling competition. The problem with that is what Apple what you said is true,

00:41:16   what Apple is doing is trying to ship features and build features and ship them. And in this case,

00:41:20   with AI, they are on a desperate push to ship features quickly. And what she's saying is,

00:41:30   oh, it's all part of a scheme by Apple. And the truth is, no, it's a tech company building

00:41:35   features, in this case, very quickly. And I don't know what she wants. I think, I mean,

00:41:42   I don't know, because if what she wants is that Apple should, where's the competition? Apple

00:41:49   should allow other models access to the personal data that's being kept on your device? Or is it

00:41:59   other models should be able to be used instead of Apple's model? I don't know where this goes,

00:42:04   but I think it suggests an attitude that tech companies who have been named as gatekeepers

00:42:15   should no longer launch features that aren't completely open to competition,

00:42:22   which sort of turns Apple's maintenance of iOS into running a public utility instead of being

00:42:28   a tech company that is competing with another large tech company for control and success in

00:42:36   this platform, in smartphones, and making Apple some sort of electric company where the idea is,

00:42:42   oh, well, you've got a lot of regulation and you're a public utility and everything you go

00:42:48   through has to be approved and all of that. Apple's shipping new features. Tech companies

00:42:52   can't ship new features that are just an open slot with, we don't know whether those features will

00:43:00   work or not. Will anyone care or not? Once you ship an API, you're sort of going to maintain it,

00:43:07   or do they have to maintain it forever? What if they have to change it? Is that any competitive

00:43:12   to change it and make all their alternatives change to sort the new API? This statement by her

00:43:19   suggests a level of contempt for Apple doing what it does, which is build products,

00:43:26   thinking that they are the ones, the regulators are the ones who can tell tech companies

00:43:33   how to make software features work. It's, I think, delusional. We'll see what happens here.

00:43:45   I think the truth is that Apple, I also think they're bent out of shape because Apple announced

00:43:50   a bunch of features without talking to them first because Apple's not going to talk to them first.

00:43:53   It's going to release it on its own schedule. The risk for Apple is that this all comes to pass.

00:43:58   The risk for Apple is that what the EU says is, "No, you read it right. You are going to have to

00:44:05   internalize us and build every feature you're going to build on this plan of open competition.

00:44:13   That is the future. You are going to be building a public service in your operating system."

00:44:20   The danger is that not only do they have to do that in the EU, but then they start to have to

00:44:27   do that in lots of other parts of the world until ever. There's a way to say, "What's the danger

00:44:32   in competition?" What I would say is, no, competition is good, but Apple's whole thing

00:44:40   is that they build interesting features that people want to use. I'm telling you that if

00:44:46   what Apple has to start building are public utility features that are mandated, where it's

00:44:51   an empty box that you can plug something in from Apple or something else, they're going to build a

00:44:56   lot fewer features and they aren't going to be very good. Because that's not what Apple does.

00:45:00   Apple's trying to build an integrated product. What you want to stop is Apple abusing its power

00:45:06   in one area to break companies in other areas. But what you should not do is prevent Apple from

00:45:12   making features. This is what the danger is here. I was open last week to the idea of, "Oh, well,

00:45:23   Apple's doing some politics here, but also presumably that they will analyze this and

00:45:27   they'll talk to the regulators and they'll say, 'Does this comply or not?'" They're giving the

00:45:31   regulators the opportunity to say, "You know, that screen sharing thing is fine. Don't worry about

00:45:36   it. Just go ahead and ship it." But when I see this comment and she's going out, she's been fighting

00:45:41   them a long time, I'm sure she's frustrated and she's not going to have this job much longer. I

00:45:47   think she's going to get replaced. I think her term is ending or something like that.

00:45:52   I do not like the way that she phrases this because it comes across as, "I'm not here to

00:45:59   help people who are being troubled by Apple's policies." This is more like, "Oh, everything

00:46:07   Apple does is out to get you." Again, it's politics, it's rhetoric, but it very much

00:46:14   makes me look at what they're doing more negatively than I have before. I see this statement

00:46:23   kind of to me is similar to an opportunity she's taking in the same way that Apple took

00:46:30   its opportunity to hold these features back. This is all politics, it's all grandstanding,

00:46:35   right? She's… Oh yeah, 100%. She's punching back. She's punching back, right? And she's like,

00:46:41   "Ah, look at them." But I find that there is a possibility in the statement that she's making

00:46:47   where what she's kind of drawing to is that she believes Apple have a duty to release

00:46:56   these AI features in the EU. And I am uncomfortable with the idea of a company being compelled to do

00:47:08   something from a government in that way where they can say, "If you want to have this feature here,

00:47:16   you must comply with our laws." It's very different to, "You should do that. No,

00:47:23   you got to do that." You know what I mean? I think there is a fine line there.

00:47:27   That's why it's so interesting and the way that Apple did this, I think it's why it's impossible

00:47:34   to say, "Oh, Apple just did this for technical reasons." This is an important moment because

00:47:40   everything up to now has been existing Apple features, existing Apple policy. This is the first

00:47:49   true post-DMA feature drop. And Apple is making it clear that given the DMA, they either need to

00:48:03   build all their features to be DMA compliant and everybody in the world is going to get that

00:48:09   feature the same way, which is what Europe wants, I think. I think that's what the EC wants. Or

00:48:14   Apple is going to build the most compelling product they can and then figure out whether

00:48:20   it's going to be okay in Europe or not. And the result is going to be that Europe is going to lag

00:48:25   behind in some of these features. Now, to be fair, this is US English only and Apple doesn't ship a

00:48:31   lot of things in a lot of EU countries. There's so much stuff that they don't do, right? Apple TV is

00:48:38   still not even available in certain countries. Yeah, oh yeah, absolutely. So it's more of that,

00:48:45   but I think it is also Apple saying, "This is how we're going to play our game is we're going

00:48:51   to build our features the way we want and then we'll figure out whether we need to make..." We're

00:48:56   not going to delay a feature for a year, especially not AI where they absolutely have to ship it.

00:49:00   We're not going to delay a feature in order to build it up with all of the things that we think

00:49:06   that the European Commission might have a problem with. That is no way to build a feature. So I

00:49:13   think Apple is saying, "We're just going to build our features and you tell us what's wrong with

00:49:19   them and then we'll see." And so then logically the regulator's response to that is to stamp her

00:49:25   feet and throw a tantrum because she wants Apple to do what she wants. And Apple's saying, "No,

00:49:32   we're not going to do it that way and we are going to withhold features." She knows that makes them

00:49:37   look bad. It absolutely does make them look bad because now they are put in a position of being

00:49:45   the ones who are not protecting European citizens from big bad Apple by making Apple reform,

00:49:52   but the people who are standing in the way of new features. And it may not be a big deal, but it's

00:49:58   a thing. And so her response, I think, is logical in the sense that it's basically punching back and

00:50:05   saying, "Oh, well, they're doing this. It's on them. They're doing this because they're evil,

00:50:09   basically, instead of they're doing this because we have a very confusing set of rules and they

00:50:15   don't know what to do, even if that's the case." But again, it's politics. I get it. I hope that

00:50:20   there's a mechanism behind the scenes for features like this, once they've been announced, to have

00:50:25   that conversation and say, "What do you think? Will this fly?" Because that's at the core of this,

00:50:32   is Apple's basically putting down features and saying, "This is our feature. And do you object?"

00:50:38   And there's no structure for that. Apparently, it's just backroom dealings, meetings. I don't know.

00:50:46   I also just wanted to note, just because I think this is an interesting thing to be aware of for now

00:50:50   and see where it goes over the next few months, Epic have submitted the Epic Game Store app

00:50:57   marketplace and Fortnite to Apple for notarization. So they have said publicly they've

00:51:04   done that. And they're saying they're planning to launch both within the coming months in the EU.

00:51:09   We'll see what happens. We'll see, right? Because this is the shame of what has happened with those

00:51:15   emulators, is for years now, Apple has been notarizing Mac apps in a way that was... People

00:51:25   were worried it was going to be a de facto app store approval for all Mac apps. And they never

00:51:31   did it. They never did it. And when they brought it to iOS, they said, in the EU, they said, "Well,

00:51:38   it's going to be a little more stringent." Okay. But now everybody looks at notarization and says,

00:51:45   "Is Apple going to play favorites? Is Apple going to enforce app store rules outside the app store?"

00:51:49   Sure seems like some of that is going on with the emulators. So how do they feel about Epic,

00:51:56   which you know they hate? Right? So we'll see. What could be argued, the whole reason all of

00:52:03   this is happening in the first place, right? Is this. Yeah. Right? Right. But all eyes are on

00:52:08   them and there is legal history between them and they are in the 1%, not the 99% of that Apple

00:52:15   statement, right? About, "Oh, 99% of people won't care." And then there's the 1%. Like Epic Games is

00:52:21   a large portion of that percent. So yeah, we'll see what happens. They may not be able to mess

00:52:26   with them because it would be such a thing, but I've been surprised by Apple's behavior before.

00:52:33   Yeah, exactly. This episode is brought to you by Factor. Warmer, sunnier days are calling. Fuel up

00:52:43   for them with Factor's no prep, no mess meals. You can meet your wellness goals in time for summer

00:52:48   thanks to the menu of chef crafted meals that Factor have available with options like calorie

00:52:54   smart, protein plus and keto. Factor's fresh, never frozen meals, a dietician approved and ready

00:53:00   to eat in just two minutes. So no matter how busy you are, you'll always have time to enjoy nutritious

00:53:06   great tasting meals. Make today the day you kickstart a new healthy routine. There is so much

00:53:12   to love about Factor. With 35 different meals and more than 60 add-ons to choose from every week,

00:53:18   you're always going to find new flavors to explore. You can reach your wellness goals this

00:53:24   summer for this season with dietician approved meals and ingredients that you can trust.

00:53:30   And why not treat yourself to restaurant quality meals that feature premium ingredients like filet

00:53:35   mignon, shrimp and blackened salmon. You can keep kitchen time to a minimum too. Factor meals are

00:53:41   ready in just two minutes, no shopping, prepping, cooking or cleanup. So enjoy effortless support

00:53:46   for your lifestyle to choose from six preferences to help you manage calories, maximize protein

00:53:52   intake, avoid meat or simply eat well balanced. Jason, I know that Factor is a favorite in the

00:54:00   Snell household. Yes, I think there's no better endorsement and I'll just say it again, the fact

00:54:05   that we get the Factor meals in, put them in the fridge and then they disappear because my wife

00:54:12   works outside of the house, the garage that I work in. She goes to the library where she works and

00:54:18   she's got to have a lunch every day. And those Factor meals were like, look, I get a lot of

00:54:23   podcast stuff that comes in and people are like, you know, oh, you get free podcast stuff. Well,

00:54:27   yeah, it varies. You know, you're like, oh, what's the weird thing that the podcast industry has said

00:54:32   is this week for an advertisement. So try the Factor stuff. And she was immediately like, no,

00:54:37   this is really good. This is the most positive reaction she's had to any of these things.

00:54:42   And very rapidly, I could not have very many of them for my lunches because she just took them

00:54:47   away because they're that good. And the ingredients are that good and they reheat and still taste good,

00:54:53   which I think, I don't know what magic they're doing, but I think it goes down again to the

00:54:57   quality of the ingredients. This is not the kind of stuff where you get a frozen dinner somewhere

00:55:02   and you heat it up and you're like, oh, it's not very good. And it's like, it's, it's actually

00:55:07   good. So good that I can't keep them in stock in my refrigerator. They just disappear. They walk

00:55:11   right out the door every morning and go to the library to be consumed by someone who is not me.

00:55:16   Head over to factormeals.com/upgrade50 and use the code upgrade50 to get 50% off your first box

00:55:23   plus 20% off your next month. That's the code upgrade50 at factormeals.com/upgrade50 and you'll

00:55:30   get 50% off your first box plus 20% off your next month while your subscription is active.

00:55:35   Our thanks to Factor for their support of this show and Relay FM.

00:55:40   Room around uptime. We've got a bunch of stuff here today. It's a bit scattered. We'll start with

00:55:46   Mark Gurman who is reporting that Apple is working on bringing Apple intelligence to the Vision Pro,

00:55:51   but it won't be launching this year. Gurman says that the hardware capability in the Vision Pro is

00:55:57   there. So we were wondering about this, right? That like the chips in theory seem like they would

00:56:02   be powerful enough, but are they being overused? But Gurman says that the user interface is

00:56:07   actually the main challenge here, getting that design right for the Vision Pro. Reading between

00:56:13   the lines is also like it's not their main focus and that they are, you know. Well, it's lower

00:56:20   priority than the iPhone and the iPad and the Mac. But as we thought actually when they announced

00:56:28   Vision OS 2, I think the Vision OS track is just very different. First off, the product's only

00:56:34   been out for a few months and I think there's going to be more going on with Vision Pro,

00:56:39   hopefully over the next year. And this is a great example of that, which is Apple not comfortable

00:56:43   talking about Apple intelligence on Vision Pro. I'm sure it's on the list, but they don't know how

00:56:47   the next year is going to go. I'm sure it's on the list, right? And so this report says, yeah,

00:56:52   they're thinking about it too. Of course they are. But you know, number one is to get it on the

00:56:57   iPhone. That is number one. And then number two is the Mac and the iPad and then other stuff. So

00:57:05   I get it. It is good news though, right? I mean, there was some fear that it was not going to be

00:57:10   up to the challenge and it sounds like he did some deking and that it is up to the challenge

00:57:16   of supporting Apple intelligence. So speaking of the list of priorities, something that may not be

00:57:21   on that list at all is the HomePod. Marcus shared that Apple is currently not working on adding

00:57:26   these features to the current HomePods because technically it just can't, like there's not a

00:57:32   surprise. Not enough RAM, not enough processor. Why would you build, why would you build,

00:57:37   I mean like a bunch of last year's iPhones don't support it, let alone a HomePod from a while ago.

00:57:43   So here is a, this is a really interesting question. I think I'm going to write an article

00:57:47   about this. Is Siri fragmentation, right? The idea that we're going to enter an era where some of our

00:57:53   devices have new Siri and some don't, right? You've got, let's, maybe if you've got a qualifying Mac

00:58:01   and iPad and iPhone, you'll have it on all. But what if you have like an M1 Mac, but an iPhone 15

00:58:09   and an M2 iPad. And so like your iPhone doesn't have it, but your iPad and your Mac do. And then

00:58:18   you throw in the HomePod and the Apple watch and it gets even wilder, right? Maybe you bought the

00:58:23   latest and greatest and all of your Mac, iPad, iPhone, the trio have it. The trio, the Trinity,

00:58:33   the Apple Trinity, the intelligent Trinity. But who's on the other side of that, right? Who's on

00:58:38   the outside? Well, the HomePod and the watch are on the outside and they're both Siri driven,

00:58:42   at least in part devices. They're devices that where Siri matters way more than it does on those

00:58:48   other devices. What are they going to do? And I think it's a really interesting question that they

00:58:52   did not address at all. And I had a few ideas of how they could do it. They could just not do it

00:58:59   and say, you know what? Yeah, Siri sucks on the HomePod, sorry. Stay tuned for four years from now

00:59:05   when we do something there. - 16 gigabytes of Ram in a HomePod. - Well, it feels like it's not going

00:59:10   to happen, right? And the Apple watch is not going to have a chip. It's not gonna be able to have a

00:59:13   chip that's capable of doing that level of on-device. So here's my theory, or there are a

00:59:18   couple of them. You know the concept with the HomePod of personal requests? The idea there is

00:59:24   that you're linking your iPhone essentially to the HomePod and it can make requests. And it's

00:59:30   using, it's essentially using the information on your iPhone to do it. I wonder if there is a way

00:59:35   to revise the HomePod's firmware so that if there's a device on the network with Apple intelligence,

00:59:43   it basically farms it out, right? It basically says, hey, here's the command, give me Mac the

00:59:51   response and have it, and if they could do that and have it be low enough latency, that the HomePod

00:59:56   is basically a conduit for an iPad or a phone or even a Mac, but probably just like a phone,

01:00:02   that the HomePod would then be smarter. Now it does mean that if that phone leaves the house

01:00:07   and somebody wants to use the HomePod, it's dumb again, Siri fragmentation again, but it would be

01:00:15   good to do that. The other way to do it would be to adjust their thing where they, you know,

01:00:22   you've got five different Apple devices listening for your command all at once,

01:00:25   and then it figures out contextually kind of like what device is supposed to actually get that

01:00:31   command. You could tweak that if you were Apple so that in situations where there was a device

01:00:38   listening with Apple intelligence, that it would always take it over the other devices, right?

01:00:44   It's like, oh, there's a watch, a HomePod, and an iPhone 15 Pro. And I say, hey lady,

01:00:50   ahoy telephone, play this song and have it go to the iPhone always because the iPhone is more

01:00:59   capable. And maybe it says, do you want me to play that on this HomePod that's here in the room with

01:01:04   us? And that would be great. So I feel like there are ways that Apple can do this. And the watch

01:01:10   would be a similar sort of thing. The watch, if it's connected to its phone, now again, cellular

01:01:15   watch, that's a lot harder. Can it phone home with cellular? What are the delays there? Maybe it just

01:01:22   gets dumb if it's not near its phone buddy, but I feel like there's some stuff they could do.

01:01:29   The question is, will they do any of that? Or are they like, no, too busy, too busy on just shipping

01:01:34   it. We're not going to worry about those other devices. And my guess is that it's going to be

01:01:38   both. My guess is this is all going to ship and it's just going to be Siri fragmentation all the

01:01:42   way down. And that's just how it is. But I could see how maybe next year at WWDC, they say, here's

01:01:52   a new thing we're going to do where we're going to intelligently process based on what device you've

01:01:57   got, where the Apple intelligence processing happens. It's also possible that they could do

01:02:03   something where they send it to the cloud, right? Because that's a thing that they're not doing now,

01:02:08   where some devices they could, but they're not doing now the idea that right now a model will

01:02:15   process it right now. I mean, in the future when this actually happens, but model processes and

01:02:19   says, oh, this is going to be in the private cloud compute, and this is going to be local.

01:02:22   And all the devices are the same for that, right? The iPhone 15 Pro and an M4 iPad and an M2

01:02:32   Max Mac, all will just do the same thing. It'll either be on device or remote, but you could have

01:02:37   an update for the watch that just, if there's no phone nearby, or even if there is just does

01:02:44   private cloud compute for all of it. But again, they're too busy building those servers now just

01:02:49   to do the certain tasks. They're not there yet. So that's my guess is that they're going to do

01:02:53   something that allows HomePods and Apple watches to partake of Apple intelligence without actually

01:03:00   running it the same way that these other devices do. But it's not going to happen this cycle,

01:03:04   probably, because Apple is just working hard as they can to even ship it. And then maybe next June,

01:03:11   they're like, hey, new feature of next year's HomePod OS is they will talk to a device that

01:03:20   does Apple intelligence, or they'll talk to the cloud. I think that's how they're going to have

01:03:23   to do it. Because I don't think they're going to ship a HomePod with eight gigs of RAM and an M1

01:03:29   processor. I just don't think they are. I don't either, unless this really is the future of

01:03:37   computing and every device has to take this massive jump. Never say never. But I think that

01:03:45   given the cost of the HomePod and the market that it's in, they'd probably rather find a way to use

01:03:51   your other Apple devices at the cloud rather than put all of the hardware specs in a music player.

01:03:56   And the watch is another problem. The watch, just the battery, you can't. These specs are beyond

01:04:03   anything that a watch can do now or I think in the reasonable future. So better off finding a hybrid

01:04:09   approach to that, but it's just not going to be there for a while. I think we're going to have

01:04:14   these stories, these Siri fragmentation stories are going to happen where it's like, oh,

01:04:17   I said this thing and dumb Siri answered. And that's going to be a thing. It's going to happen.

01:04:22   I think the savior of this scenario where they have these devices that just can't do it

01:04:27   is that there are logical ways of dealing with this, as you laid out, which is that you either

01:04:34   go to the cloud for everything from a certain type of device or you find the device that can

01:04:39   answer the question. And it's not like, especially with the Apple watch, Apple has been here before.

01:04:46   That was what the Apple watch was completely and still sometimes is depending on what you want.

01:04:51   For sure. And there's a precedent here with the personal request thing on the HomePod

01:04:56   of saying, I need information that a HomePod doesn't have. Can I attach this? So you could

01:05:02   do that. Joe Steele points out the Apple TV is another example of this too. You could have that

01:05:07   idea of art and it would be a setting. So you'd be like, no, no, I don't want this to know about

01:05:13   all the stuff that's on my phone. It's like, okay, you don't have to do that. But if you set that up

01:05:18   that Apple would be able to have its constellation of these ancillary devices,

01:05:23   either go to the cloud or go to the smart device that's in your network. That's right over there.

01:05:29   And in the background, say I'm using your iPhone's brain here and I'm using the semantic index on

01:05:35   that iPhone to answer your question, even though I'm an Apple TV or an Apple watch or a HomePod.

01:05:41   Mark Gurman has also shared that Apple continues to work with Google on a Gemini partnership for

01:05:46   iOS 18 and it could be ready to announce this fall. This feels to me like something that they

01:05:52   would be pretty well fit and I imagine they would probably like to try and match up to do during the

01:05:57   iPhone keynote, like when they reintroduce iOS 18 again, you know, so like we also now have Google

01:06:02   Gemini as an option as well as well as as well as ChatGPT. Although I don't think Google Gemini has

01:06:08   the social awareness and interest that ChatGPT has, but it's at least something else they can

01:06:15   offer. Google does have a hardware event next month in August. I think it's going to be really

01:06:20   interesting to see, because it's pixels, right? What their response is going to be with with

01:06:27   Gemini baked into their devices. I think that's going to be interesting. Gurman has another report

01:06:34   at Bloomberg saying that Meta has been ruled out from a partnership perspective that Apple believes

01:06:40   Meta's privacy policies are not stringent enough to be trusted through a partnership for integrating

01:06:45   their llama model. Yes, also they hate them. This is what it is. I mean honestly like this just

01:06:51   feels like something where these companies don't like each other because I don't, I would be very

01:06:56   keen to understand how Meta is worse at their privacy with LLMs than OpenAI, Google or any of

01:07:03   the other potential companies like Anthropic that they might work with. Like I don't, realistically,

01:07:08   like I don't know what is Meta doing that Google's not doing, for example, right, for privacy. I

01:07:17   don't buy this. This just feels to me very much like Tim Cook and Mark Zuckerberg hate each other

01:07:21   and that's just the way this is going to roll. I think that Apple and Apple more broadly just

01:07:26   views Meta as a company that doesn't value privacy at the same level that Apple does and will not.

01:07:32   And this is following up by the way, there was a Wall Street Journal, I think, report that said

01:07:37   Apple talked to Meta, which is very weird because it wasn't like when or what and then Gherman just

01:07:43   came out the next day and said that's not happening. So whatever their source was,

01:07:48   somebody at Meta was like, yeah, we called Apple about using our AI and we haven't heard back,

01:07:52   but you never know. And then Gherman's like, no, that's not, that's not going to happen.

01:07:56   - Moving on from Apple Intelligence, the Elec, which is a Korean website, has reported that Apple

01:08:05   is looking for new suppliers for the type of OLED display that they use in the Vision Pro. These are

01:08:12   the inside panels. So what you're looking at with your eyes, not the outside panels.

01:08:15   These screens are interesting because they have Apple Silicon chips on the reverse side of them.

01:08:22   I think the M2 chip is on one eye and the R1 chip is on the other eye. And that is helpful for

01:08:28   latency and stuff like that. As long time this is the show, we know Sony is currently producing the

01:08:34   panels in the Vision Pro, but it has long been said that they have a production limit of like 900,000

01:08:39   screens, which is like 450,000 sets of screens per year with a lack of expansion opportunities.

01:08:46   Apple has apparently contacted both LG and Samsung's display divisions who have used to

01:08:52   create some new panels, but they have differing specs to what's in the Vision Pro. Essentially

01:08:57   larger, a little bit, quite a bit larger, but at a lower resolution. So the current panels in the

01:09:01   Vision Pro have a pixel density of 3,400 PPI. These new panels, it would be 1,700 PPI. So from

01:09:09   this, I guess we could assume that they're investigating how to produce a lower cost,

01:09:15   lower spec version of the Vision Pro. Yeah. I mean, it's possible that it's a larger panel

01:09:21   that they would fit in. Um, so that, and use optical things to make it even smaller in your

01:09:28   field of view. I mean, who knows, right? Cause pixel density doesn't say it could be a larger

01:09:34   thing. If it's, it's also possible that, yeah, this is make us a cheaper thing that we can ship

01:09:38   in volume and put in a $1,500 thing, right? Because the, one of the biggest costs as far as

01:09:44   we can tell of the Vision Pro in terms of hardware are those displays. So a clear way to make a more

01:09:52   affordable product is to make, is to use a more affordable pair of panels on the inside,

01:09:57   but this comes back to how does it look and is it good enough for Apple's standards? Because if you

01:10:04   are a company making an item and another company will buy every single one that you make,

01:10:12   you can charge them a lot of money for that part, right? Like the power lies with Sony in this

01:10:19   scenario. Like if Apple's buying all of the panels that Sony can make and they're hard to make,

01:10:24   Sony's going to make them expensive. Why wouldn't you do that? So interesting. Yeah. As you said,

01:10:32   like, I don't, I don't know. At first glance, I'd assume maybe this is for a cheaper version,

01:10:38   but yeah, maybe it actually could just be for all of them. And they're able to,

01:10:42   even though it's a different spec would, would be able to produce a similar result. I really don't

01:10:47   know, but it's interesting to see them doing this because it, and it's also interesting to me to see

01:10:53   that like this thing that we've been talking about for the last year or so about this, this production

01:10:58   kind of ceiling that they have hasn't changed at all, but also it could be potentially that,

01:11:07   I don't know, maybe Apple can't order more than them, the net amount anyway. So Sony isn't

01:11:13   necessarily that inclined because it's not that the vision pro is ever sold out. Right. So,

01:11:20   yeah, so it's interesting to see this, but we'll see what that ends up coming to.

01:11:24   And Ming-Chi Kuo is reporting that Apple is working on a new version of AirPods that feature

01:11:29   infrared cameras. Kuo says that these cameras are specifically to be used for spatial computing

01:11:34   enhancements. I'm going to read a quote here from Ming-Chi Kuo's medium, because I just need to read

01:11:42   this quote because I don't know how to explain this otherwise. So Ming-Chi Kuo says, "The new

01:11:46   AirPods are expected to be used in Vision Pro and future Apple headsets to enhance the user experience

01:11:51   of spatial audio and strengthen the spatial computing ecosystem. For example, when a user

01:11:56   is watching a video of Vision Pro and wearing these new AirPods, if a user turns their head

01:12:01   looking a specific direction, the sound source in that direction can be emphasized to enhance

01:12:06   the spatial audio computing experience." Interesting. It does this already.

01:12:12   Yeah. It does this already.

01:12:15   He's just described spatial audio.

01:12:18   Spatial audio.

01:12:18   Which exists already on the Vision Pro and on AirPods. Already exists.

01:12:22   This is... Remember, we talk a lot here on the upgrade program about consider your source and

01:12:30   consider what they know. Ming-Chi Kuo has very good supply chain sources. Supply chains, that's

01:12:37   parts. So what he knows is that there is an infrared camera part that Apple is considering,

01:12:48   is trying out, is using in samples, is talking to a factory about doing a bulk purchase.

01:12:57   The hard invisible work that comes into assembling a product that ships in volume from Apple,

01:13:06   you've got to... They don't make a lot of those parts. They got to source them. That's why the

01:13:10   supply chain leaks. Okay? What Ming-Chi Kuo does not have great sources about is why.

01:13:19   Maybe people were told something by Apple, but I would be surprised by that. I would think that

01:13:26   Apple would say as little as possible about why they're using any part, right? Because that's the

01:13:31   secret sauce is Apple is going to have software and it's going to integrate this and it's going

01:13:35   to do amazing things. And then you go to a company that makes a very small infrared camera and you're

01:13:41   negotiating and you're asking about the specs and you want samples, what are you going to say?

01:13:45   So maybe this is part of that story, or maybe it's an extrapolation by somebody that

01:13:50   Ming-Chi Kuo talked to, or maybe it's just Ming-Chi Kuo trying to put this in a context of,

01:13:56   it could do this. But the actual explanation is literally a feature that already exists.

01:14:02   So I think it's really interesting because we've talked a lot about the idea that

01:14:06   having Apple devices be able to see when they're in your pocket or when they, you know,

01:14:13   or on your wrist and don't have a camera, one way to do that would be to put them in AirPods.

01:14:19   Although you've got lots of issues there about hair and, you know, but still it's an interesting

01:14:23   idea to have some cameras so that your Apple intelligence iPhone, when you're walking down

01:14:30   the street with AirPods in, it can see? And that's probably good for some features that you could

01:14:38   imagine where it can actually see the world around you and interpret what you're doing.

01:14:42   So I can imagine a whole lot of things, but this doesn't make sense.

01:14:48   Right. That's interesting. I, because I've been like all day, I've been like, I don't understand

01:14:53   what this would be for, but I guess, yeah, if you, if you're not actually taking pictures,

01:14:57   but you just need the device to see it like an infrared camera could do that. So I can see

01:15:03   and maybe with a very things see through hair, even maybe right. See through any of those

01:15:10   distractions and just get you a view of the world around you so that that would be another input.

01:15:15   It's like when we were talking about the humane pin, right? The one thing the humane pin had that

01:15:19   I thought was very interesting was a camera looking at the world so that it could use that

01:15:25   in its interpretation. You could ask it things, right? So that's interesting. That's an interesting

01:15:29   idea. You don't need it for spatial audio though. No, this is no, I mean, look, all right, let's

01:15:38   just imagine for us for a second that he's correct, right? That, that it would do this.

01:15:43   That's not enough of a reason to put the cameras in the AirPods, right? Like that.

01:15:48   Even if this was the case that this enabled better sound with a vision pro, that is actually not a

01:15:57   good enough reason to put the sensors in AirPods. Maybe you'd put the sensors in the vision pro,

01:16:03   right? But like you wouldn't put them in because he also says that these cameras could assist with

01:16:08   in-air gesture recognition again. Sure. But like AirPods are not an essential part of the vision

01:16:15   pro. Like you don't need them. And so you can't, it wouldn't make any sense to, to, to do, to pair

01:16:21   them in that way. Right. No more likely you do gestures like the vision pro with other Apple

01:16:27   devices, right? That's a more likely scenario. Yes. Is that you wear these and then you can put

01:16:32   your hand up and go and tap your fingers together and it does something. It pauses the, the, what's

01:16:38   playing or something like that. So you don't even need to squeeze your earbuds. That's what it would

01:16:43   be for. Not vision pro. The AirPods are not going to, you're not going to put a new sensor in one of

01:16:51   your best selling products that is essential for one of, for your lease selling product.

01:16:56   It doesn't make sense. No, no, but so, so again, take the report for what it is, which is a report

01:17:03   from the supply chain that Apple is talking about putting infrared cameras in AirPods. What does

01:17:08   that mean? Which I, again, it comes from Ming-Chi Kuo. I believe it. I do believe that this is true.

01:17:14   Doesn't mean that it will happen, but it probably means that it's far enough along for him to report

01:17:21   it, which means that, yeah, it's, they probably got samples and they built samples and it's probably,

01:17:28   I mean, right. Because just sniffing around Apple probably does a lot of that. So it's further down

01:17:32   the road of product development. So I do, I, I believe that. I believe that, that Apple is

01:17:38   working on this, but for what I don't believe what he says. It doesn't make sense. No.

01:17:44   If you enjoy this show and you would like more of this show, as an easy way to get it,

01:17:50   just subscribe to Upgrade Plus. You'll hear no ads and every single week you will get bonus content.

01:17:57   Every episode of Upgrade Plus includes an additional segment or two that we'll do at the

01:18:01   end of the show. And if you subscribe to Upgrade Plus, you'll get it. This week, I expect we're

01:18:07   going to continue the American quiz for me. So if you want to hear me answer some USA trivia

01:18:14   questions, it's very easy. Go to getupgradeplus.com and sign up. You will get access to the entire

01:18:20   back catalog, which is now like, you can go back for four years and hear ad free and extra content

01:18:27   from the, all of the episodes we've produced since we started this. You get access to the

01:18:32   Relay FM members discord. You get some bonus podcasts that are only available for Relay FM

01:18:37   members and tons more benefits, but also you'll be helping support the show. So if you really love

01:18:42   Upgrade and you want to support the show, please go to getupgradeplus.com and you can sign up there.

01:18:47   And we appreciate if you will. Let's finish out today with some Ask Upgrade questions.

01:18:53   First comes from Matthew who says, this is a big question, but I just wanted to get your, your

01:19:02   first thoughts on it. Do you think Apple will ever make another product as successful as the iPhone?

01:19:08   Um, if I have to answer yes or no, I'll say no. I would say no. I, I think the smartphone is a

01:19:19   generation defining product that was the logical kind of like outcome of all of Apple's work with

01:19:27   personal computing over the years. And while there are going to be other products, the chances of

01:19:37   another tech products being bigger than the smartphone and Apple being a major player at

01:19:46   the moment when that happens are low, not impossible. And I know Apple spends a lot of money

01:19:52   so that if all of us just wear computer glasses in 30 years, that they're going to be based on all

01:19:57   the work Apple's been doing up to now with vision pro like I get it, but I think the chances are

01:20:03   that it will be somebody else. And who knows how long that will even be. I don't know about what

01:20:09   that product, everybody wants to know. And everybody likes to imagine that it's just around the corner,

01:20:13   but it may be that the smartphone is the thing for a long time. So, um, I just, I, I can't,

01:20:21   when, when do you get the chance to go from a product category, basically not existing

01:20:27   to basically, I know not everybody in the world, but a large percentage of people in the world

01:20:34   having the product over an incredibly short amount of time that doesn't happen very often. And it

01:20:39   happened with a smartphone. I don't think it's going to happen again for a while. And if it does,

01:20:44   what are the chances that Apple is there? Not zero, but I wouldn't, I wouldn't bet on it.

01:20:50   So I'll give a little spicy take on this. All right. So I also say no. And I think Apple would

01:20:56   be a better company and would make better products if they were able to let go of this idea.

01:21:02   I also think they would be more likely to make a product as successful as the iPhone if they stopped

01:21:09   trying. Interesting. Yeah. I mean, there's something to be said for how much diversion

01:21:14   Apple has done on cars and on vision pro and things like that instead of their core products.

01:21:20   And would their core products more naturally emerge if they weren't busy playing those big

01:21:28   bets on the deep stuff that may never happen? I think that's an interesting take. No way to prove

01:21:36   it right or wrong, but yeah, there was a question like maybe Apple be an Apple. I don't think that

01:21:41   Apple made the iPod thinking, well, this will get us into mobile devices and rehab our brand and

01:21:46   eventually we'll be able to make a phone. I don't think they did that. I think they did that where

01:21:50   they're like, hey, do you see this hard drive? We have like a music player, right? We just bought

01:21:57   that music player sound jam and made iTunes. Let's do it. We can make a product around this

01:22:04   hard drive. It emerged from kind of nowhere and went somewhere. And similarly, right? The iPhone

01:22:10   was like they were trying to make a tablet computer. Right. And they couldn't do it. So

01:22:14   they made a phone instead, start with a phone. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So there's an argument that

01:22:19   there's some serendipity involved and that placing a big bet on a category that you just sort of

01:22:25   think might be something later is not gonna give you serendipity. Yeah. What I'm saying is stop

01:22:31   trying to make iPhone happen. This is essentially what I'm getting at. It happened.

01:22:36   Jad asks, are you guys planning on giving the new Apple Mail a chance? Oh, I use Apple Mail on the

01:22:47   iPhone and the iPad. So I will use it there and give it a try. But honestly, if Mime stream comes

01:22:57   out for iOS, it might not be a try for very long. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on

01:23:05   Apple. That's what I say. What? No, that's not a saying. Well, anyway, I've tried Apple Mail too

01:23:13   many times and it's failed me too many times. And it frustrates me every time I get a new message

01:23:17   and I tap on it and it says, I haven't downloaded the content of the new message yet. I just get so

01:23:23   mad at it. So I can't see it. I've moved on from Apple Mail. So I may end up using it on my phone

01:23:34   and my iPad, but that's it. What about you? It's interesting. I have a currently changing

01:23:42   relationship with email, um, like where I'm using it and what I'm doing with it.

01:23:47   At the moment, where I'm doing my email is on my Mac and sometimes on my iPad, not on my iPhone.

01:23:55   And I use Spark for this. Um, the reason I use Spark initially had been for team sharing

01:24:03   features and I still do that, but increasingly less as my responsibilities have changed at Relay.

01:24:11   So like I am, initially there was a lot more conversation between me and Carrie, who deals,

01:24:16   who was at the time kind of like my advertising assistant about the way that things are done. But

01:24:21   now that Carrie is like runs that part of our business entirely, I am less involved in sharing

01:24:29   emails back and forth with her that I'm receiving about ads. But now I use Spark for a bunch of

01:24:36   other things that it does as well, like their automatic categorization of messages. Well,

01:24:42   Apple Mail is saying, they're saying it will do that. So that's interesting to me. And I am

01:24:48   intrigued about their email summarization stuff. I think that that is, it could be pretty cool. So

01:24:54   I'm willing, I am actually willing to give it a chance. Like I want to see what it's all about

01:24:59   when it, when it launches, because I think it will give me everything I need except for team sharing.

01:25:03   But over time, my requirement for team sharing is becoming less and less and less, where really now

01:25:09   I could just forward an email to Carrie like you would back in the old days, you know, but because

01:25:13   we don't really, we used to have a lot of in-line conversations about emails, but that is happening

01:25:17   way less frequently. So I'm willing to give it a shot because I think for the first time in years,

01:25:23   they've actually announced some genuine features from mail, which are interesting to me,

01:25:27   and some stuff that I've not seen other people do, like the idea of giving you the summary in the

01:25:34   inbox of an email instead of the first couple of lines for messages, I think is genuinely a

01:25:39   very smart thing to do. So I'll be willing to give it a go. All right. I mean, like I said, I use it

01:25:45   on my phone and my iPad. And so I look forward to seeing those features there. And I'm not so sure

01:25:53   about my Mac. I'll try it out for the purposes of the review, but I'm very happy with my third party

01:25:59   mail client at this point. I like MimeStream. I just can't use it as my only email client because

01:26:05   I also use iCloud email. So I just can't use it. And John wants to know, have you put on your quest

01:26:15   since you bought the Apple Vision Pro? I have. I have not used it as much as I actually would like

01:26:24   because I kind of miss some of the stuff that I used to use it with. It's just, it's very hard

01:26:29   for me to like find headset time in general. And then I feel like if I'm going to do headset time,

01:26:34   I need to do vision pro headset time, but I do miss some of the games, especially. I have tried

01:26:41   it though. And what struck me about it is that it's better than I thought having used the vision

01:26:53   pro. I think it's fine. I think for the price, it's actually kind of great. The quality isn't as good.

01:27:01   Obviously the hand tracking without controllers is not as good, but it's functional in a way that

01:27:11   when I got the Quest 2, especially, it was not. They've obviously put some work into having you

01:27:16   be able to use hand tracking and not use the controllers, but really it is a controller first,

01:27:21   I would say, experience. And they're trying more mixed reality things. It's fine. I did not

01:27:32   put it on and go, "Ooh, ick, this is terrible," and get it away. I didn't do that.

01:27:39   But I do find, I'll reference my rant earlier about hand controllers, just to say,

01:27:45   that's what I miss with the vision pro is all those games that are really enabled by precision

01:27:51   input that it doesn't offer. So that's like my ping pong game, Beat Saber, stuff like that.

01:27:56   So I had a Quest Pro, which I was using mostly for work and meeting stuff. I've not put it on

01:28:04   since I got the vision pro. And that was for me, the big thing is that if I use the Quest Pro for

01:28:10   an hour, I would get a headache. I don't know what exactly it was that was making that happen,

01:28:16   but it is not a thing I feel with the vision pro at all. And I have used the vision pro for much

01:28:20   longer periods of time, but I do miss Horizon Workrooms, which was the app that me and Grey

01:28:27   would sometimes use to have meetings. I like the focus that it had around working and everything

01:28:34   you needed was inside of the application. I know that, and I have had calls and meetings of people

01:28:41   using Spatial Personas, like we had one just last week, and I can replicate all of the features

01:28:46   individually with different apps and experiences, but Workrooms did a really good job of making

01:28:51   everything right there. So there was a whiteboard feature that you could just bring up inside of it.

01:28:57   They had these office environments that you would sit in, which just felt good. There were desks

01:29:01   and stuff. It felt like a meeting more than we're hanging out on the beach together, which the vision

01:29:05   pro is like. You're in a shared space, you could bring your computer in front of you, you could

01:29:11   share it with other people really easily. It was a purpose built app for meetings, which I have not

01:29:17   found something that replicates those features on the vision pro, but I way prefer a Spatial Persona

01:29:24   call and how they look and feel to how the Horizon Workrooms calls look. I don't like the avatars

01:29:32   and stuff like that. I much prefer actually the floating heads and hands of my friends.

01:29:38   And me and Jason can high five now and it makes fun sound effects when you do it.

01:29:41   - It does make a sound effect when they... If you headbutt somebody or you put your hand in

01:29:46   their face, it does not make a fun sound effect. But if you touch hands, it does.

01:29:50   - It should just be like, "Ahh," if you do that, to try and stop you from doing it.

01:29:55   If you would like to send us in a question to answer in a future episode of the show,

01:30:01   or you have some follow-up or feedback, please go to upgradefeedback.com and you can fill out

01:30:06   our form there and send it in. Thank you to everybody that does this every week. I appreciate

01:30:10   you. You can check out Jason over at sixcolors.com. You can hear his shows on Relay FM and the

01:30:16   incomparable.com. You can hear me on Relay FM too. You can check out my product work at

01:30:20   clautexbrand.com. Jason is @jsnell, J-S-N-E-L-L-L. I am @imike, I-M-Y-K-E. If you would like to watch

01:30:29   video clips of the show and see the upgrade t-shirts that we wear every single week.

01:30:34   And also, I'm assuming there will be a clip of when Jason launched the America quiz on me. So

01:30:42   you'll see how red my face went when I understood what was happening. You can see us on TikTok,

01:30:48   Instagram, and YouTube, where we are @upgraderelay on all of those. Thank you to our members who

01:30:54   support us every week of Upgrade Plus. Go to getupgradeplus.com to learn more. Thank you to

01:30:59   Factor and ExpressVPN for the support of this episode. But most of all, thank you for listening.

01:31:04   Until next time, say goodbye Jason Snow. Goodbye Mike Hurley.

01:31:20   [ Silence ]