0:00

I. John, it's time for everyone's

0:02

favorite corner. It is time for

0:04

random anniversary corner. Or excited.

0:07

Oh no. What's

0:09

what's worse? This or less puns

0:11

the that think those plans or

0:14

worse. But ah ha ha, that's

0:16

what that's a heartless John. How

0:19

and the earth of the of

0:21

you See how that works. The

0:23

see it now. Ah, a lotta

0:26

right. Concentrate people. So odd. Atp

0:28

Episode Four Hundred Seventy Six dated

0:31

the thirtieth of March, Twenty Twenty

0:33

Two Two years ago. Now John

0:35

absolutely blindsided. Us by announcing he

0:38

had gone independent. So. John have

0:40

less two years then really? is that was a

0:42

date yet early? That's that's what I wrote down

0:45

anyway. so I sure hope of Hr I really

0:47

haven't yet learned by now. Trust Casey with any

0:49

kind of anniversary. Chances are he knows it better

0:51

than we do. Man, I'm trust but verify Let

0:53

me check. Ah, maybe

0:56

that's what. Maybe that's when I talked about it on the show

0:58

as of March Thirtieth. Or I did. I visited the blog posts

1:00

at the same day. House. Last year's been.

1:02

Now you can time not very into adversaries it

1:04

because if you had asked me how long it

1:07

had been a be like. It's. Gotta

1:09

be over a year now. Ride for the

1:11

prime a be right carry out An idea

1:13

of the President. I guess it's gone Okay

1:15

again. I'm the only. Thing.

1:17

I have to think about as like okay there was the

1:19

tax year. Where. I had job to job

1:21

income plus self employment income than there was a

1:23

taxi or what. I just had self employment income.

1:26

And though I remember those two things

1:29

as being different actors and or

1:31

is annoying but otherwise are Now I'm

1:33

hanging in there. said I've had a

1:35

thing. Six What I'm saying overwhelming paying

1:38

big college bills, thinking about the second

1:40

kid entering college at the same time.

1:42

the first one a stolen car. just

1:45

slightly terrifying. So yeah, but I have

1:47

any Atp.effect for as not a up.

1:51

Lion, you're You're enjoying life. I mean I'm not

1:53

actually here to interrogate your finances. Despite what it

1:55

sounds like, you're you're enjoying life. You're still happy

1:57

you to remain afternoon see us does every. The

2:00

Nog. Not exactly. I mean the

2:02

the level of stress is. Still,

2:05

Higher than having like heads out as

2:08

I feel ago the acclimation period to

2:10

being self employed and I'm still a

2:12

sense of i threw that picked. Up

2:15

with everything you know you'd like to eat.

2:18

it used to it. I

2:20

don't I guess that was acclimation period for

2:22

me as as we having a regular job

2:24

and self employment income which is very hectic

2:27

but then eventually was just too much. Ah

2:29

and there's no getting used to the idea

2:31

that the only income you have it your

2:33

self employment income is. I think.

2:36

Difficult. Like balancing how much how how

2:38

forensically you are trying to work to make

2:41

that happen and looking for other things or

2:43

whatever at the same time As I don't

2:45

like this I I would imagine that I

2:47

would have less stress than I am currently

2:49

experiencing but it's still us them when I

2:52

was doing two things at once. So it

2:54

says that that a net positive. Ah

2:58

let's do some follow up our we're breaking news due

3:00

to do do to do today do that we have

3:02

to be to be Dc lottery results and I am

3:04

overjoyed to tell you that for me it seems ever

3:06

was no invites me. I. Also

3:08

don't have unlimited was also not invited threw

3:10

for three the other. like the lottery it's

3:13

like how many people with I was like

3:15

maybe two thousand. Twenty five hundred is right

3:17

as like half the number, less than half

3:19

the number that used to be like I

3:22

won their division or is the not at

3:24

Apple Park. Ah so it's very few tickets

3:26

for a very large number of applicants. So

3:29

does to be expected or well And I

3:31

really I can't complain because I have gone

3:33

to so many to everybody sees like since

3:35

and I I still absolutely love whenever. We

3:38

get a press imitation that that's wonderful.

3:40

I kind of feel bad taking on

3:42

as a developer. Tickets. You. Know

3:44

because there are certain people who who like I think

3:47

deserve it more than I do have been to so

3:49

many so I'm glad and on a level they didn't

3:51

get the developer take up you rather go to someone

3:53

who had like their first time or and or else

3:55

I hope the a press access to that doesn't take

3:58

a dump it again. The

4:00

way I join us some feedback and regard

4:02

to Affinity Designer Hi, what's going on there.

4:05

Are both may have to show last episode of my

4:07

Struggles with the Sex During App and how. Didn't

4:10

see my god a bunch of the operation some had

4:12

like like the conflicted with each other you could do

4:14

one thing and not the other are you to them

4:16

separately but when you combine them on cancel out the

4:18

other and with about are. Striking.

4:20

A path me outside of shape but then

4:22

once it stops being a shape or the

4:24

stroke moves to be centered on the path

4:26

and said on the outside no sign of

4:28

frustrating. Ah couple of people road and with

4:30

possible solutions and I said at the risk.

4:33

To wait for the actual shirt designs because

4:35

they had long since been completed and submitted

4:37

are still on as as they didn't play

4:39

right of I was curious had know how

4:41

to do it's a marker suggestion. Oh

4:43

he's is he the terminology her pin

4:45

code I believe I. Get.

4:47

That will work is just different vocabulary to

4:50

the every app called the something Different on.

4:52

One. Thing that was tripping me up an affinity

4:54

designer is there is a thing called convert to

4:56

Curves that will take shape and courage to a

4:58

bunch of mine segments and I was hoping that

5:01

would do it for me but it didn't Ah,

5:03

but the the thing I need to use was

5:05

called expand Stroke and if any designer and it's

5:07

only going on about the teacher, I had to

5:09

use that feature when I made eighty pixels shirt

5:11

like that we sold our last sale. expand struck

5:14

with the key for me for getting that to

5:16

work. But since making that shirt and now apparently

5:18

Casey like I totally forgot about expense that must

5:20

have been obsessed with Convert Curves. And

5:22

convert to curves on doing it. So yes,

5:24

I want expand. Stroke does is it takes

5:26

Whatever your stroke is the you got your

5:28

shape and you're struggling on the outside of

5:30

the line. Freezing Me Sake, Expand Stroke. It.

5:33

Takes that stroke and turns it into a

5:35

funny sit closed polygon rights. Obviously it draws

5:37

an outline around the strokes of you draw

5:39

stroke that was just a line it would

5:42

just like on a single line segment an

5:44

era be a fat stroke on other has

5:46

some you know centered on the line but

5:48

when you turn into expand stroke entrance to

5:50

a rectangle. So. That the line that was

5:52

through the middle is gone and all you have is

5:54

a rectangle it outlines. The strokes are expense rock ludicrous.

5:57

once you do that. He was the ability to edit

5:59

the stroke as a. The why to be

6:01

will still said that when they do it they are We save

6:03

the stroke in a layer below. Its or have you ever want

6:05

to go back to the struck you can beat of high ballet

6:07

or does all sorts of things like that So that's one expand

6:09

struck. A veto wrote

6:11

in with a solution using and

6:13

fifty designer peach, peach or is

6:15

also in know sort of another

6:17

name I called offset path using

6:20

the contour tool. Ah, this is

6:22

important if he wants to. Say.

6:24

You make a pass and you want to draw

6:26

path around that and you.is one like stroke the

6:29

outside a line. You can actually move that path

6:31

inside the sabre outside the say by an arbitrary

6:33

amount and you can do that to sort of

6:35

simulate the outside struggling with no control how far

6:37

from the original path the line his. Arm

6:40

and so it. When a recenter the cell have you

6:42

moved out have a distance it over center and still

6:44

be on the outside. That was interesting. I'm not sure

6:46

I would use that. could I be on the zebra?

6:48

It's good to know because. Ah the

6:50

solution I thought that was most interesting

6:53

and maybe for new to that are

6:55

only was from Julian just meant ah

6:57

who suggested using a create compound. Which.

6:59

Is a feature Nothing new designer where.

7:02

Are you take a bunch of state shapes

7:04

instead of like using the bullying operates on

7:07

shapes Are you take like a circle and

7:09

you overlay with a rectangle and you do

7:11

of us attraction and on a rectangle take

7:13

a chunk out of several right? Those features

7:16

are just under things under, But the destructive.

7:18

You can apparently put them in a nested

7:20

layer and essentially do non destructive bullying operations.

7:22

Say like this layer group are all these

7:25

layers apply. With these billion operations giving you

7:27

a resulting object, they retains all of it's

7:29

flexibility. So. It is like it's in

7:31

our one object, cutting another object, cutting out another

7:34

object. But all the objects. It's not destruct. All

7:36

the objects are still. In their whole

7:38

at a double form a new to sort. Seeing the union of

7:40

them and not at all was really cool. And.

7:45

The Ice I didn't actually try Navy's on

7:47

the products I'd already messed up all my

7:49

path and himself says mutilated them until they

7:51

are to visit. but I will try to

7:53

remember all this for the future. And by

7:55

the way Create compound is also place or

7:57

also pat Pat comes in handy because if

7:59

you haven't already their shape. My.

8:01

God they trample on some of the demo videos as

8:03

the government a snowman shape like three balls and top

8:05

of each other to there are stuck together like snowman.

8:08

And. If you were to try to.

8:11

Draw. Big Snowman That a little snowman inside

8:13

the big snowman. such that when you put

8:15

the little snowman inside the big snowman, You

8:18

get my gotta stroke along the outside. You very

8:20

quickly find that the only ship that works with

8:22

as a circle and any said that is not

8:24

a circle. if you simply scale the safe and

8:26

put it inside itself you won't get it even

8:29

stroke all around. Because that's

8:31

not the way geometry works. You instead have to

8:33

have a specific tool that lets you offset the

8:35

past And so he's off that path to make

8:37

your. Smaller. Snowman shape that

8:39

will. Work. And finally, Christen

8:41

Meyer said I can confirm that Adobe

8:43

Illustrator has also treated open shaping close

8:45

Eight strokes, definitely for the last twenty

8:47

years. To. As twenty plus

8:49

years or so probably this is a our. Cultural.

8:55

Traditions? maybe invective drawing programs, but if

8:57

you don't know, it's like I didn't

8:59

It is quite surprising and annoying. Some.

9:02

Fun! Hi I'm glad that you are doing that

9:04

so I don't have to remember that. I think

9:07

I'm just looking for another shirt raw or get

9:09

the use my new compound or or create compound

9:11

and expand stroke still have an African have I

9:13

don't forget The Mob is renowned and excerpt. Oh

9:16

my word site are we got some see

9:18

back about a real time I was in

9:20

cars. I figure I think this was the

9:22

toward the end of the mean So last

9:24

week or we were discussing you know what's

9:26

real time O S, what's what's not in

9:29

weird his car play say it were with

9:31

this new car play version to what they're

9:33

calling it a where would that sits and

9:35

up front of So Sam Wilson made from

9:37

wheel bearings wrote in to say that a

9:39

car to textures that Android Automotive runs in

9:41

a container and the real time O S

9:43

usually something like you Annex Wind River or

9:45

Greenhill Software. runs and another container with

9:47

an underlying line linux destroy and all of

9:49

it is running on a qualcomm snapdragon cockpit

9:52

eighty one sixty five the rules on the

9:54

west controls the instrument cluster displayed in many

9:56

cases into an automotive a project data two

9:58

parts of the class such as

10:00

showing Google Maps on the Volvo. The hypervisor

10:03

makes sure that the real-time OS gets priority,

10:05

which is required to meet Federal Motor Vehicle

10:07

Safety Standards requirements for displaying driving info like

10:09

speed and warning quote-unquote lamps, which

10:11

themselves are now usually virtual. We also got some

10:14

anecdote from a handful of people who said,

10:16

hey, you know, when my infotainment crashes, which

10:19

seems to be a common thing on cars other than Teslas, turns

10:21

out that oftentimes their,

10:24

you know, gauge cluster will show

10:26

a speedometer, or sometimes even will

10:28

continue to do, if I remember

10:30

this anecdote right, will continue to do

10:32

like quote-unquote autopilators, you know, assisted

10:34

steering or what have you, even when the infotainment

10:37

has crashed, which on the surface, I mean, that

10:39

makes sense, right? They should be totally different systems,

10:42

but yet they feel so intertwined when they're all,

10:44

you know, sucked into that same main display. So

10:46

there you go. Yeah, the people

10:49

saying that one-on-one thing crashes, the

10:51

other thing stays up, that doesn't mean either

10:53

one of them is real-time, that just means

10:55

they're two separate systems. Yeah, yeah. And it's

10:57

interesting that the real-time OS is like controlling

10:59

the cluster, but allowing stuff from non-real-time OSs

11:01

to display itself into it, the example I

11:03

gave her is maps, but like, I do

11:05

wonder how much of the stuff

11:07

displayed in the instrument cluster is

11:09

coming from a non-real-time OS, and

11:12

when that OS crashes, like some people said, like,

11:14

oh, well, the instrument cluster then displays some stuff

11:16

on its own, right? I'm

11:18

also kind of interested in, like, I didn't quite

11:20

understand this arrangement of real-time OS and Hypervisor that

11:23

is like, I kind of get

11:25

it, like it's running two containers, one is running Android automotive,

11:27

which is not real-time, and the other is running, like, say,

11:29

QNX, which is real-time, and the Hypervisor

11:31

makes sure that the real-time one gets, you

11:33

know, a reserve slice of those resources, so

11:35

the real-time OS is still real-time, and the

11:38

other thing isn't, but boy, it's getting

11:40

complicated in there, isn't it? And that also, like,

11:42

that throws the Apple's iPhone thing, another thing into

11:44

the mix is, I'm

11:46

not sure what the status of any

11:49

kind of real-time subsystem is in iOS.

11:51

Apple's not particularly forthcoming with technical details

11:53

like that, but it

11:55

seems to me that what would be happening there

11:57

is that the iPhone would be projecting. whatever

12:00

it's drawing onto the

12:02

instrument cluster, which may be run by a real-time OS.

12:04

But if Apple is covering the whole thing

12:06

with, like if every pixel of the instrument cluster is

12:08

produced by the phone, then is

12:11

the real-time OS simply acting as a video

12:13

ferrying device until and unless the phone crashes

12:16

or disconnects, at which point it takes over

12:18

and shows a cruddy speedometer? I don't know,

12:20

it's still kind of mysterious. And finally, I did

12:23

try to look up in the federal, the United States

12:25

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to see if I could

12:27

read the text of these standards to see like what

12:29

does it say about, you know, the

12:32

speedometer and warning lamps and everything

12:34

that would either necessitate a

12:36

real-time operating system or be well

12:39

suited to real-time operating systems. I confess I drowned

12:42

in the legalese. There's

12:44

a lot of words in there and weird language and

12:47

there is all sorts of stuff about lamps and stuff

12:49

like that. But I didn't, I couldn't find anything that

12:51

was like, oh, I can see

12:53

to comply with this standard of real-time OS is

12:55

either necessary or would be the easiest way to

12:57

do it. But I'm sure I gave up before

13:00

I found whatever regulation

13:02

is the appropriate

13:04

one. I did find a lot of regulations related to

13:06

it, but maybe not all of them. So yeah,

13:08

I'm glad I'm not making a car and probably so is

13:11

Apple. Good

13:14

news, this is our Dacia Sandero segment and that's

13:16

the reference for some of you. The

13:18

error network changed. The fix is in

13:21

the Chrome 124 beta. John,

13:23

are we pulling our party poppers? Are

13:25

we excited? What's going on here? Well,

13:28

you see the scare quotes around the word fix. The

13:30

document here. So if

13:32

you get Chrome beta, which I

13:34

did, it's the Chrome version

13:36

124 beta, that includes this

13:40

change. And what I did

13:42

was I pulled up Gmail, which is constantly sending requests

13:45

in the background. So it's a good test case. I

13:47

pulled up the dev tools and I filtered the output

13:49

to see only errors and I waited to see if

13:51

I saw any error network changed. I also like repaired

13:53

my iPhone with Xcode and did all the things to

13:56

try to induce the error. And

13:58

I ran it for a day and a half with that. a

14:00

dev tool window open the entire time, and

14:03

I never saw our network change. I'm like, I

14:05

think they did it. But keep in mind, when

14:07

we talked about the fix, we looked at the

14:09

diff and how they're doing it. They're looking for

14:12

a specific interface that's like, okay, if an interface

14:14

appears and it's one of these, and it's an

14:16

IPv6, and it's a local thing, and it's this,

14:18

and it's that, and it's that, then don't freak

14:21

out. Otherwise, freak out. It

14:24

didn't happen to me in 24 hours of

14:26

trying. But since this fix

14:28

went out in the Chrome Beta,

14:30

somebody in the bug

14:33

tracker comments said, hey, I'm using the Beta, and it

14:35

did happen to me. And then

14:37

the person asks, can you tell me a bunch of information on

14:39

your system or whatever? And I think it's because their supposed fix

14:41

is just sort of putting an include list

14:43

of like, look, if this

14:46

very specific thing happens, ignore it. Otherwise,

14:48

do what you normally do. And

14:50

I think that's the wrong way to fix this problem. Like,

14:52

because you're just gonna be chasing these rather. It's like, oh,

14:54

this person had their home kit thing come

14:57

online, and this person had something

15:00

like who knows what will happen on these people's

15:02

systems based on network stuff that's happening. You'll be

15:04

chasing these forever. It's better to, I

15:06

would think, it's better to figure out, look, what

15:09

kind of changes to the network does Chrome

15:11

actually care about? And only flip out when

15:13

you see one of those, and

15:15

ignore everything else. So I hope this is an

15:17

evolving system. Anyway, I'm continuing to run the Beta

15:20

because, hey, I didn't see it in 24 hours.

15:22

And I did an A-B test. I had the

15:24

Beta and the non-Beta running at the same time,

15:26

both open to Gmail, and boy, it's still there

15:29

in the non-Beta. And it just fills with our

15:31

network change. Like, after a few hours of running,

15:33

the screen was just filled with our network change

15:35

errors, from top to bottom, whereas the other

15:37

window didn't have in 24 hours. So I

15:39

think they're making good progress. I'm not sure if this

15:41

fix is the right fix, but if this is happening

15:43

to you, try the Chrome 124 Beta.

15:47

We are brought to you this episode

15:50

by Squarespace, the all-in-one website platform for

15:52

entrepreneurs to stand out and succeed online.

15:54

Whether you're just starting out or managing

15:56

a growing brand, Squarespace makes it easy

15:58

to create a beautiful. website and engage

16:00

with your audience and you can sell

16:03

anything on your site from products to

16:05

content to time all in one place

16:07

and all on your terms. Squarespace just

16:09

recently launched a new blueprint system. This

16:11

lets you start a completely personalized website

16:14

with a new guided design system. So

16:16

you start with a professionally curated layout

16:18

and styling options and you can build

16:20

your unique online presence from the ground

16:22

up tailored to your brand or your

16:25

business and optimized for every device. You

16:27

can easily launch your website and get

16:29

discovered fast with integrated optimized SEO

16:31

tools so you show up more often

16:33

to more people and grow the way

16:35

you want. And for your

16:38

business of course they have flexible payment

16:40

support and amazingly seamless checkout experiences for

16:42

your customers. These are simple and powerful

16:45

payment tools. You can accept credit cards,

16:47

PayPal and Apple Pay and ineligible countries

16:49

offer customers the option to buy now

16:51

pay later with after pay and clear

16:54

pay. All of this is backed by

16:56

their modern fluid engine, the next-gen website

16:58

editor from Squarespace. So it's never been

17:01

easier to unlock your unbreakable creativity. It's

17:03

an amazing way to build a website

17:05

on Squarespace. I strongly recommend anybody

17:08

needs a website whether you do or someone else in

17:10

your life does and they're asking you the computer nerd

17:12

for how to make a website, have

17:15

them or have you try Squarespace. You

17:17

can do everything you need to do

17:20

in trial mode. It is wonderful. You

17:22

can see how it is for you.

17:24

So start that free trial at squarespace.com.

17:27

When you're ready to launch, go to

17:29

squarespace.com/ATP to save 10% off your first

17:31

purchase of a website or domain. So

17:33

once again, squarespace.com start that free trial.

17:36

When you're ready to launch, squarespace.com/ATP for

17:38

10% off. Thank you so much to

17:40

Squarespace for sponsoring our show. Lal

17:46

Khan writes regarding the conversation about multiple monitors, has

17:48

Casey tried turning the two side monitors to portrait

17:51

orientation. I find this incredibly useful to have Safari

17:53

Windows open as reference and not need to scroll

17:55

them. Especially useful for dev documentation. Having them in

17:57

portrait orientation also reduces the impact of the internet.

18:00

impact of head turning significantly. I

18:02

use BetterTouchTool keyboard shortcuts to move a window

18:04

to a specific monitor, which makes window management

18:07

much simpler. So this is one

18:09

of those things that on paper,

18:11

100% could not agree more. I absolutely agree

18:15

that it makes sense for one, if

18:17

not all three of my monitors should

18:19

be portrait. I would make a strong

18:21

argument that the Xcode designated monitor, which

18:23

is the one directly in front of

18:25

me, that should probably be portrait, except

18:27

then my main monitor is portrait and

18:29

that feels super icky and weird. And

18:32

I have briefly tried to do this in the

18:34

past, and I just can't.

18:36

It just feels so

18:39

wrong. And I wonder if maybe I forced myself

18:41

to stick with it for more than half an

18:43

hour, if maybe it would get good

18:45

to me and maybe I would enjoy it. So

18:47

maybe I should give it another shot at some

18:49

point, but it's one of those things where it

18:52

almost gives me the heebie-jeebies. It just looks so

18:54

incredibly incorrect, even though again,

18:56

for all the reasons that

18:58

we're all cited, makes perfect sense. So

19:00

I don't know. We'll see. Maybe if

19:03

I'm having a quieter day,

19:05

maybe I'll mess with myself and turn one of

19:07

my monitors vertical and see what happens. I don't

19:09

know. I feel like our field of vision, like

19:11

our two eyes have a place where they overlap,

19:13

but then there's sort of a place that's exclusive

19:15

to the left eye, exclusive to the right eye,

19:18

because our eyes are side by side on our

19:20

head, not top and bottom. So I

19:22

feel like our field of vision better matches the landscape display.

19:24

And I also feel like it's maybe slightly more comfortable to

19:26

move your eyes side to side than up and down. And

19:30

like even for things like Xcode, there's only so much

19:32

code you can take in at a glance. I

19:35

guess it's good that you don't have to scroll. And I

19:37

guess it's good that the console on the bottom can take

19:39

up room and stuff like that. But I still feel like

19:41

I'd rather arrange things side by side than top to bottom,

19:43

unless there's a case where I really do need to see

19:46

like, if I need to see two vertically stacked

19:48

pages and something that's going to be printed like in

19:50

print layout or something like that. But again, that's kind

19:52

of the origin of like back in the old days,

19:54

the Mac had like a portrait monitor that

19:57

You could put one eight and a half by 11 page

19:59

on at like with. The Regret Lucian ah and

20:01

then data to pay to monitor would give

20:03

it to pages side by side by don't

20:05

think anyone ever wanna a a matter of

20:07

the give it to pages top and bottom.

20:10

Although I have seen it was in love

20:12

with a growth and so on. Like: square

20:15

Monitor literal nowhere aspect ratio monitor. That

20:17

super weird is as think well he others

20:19

decide to don't think I'll be able to

20:21

find want to put the but I'm willing

20:23

to put in the centers for somebody in

20:25

the last year come out with like I'm

20:27

saying I believe was a square aspect ratio

20:29

but it was designed to be effectively to

20:31

landscape monitors. The. And I seem to the

20:33

didn't have a hinge in the middle or something like

20:35

that. I forget exactly with situational. Another one thing I

20:37

will actually kind of small. they are weird small square

20:39

mile and their mind and body was it's a It's

20:42

weird that with Santa at I don't object to the

20:44

park your honors but I think it does that. Ninety

20:46

ticketing Justin are certain point the become like a really

20:48

so I did. you know I think. Both

20:50

agree that was my first gonna be ours

20:52

but the first place they are can go

20:55

into portrait mode and I'd turned in that

20:57

direction when I first got it and it's

20:59

hilarious. Assessments as smart as a hit your

21:01

ceiling specific it feels like any to get

21:03

a stepladder to reach the Appleman. Goodness

21:07

gracious, I'd Simone Rizzo rights regarding your idea

21:09

for an Apple Id verification via a quarter

21:12

for real Id, passport, etc. My guess is

21:14

that Apple may not want to have this

21:16

option for privacy reasons as the what a

21:18

full back door of moving. Ownership of

21:20

an Apple Id is technically possible. It

21:23

might be used by governments by large

21:25

additional order to transfer ownership and obtain

21:27

private info to the point. Yeah

21:29

so this is over type of us timers

21:31

and like bought a and ultimate safeguard of

21:33

someone steals your Apple Id or whatever if

21:35

you had previously verified with your I government

21:38

ideas response to you Can I get back

21:40

the technically minor thing when I am sour

21:42

apple give it back to you. Apple doesn't

21:44

have any power over your Apple Id. They

21:46

don't have a secret backdoor that they used

21:48

and seems like making the system would have

21:50

to give apple seeker backdoor. Well.

21:53

Yes and no. There's a way you can do this to

21:55

this. more secure in less secure

21:57

unless you're away as stay apple has domesticated

21:59

everyone's apple who does this. That's not great.

22:01

We don't want that. Because then Apple could get a subpoena and

22:04

get access to your stuff without you even knowing it, right? The

22:06

government could force them to do it and Apple would have the

22:08

power to do it. And Apple could say,

22:10

okay, well, if that user, you know,

22:12

signed up for this system of verification and showed us their

22:14

past part, then we do have a key to their

22:16

stuff. But if they didn't, then we don't, right?

22:19

But the slightly more secure way to do this,

22:21

and I say slightly, is

22:23

to instead, when you do the ID

22:25

verification, like you go to the thing and you show them

22:27

all your IDs and you prove that it's your whatever, what

22:30

happens is that they would put essentially

22:33

an unlock key and like the secure enclave

22:36

on your devices, like iCloud synced, you know,

22:38

end-to-end encrypted iCloud synced, so that all of

22:40

your devices in the secure enclave, there

22:42

was a key that Apple could get, but

22:44

only if it had access to your device,

22:47

right? So if the government came to Apple

22:49

and say, we need to unlock this person's

22:51

thing, here's a subpoena, and they'd be like,

22:53

Apple can truthfully say, we can't do that.

22:55

The only place our Apple key exists is

22:57

on their device, and we can't reach out

22:59

and get it off of the device, right?

23:01

It's locked inside their device or whatever. Maybe we'd

23:04

have to be locked in the device with a backup code or

23:06

whatever. Anyway, I say it's slightly better,

23:08

because at least Apple couldn't do things behind your

23:10

back, but only slightly because the government can just

23:12

come to your house and take your phone. For

23:16

us to open a face ID and duals. I

23:18

read a story recently where the FBI raided

23:20

some person's house, and the person

23:22

answered the door with their phone in

23:24

their hand, and their phone was unlocked at

23:26

the time they answered the door, and the FBI yanked it out

23:28

of their hand. So now they have the person's unlocked

23:31

phone. So many loopholes were

23:33

like, yoink. No, we

23:35

didn't force you to unlock it, but we got

23:37

it, and now it's unlocked. So

23:40

having the keys only on your individual devices

23:42

in the secure enclave in a place that Apple can't

23:44

get at it remotely means that Apple doesn't have a

23:46

master key back at headquarters, but it doesn't actually protect

23:48

you that much more. But yeah,

23:50

this is the tradeoff between convenience and security, and I

23:52

think it's a tradeoff that I personally would make. And

23:54

as long as it's opt-in, and only the people who care about

23:57

this would have to do it, I would give

23:59

Apple the ability to do it. to unlock

24:01

my Apple ID for me. I would give them the

24:03

key, they can keep it in their headquarters and that's

24:05

just to save my butt in the future if I

24:08

prove that I'm me, right? Because I trust Apple to

24:10

do that. And I would

24:13

prefer that to totally losing access to everything

24:15

associated with my Apple ID in an unrecoverable

24:17

way. But lots of other people wouldn't prefer

24:19

that. So there would be, that choice is up

24:21

to them. All right, and with

24:23

regard to Apple IDs, Eric writes, Apple IDs are

24:26

not required to be email addresses. I still use

24:28

an Apple ID like quote unquote J Smith and

24:30

I hope I don't have to change it to

24:32

an email address if the rumor about Apple accounts

24:34

turns out to be true. I

24:36

thought this was still legacy

24:39

accounts. I thought that they

24:41

were still allowed to do this. It's just

24:43

that Apple, it really, really encourages you not

24:45

to but yeah, we'll see what happens in

24:48

the future. Yeah, the reason we all forgot

24:50

about this is because developers were literally forced

24:53

to not do this. So everybody that we know had to change all

24:56

our old non-email address Apple IDs, if we wanted

24:58

to continue to be Apple developers, you could not

25:01

log into any of Apple developer stuff which you

25:03

needed to do to do stuff like release apps

25:05

on the App Store, right? So I avoided

25:07

it for a real long time but there was just no

25:10

way, eventually, this was years ago, there was no way around

25:12

it. But I'd forgotten about, hey, if you're

25:14

not an Apple developer and I guess if you'd never

25:17

touch anything that makes

25:19

you change it, that you just continue to just use

25:21

your phone or whatever, you could have an Apple ID

25:23

like J Smith and still exist. Wow,

25:26

that blows my mind but I guess they're still out there. And

25:29

then finally for followup, Ben writes, I

25:32

was podcast transcription, Apple's first real attempt

25:34

at heavy cloud computing, iMessage,

25:36

Apple Music Mail, et cetera, are all massive

25:39

but not compute intensive. All the other cool

25:41

stuff like photos, metadata, spotlight and news aggregation

25:43

seem to happen on device. If

25:45

I'm not missing anything, this seems to be a

25:47

good low stakes test for cooler AI stuff to

25:49

come. That's a really good point, I didn't think

25:51

about that. Yeah, like the more we've learned about

25:53

the podcast transcriptions they're doing, this

25:56

is not just them running a whisper model

25:58

and calling it a day. Because even

26:00

that is, that would be substantial for the

26:02

amount of data that they

26:05

are processing. Believe me, I know from experience. Of

26:07

course, immediately upon launching this, I

26:09

thought, oh boy, I have to do

26:12

this now. I have to match this feature in Overcast. And

26:14

so I've looked into what would it take to match

26:16

this feature in Overcast? I already have the

26:19

knowledge of which podcasts are subscribed to.

26:22

I know when new episodes come out for

26:24

each one. So I could theoretically do something

26:26

like this. But they're

26:28

not just running Whisper. From

26:31

what I gather, they seem to have bought a company

26:33

that was working on podcast transcription a few

26:36

years ago. This is like a few years long

26:38

effort, it seems. And they're

26:41

doing a lot of very

26:43

specialized processing. It isn't

26:45

just a basic transcription model that's like off

26:47

the shelf. They've customized it like crazy. And

26:49

they seem to be running a whole lot

26:51

of this stuff all on their server.

26:53

So first of all, good on them.

26:55

That's a great feature for accessibility and

26:58

navigation and everything else. And

27:00

for me to congratulate Apple Podcasts on a

27:02

new innovative feature does not happen that often,

27:04

because they are a direct competitor. And the

27:06

whole reason I made Overcast is because I

27:08

didn't like Apple Podcasts very much. So

27:11

they did a really good job on this. There's

27:14

no ifs, ands, or what's about it. I cannot

27:16

fault them for anything they've done here. It's really

27:18

impressive. And for the time being, I

27:20

can't match it. And I don't know when I'll

27:22

be able to if ever. But this is going

27:24

to be just Apple Podcasts is

27:26

going to win with this feature compared to Overcast

27:29

for the foreseeable future. And so to answer the

27:31

question, yeah, this actually is a surprisingly

27:33

big deal for Apple to

27:35

be doing this much server-side

27:37

advanced AI type processing. I

27:41

don't know if there's really

27:43

any other efforts they've undertaken

27:45

that at least have such visible results.

27:48

So yeah, this is new. And

27:50

I think because this is

27:53

very specialized to podcasts, keep in mind

27:55

the scale we're dealing with here. We

27:58

are not dealing with content. being created

28:00

by every iPhone. So if

28:03

you think about, oh, would they ever run

28:05

photo recognition server side? No. Because

28:07

think about the data volume of that, even if you

28:09

can get around the whole privacy and

28:11

encryption angles, which you can't. But even if you

28:14

could, the data volume of every

28:16

photo ever taken on every iPhone

28:18

in the world is way bigger

28:21

than podcast episodes that get released.

28:23

So this is a big

28:26

step, but I wouldn't necessarily extrapolate it

28:28

to much else that Apple could be

28:30

doing server side in the near future

28:32

for their other products. Because most

28:34

of their other products, the area

28:37

of use of this kind of computation

28:39

would be so massive that we'd be

28:41

talking about a whole different ballgame. We

28:43

talked about this when we were talking

28:45

about Apple potential licensing Google

28:47

Gemini or Chat GPT for an open AI. And it's

28:49

like there is sort of a difference

28:51

in difficulty. So

28:56

Apple has many things that are iPhone scale,

28:58

iMessage is the example I gave last time.

29:00

iMessage is iPhone scale. A lot of iPhone

29:02

users use iMessage, surely billions, right? And

29:05

there's a lot of traffic on that. But

29:07

computationally, varying the messages around,

29:09

even though they're like end-to-end encrypted, most of

29:11

that is done on the end devices anyway

29:14

and dealing with the key management, it's not

29:16

that big a deal. It's shuffling bits around

29:18

some small, fast computation on optimized hardware. That's

29:21

it. Something like transcription

29:23

is not like that, which is part of the

29:25

reason this is untenable for Marco at this point.

29:27

It's not like, oh, I'll just run a one

29:29

or two second little job every time an episode

29:31

comes out. It's going to take you longer than

29:33

that. It's going to take a lot of CPU

29:35

time to do for a unit of podcast

29:37

listening time. And

29:40

the AI stuff, we were talking last

29:42

time about how much, how

29:44

does inference, which is like when you ask

29:46

an AI model a question, how expensive is

29:48

that compared to training? And training is obviously

29:51

more expensive, but how much more expensive is

29:53

it? But setting all that aside, comparing the

29:55

cheapest thing in this sort of large language

29:57

model world, which is inference, comparing that. to

30:00

shuttling an iMessage from one user to

30:02

another, it's the deal doing the

30:04

L.M. thing has got to be so much more

30:07

expensive in terms of how many CPU cycles do

30:09

you need. So the question, you know, bringing this

30:11

up with the transcription is like, has

30:14

Apple ever attempted anything at iPhone

30:16

scale that is computationally difficult, that

30:18

is not just moving bits around,

30:20

sending small packets of data from

30:22

place to place? Even things like,

30:24

you know, iPhoto, you know, the

30:26

iClos Photo Library and stuff, you take a picture,

30:28

a bunch of computation happen on your phone, but then

30:31

when the picture is done, it's just a bucket of

30:33

bits that they shove up into like S3 or

30:35

whatever they're using on the back end, right? Computationally not

30:37

expensive, but all this large language

30:39

model stuff, the stuff that can't run on the

30:41

phone, that uses really large, large language models that

30:44

has to run on a server or

30:46

podcast transcription, I'm not sure Apple

30:48

is equipped or prepared or has

30:51

invested enough to do that type

30:53

of computation at iPhone scale. So podcast scale is less

30:56

than iPhone scale, as Marco just pointed out. So this

30:58

is kind of a good start for them. And

31:01

maybe I'm forgetting something, maybe there is something that Apple

31:03

has been doing that is both computationally expensive and also

31:05

at iPhone scale, but nothing is occurring to me right

31:07

now. So this is a good point by Ben. All

31:10

right, moving on. John,

31:13

do you really need me for this one? Because this is

31:15

basically Mac Pro Corner, isn't it? Well, it's Mac Studio Corner.

31:19

All right, so there's been some theorizing

31:21

going around that there is no

31:24

ultra fusion interconnect on the M3

31:26

Macs, or at least none that

31:28

we can tell. So, John, can you remind

31:30

us what this ultra fusion interconnect is in the first

31:32

place and why it's relevant? Yeah, so when

31:34

we were looking at the M3 and the M3

31:36

Macs came out and we were looking at die

31:39

shots, pictures of the silicon die of the M3

31:42

Macs, and we look, they all, those are the

31:44

rainbowy looking pictures with lots of little tiny features,

31:46

looks like a city from a uniform above, right?

31:48

We were looking at the layout of the chip,

31:51

and what I said at the time was, well, if

31:53

you look at the M3 Macs and you look at

31:56

the M2 Macs and the M1 Macs, the layouts are

31:58

pretty similar in terms of where are the big rectangular

32:00

blobs are, where the

32:02

major structures are. The structures themselves are different,

32:04

there's different cores, different amounts of stuff, different

32:06

GPU cores. The things are different, but they're

32:09

laid out very similar. And

32:11

both the M1 and the M2 max were

32:14

constructed so that you could take two of them,

32:17

stick them end to end, and make it

32:19

either an M1 or an M2 Ultra. So

32:21

when the M3 max came out, we said,

32:23

well, this M3 max looks just like the

32:25

M1 and M2 max. So probably they're going

32:27

to take two of these M3 maxes, stick

32:29

them end to end, and

32:31

you'll get the M3 Ultra. And the

32:33

thing, when you stick them end to

32:35

end, the thing that connects them is

32:37

that Apple's branded Ultra Fusion interconnect, it's

32:39

a silicon interposer that lets them weave

32:42

together these two chips into a

32:44

single Ultra chip. So

32:47

my expectation for the M3 was, it'll

32:49

be the same thing as the M1 and M2. And

32:51

what that also meant is, probably

32:54

there won't be any kind of M3

32:56

extreme that's like four of them connected or whatever. It just

32:58

looks like, just like the M1 and M2, you'll be able

33:00

to stick two of these end to end. So

33:03

somebody posted on Twitter, in Chinese,

33:05

which is a barrier for me

33:08

to understand, a

33:10

picture of the M3

33:12

max die. And if you

33:14

compare to the M1 and M2 max, and if you

33:16

compare them and the M1 and M2 max pictures at

33:18

the bottom of the die, you see this like

33:20

long strip that is

33:22

that Ultra Fusion silicon interposer thing. It looks kind of

33:24

like a pin out, very tiny pin out, some like

33:27

a little thing that you slide into a slot, but

33:29

it's just, anyways, it's a bunch of little, a strip

33:31

of little connectors or a strip of little contacts. Those

33:33

are all the wrong words because this is microscopic stuff.

33:35

But anyway, the strip on the bottom, where you connect

33:37

them end to end, except the

33:39

M3 die shot does not have that

33:42

strip at the bottom. Did someone

33:44

just crop it out of the M3

33:46

max picture? I don't know.

33:48

You can't tell. And the

33:50

Chinese texts translated by competing translation things,

33:52

Google Translate and like the Twitter Translate

33:54

thing were like, there

33:57

is a wiring layer. And then in parentheses,

33:59

although wiring layer peeling is not

34:01

listed on X. And the

34:03

other translation is with wiring layer, all the

34:05

wiring layer peeling is not included in X.

34:09

I don't know what that means, but some

34:11

people like MacRumors and a bunch of other

34:13

like MaxTek or whatever took this ball and

34:15

ran with it and said, M3max has no

34:17

silicon interposer, M3max doesn't have ultra fusion. And

34:20

they spun that out to mean that the

34:22

two M3maxes will not be stuck together to

34:24

make the M3 ultra. And in fact, what

34:26

will happen instead is there will be a

34:28

new chip called the M3 ultra that is

34:31

not the max at all, but a new

34:33

chip entirely. And what they were saying

34:35

about this new chip based on some other vague rumors

34:38

was that the M3 ultra

34:40

will just be one big standalone chip, not

34:42

two of anything stuck together. And that one

34:44

big standalone chip will not have any efficiency

34:46

cores because it doesn't need them at the

34:49

desktop only chip, no efficiency cores, only power

34:51

cores, and a bunch of them. So if

34:53

you can imagine the M3 ultra being like

34:55

a bigger chip than the M3max with all

34:58

the efficiency cores removed and that new space

35:00

taken up by just having the power cores.

35:02

And then if you take two of

35:05

those ultras and stick them together, you would

35:07

get the M3 extreme, which would

35:09

then go in the MacPro. I

35:11

want to believe this rumor, but

35:14

basing it on an image posted in

35:17

a language I can't understand on Twitter where

35:19

someone might have just cropped out the interposer

35:22

is not reassuring to me. I just wanted to

35:24

talk about it now to say, Hey, help

35:27

Springs Eternal. And despite the rumor

35:29

we had a while ago that nothing good

35:31

will ever happen to the MacPro until after

35:33

the M7, I keep reminding

35:35

myself, who knows?

35:37

Maybe there's a possible a WWDC, presumably

35:40

the new MacStudio and maybe new MacPro will be

35:42

announced. I would love to see an M3 ultra

35:44

chip that is not two of anything stuck together

35:46

that had no efficiency cores that only power cores.

35:48

And I would love two of them to be

35:51

stuck together to make an ultra in the MacPro.

35:53

That would be super cool. So fingers

35:55

crossed for the WWDC that I'm currently not

35:57

going to be able to attend in person.

36:00

This is the kind of thing I would love for this to be

36:02

true, but I just, I

36:04

can't imagine that they're doing enough sales

36:07

volume of these very, very large chips

36:09

to make it worth custom engineering to

36:11

make a custom chip. I

36:13

hope that's wrong. I would love to be proven

36:15

wrong on that. But so far,

36:17

the amount of effort they have shown

36:19

so far for these very high-end

36:22

chips is not large,

36:25

let's say. And so I

36:28

just have doubts. But that being said, if you

36:30

look at the M3 series, the

36:32

M3 – this is the first time

36:34

that the M3 Pro and Max are

36:37

actually fairly different chips. That

36:40

for the M1 and M2 Pro and Max, the

36:43

Pro was basically a chopped-off version of

36:45

the Max that chopped off some of

36:47

his GPU cores and maybe had some

36:49

disabled CPU cores for bidding reasons. But

36:52

the M3 Pro is

36:55

a totally different and custom design compared

36:57

to the M3 Max and the regular

36:59

M3. It's closer to the regular

37:01

M3, but it's still a very custom design. It

37:03

is not just one of those with something chopped

37:06

off or disabled. So

37:08

they are, with the M3

37:10

line, expanding it to more

37:12

unique designs. So maybe

37:14

this has some merit and some

37:16

promise, but I

37:18

bet they sell a lot more pros than

37:20

extremes or ultras or whatever. So I don't

37:23

want to get my hopes up too much

37:25

in this because it seems unlikely to be

37:27

leading to anything that we actually want. Some

37:30

of the other vague things that are

37:32

making people hope about this is that in addition to

37:34

the M3 Max being separate from the Pro, the

37:37

M3 Max is also substantially beefier than the

37:39

M2 Max was. You know what I mean?

37:41

In terms of scale, you have a small,

37:43

medium, large, whatever. The M3 Max has lots

37:45

of stuff in it, and

37:48

it's more powerful comparatively. For

37:52

example, the M3 Max is contending with the M2

37:54

Ultra in many benchmarks. Just one Max compared to

37:56

the M3 Ultra, which is not the thing you

37:58

saw with the M3 Max. the M1

38:00

versus the M2, the M2 versus the M3, a

38:03

single Mac competing with the M1

38:06

Ultra or M2 Ultra. So, not in

38:08

GPU benchmarks, I guess, but the

38:11

M3 Mac does look beefier. And I

38:13

believe the whole like no efficiency course

38:15

rumor was based on some kind of

38:17

source code leak thing somewhere, maybe again,

38:19

can't lend too much credence to these

38:21

things, but that

38:23

makes sense to me, both for

38:25

the Mac Studio and for the Mac Pro.

38:28

Those computers are never going to run on

38:30

battery, you hope, if you're running after your

38:32

UPS. So, efficiency cores may

38:35

not, especially a huge number

38:37

of efficiency cores, it's just wasted, it's wasted silicon,

38:39

right? Not that the efficiency cores are bad or

38:41

anything, but if you wanna make a powerful machine

38:43

like the Mac Pro, that case is huge, efficiency

38:46

cores are probably not a

38:50

worthwhile use, especially if you have like six

38:52

or 12 of them are worthwhile use of

38:54

your silicon space, right? That said, I kind

38:56

of feel like no efficiency cores is too

38:58

few, 12 may be too many,

39:00

but zero may be too few, but I

39:03

kept thinking like, okay, but what would be the point

39:05

of them? I guess for heat maybe, or I don't

39:07

even know, like you don't really care

39:09

about the power, like you

39:12

don't care about the electricity your Mac Pro takes, but one

39:16

efficiency core, you know, ticking away doing

39:18

some trivial job versus one power core

39:20

ticking away, in the grand scheme

39:22

of the power envelope of a Mac Pro, you're

39:24

not gonna notice that, right? So I

39:26

don't know, I'm intrigued by this rumor

39:28

and I'm anxiously anticipating new

39:31

hardware at W3C. So

39:33

with that in mind, if you permit a

39:35

slight tangent, what is your vibe check on

39:38

replacing your Mac Pro? I mean, last I

39:40

remember you saying anything about it, which as

39:42

we've already covered, my memory is garbage, but

39:44

last I remember is you were gonna keep

39:46

on keeping on until you don't get macOS

39:48

updates anymore and then you'll start thinking about

39:50

it, but what's your current thinking? Yeah,

39:52

I'm still probably gonna keep

39:55

holding out until I don't have OS

39:57

support anymore, you know, or I can smell.

39:59

I'm not having it. I'll know that I don't have

40:01

OS support before that OS is released, right? And then I'll

40:04

make a decision. I

40:06

suppose something could be released to WWDC that's

40:09

so compelling, that would just make me wanna

40:11

get it. And it might

40:13

even be just like, you know, an

40:15

M3 Ultra Mac Studio or something, right? Because

40:17

maybe I still wouldn't bother with the extreme

40:20

because there's still the whole question of like,

40:23

the gaming situation and what good is a giant GPU

40:25

like that. But, you know, never say never, but

40:27

right now I'm still gonna keep holding out this

40:30

Mac Pro for as long as I can. Fair

40:32

enough. All right, it seems like

40:35

everyone's getting a little bit of antitrust

40:37

pressure because apparently Microsoft has decided to

40:39

do what they've already done in the

40:41

EU and split teams off from Office.

40:44

So reading from the Verge, Microsoft possibly

40:46

hoping to deflect the blow of an

40:48

ongoing antitrust investigation in the EU is

40:50

spinning teams off from Office 365 to

40:53

sell as its own separate app globally. A

40:55

company spokesperson told Reuters it was making the

40:58

change to its business chat and

41:00

conferencing app quote, to ensure clarity for customers

41:02

quote, after already doing so in

41:04

the EU last year. So

41:06

the background for this, for people who weren't

41:09

working in jobby jobs in the past five to 10 years

41:12

is that Slack came out and

41:15

Slack was one of those sort of backdoor work

41:17

items, kind of like the iPhone was and Mac

41:20

in some cases where employees start

41:22

using it without the blessing

41:24

or knowledge of management just

41:26

to help them do their work. Cause Slack was free, people

41:28

could download it on their computers if they

41:30

were lucky enough to be able to install software on

41:32

their work computers, which many people are, especially developers. And

41:36

so they just started using Slack. And then

41:38

eventually enough people used it, that look our employees

41:40

love Slack and it's helping them get their work

41:42

done and they're more productive. We should get a

41:44

license for Slack and they would go to Slack

41:47

and they would buy a license and however many

41:49

seats they have to pay for, for their company.

41:52

And yay, the company is now using Slack and

41:55

employees are enjoying it. And

41:57

they're using a little a

41:59

emoticon underneath there, not emoticon.

42:01

emoji reaction things and making

42:03

custom animated rainbow dancing

42:05

parrots they can put under messages and they're

42:07

making all sorts of channels about the frisbee

42:09

club at work and everyone's loving

42:11

it. Slack is great, having lots of fun. I

42:13

live this, it was a real thing. It was

42:17

like IRC, but for people who couldn't use IRC

42:19

and it was fun and everyone was using Slack.

42:22

Then what happened was Microsoft said we

42:25

don't like it when other people pay somebody

42:27

other than us for their

42:29

office software. Microsoft created

42:31

Teams which is a terrible Slack

42:34

clone that everybody hates as

42:36

well they should. It is a very

42:38

bad program. What they said is, hey

42:40

company that's currently paying for Slack you're

42:43

already paying us for exchange in

42:45

office because everybody is. Why

42:51

are you bother paying Slack? Because Slack is

42:53

kind of expensive. Why don't

42:55

you just use Teams? You get it for

42:57

free with the thing you're already paying for.

42:59

You're already paying for exchange, you're already paying

43:01

for office. Guess what? Now

43:03

you get Teams. No additional cost to you, it just

43:05

comes free as part of the thing you're already paying

43:07

for and that caused

43:10

pretty much every company that

43:12

has anybody who's in charge

43:14

of finances to stop paying for

43:16

Slack and force everyone to change the

43:18

Teams. Because they'd say how much

43:20

are we paying for Slack per year? How many

43:22

millions of dollars are we paying for Slack every

43:24

year? I can just cross that

43:27

line item off the budget and I just saved

43:29

this company 1.5 million dollars per year. You

43:32

know and all I have to do is tell everybody,

43:34

hey you were using Slack now you're using Teams and

43:37

this happened to me personally and when it was happening

43:39

to me I complained to it to my friends and

43:41

they all said yeah this is happening to me too.

43:44

So everybody said all the employees were

43:46

like but we don't want to

43:48

leave Slack. We love Slack. What about all our

43:50

chats? What about this? What about that? All sources

43:53

employee feedback sessions but in the end the

43:55

CFO would just point to 1.5 million dollars

43:57

per year versus zero. And

44:01

that was an unstoppable force that

44:03

met the very movable object of

44:05

employee dissatisfaction. And so

44:08

Slack was phased out, Teams was phased in,

44:10

and the wailing of the masses who were

44:12

forced to use Teams, which was and is

44:14

incredibly buggy and was and is a pale

44:16

shadow of Slack, happened across

44:18

the entire universe. And apparently,

44:21

and I didn't even know about this because I'm not paying

44:23

too much attention after I left my joby job, in the

44:25

EU, they said, that seems like

44:27

anti-competitive behavior, where you're using

44:29

market power in one realm, like

44:31

your office applications or Exchange Server,

44:33

whatever, to force, you

44:36

know, to gain leverage over another market, which

44:38

is the market for these communication apps. Which,

44:40

by the way, it totally is. Well,

44:43

so I talked about it on Mastodon a little

44:45

bit. And a couple of you will ask questions

44:47

that said, well, wait a second. How

44:50

is Slack or Teams separate

44:55

from, quote unquote, office?

44:57

Because office includes like

45:00

Excel, Word, Outlook, PowerPoint,

45:02

SharePoint, you know, Exchange

45:04

Server, Trigger Warning. Yeah, like, but

45:07

all like, and you're saying so,

45:10

quote unquote, office software is one market,

45:12

but things like Teams and Slack are

45:14

a different market. And

45:16

what I said to the person I responded to said, like,

45:19

Microsoft would love for you to believe

45:21

that all of these things are just

45:23

quote unquote, office applications, because office

45:25

applications is a flexible enough term to encompass anything

45:28

anybody makes that is remotely useful to someone who

45:30

works in an office. And the

45:33

fact is, historically, we have allowed this to

45:35

go on to the point where Microsoft Office

45:37

and the Office suite of applications, or the

45:39

365, whatever they call it now, encompasses

45:42

way more than it already should. But

45:45

that's not a reason to say, okay, but they're

45:47

allowed to do this to literally any other thing

45:49

that, you know, so Slack had a product that

45:51

people were using because they liked it, and they

45:53

charged people money for it. And Microsoft came in

45:55

and said, we will leverage our existing market power

45:57

to essentially push you out of the market with

46:00

free application, Internet Explorer style, because free

46:02

is better than paying. And

46:05

while I do see why that's bad and it happened

46:07

to me and it didn't feel good and it does

46:09

feel anti-competitive, if you look at it

46:11

from a logical perspective, what you say is, okay,

46:13

but also I see other things that happened in the past

46:15

that Microsoft did that were also bad and I agree with

46:17

that. How did we let them draw

46:20

a line around everything that is currently in Office 365

46:22

or whatever and say that is

46:24

one market? I think that is

46:26

the result of doing this same thing multiple times in

46:29

the past and getting away with it. That's not a

46:31

reason to let them get away with it again, but

46:33

it is kind of perverse. So the

46:35

reason I put the line item in here is like, okay, EU

46:39

did this thing and Microsoft is saying, we're

46:41

going to do this for the whole world. EU made us split

46:43

it out and charge money for it separately,

46:46

right? And now we're going to do it for the whole world.

46:48

And this, this of course made me

46:50

think of Apple in

46:52

a couple of different ways. Self-regulation,

46:55

we've talked about this about Apple many times.

46:57

Apple, the regulators are coming for it. People

46:59

are upset. Governments are upset. How about

47:01

you voluntarily do something to head them off of the pass

47:03

and Apple is like, nah. I'd

47:06

rather not. They're basically

47:08

like, make me, make me do it. Pass

47:11

the law, win the lawsuit. Come

47:14

and make me do it. I'm not going to preemptively do something

47:16

in the hopes that we'll keep you away. And

47:19

this looks like Microsoft saying, oh, the EU made us do

47:21

it. Maybe the US is going to make us do it.

47:24

Why don't we just preemptively say, look, we already did it in the EU. Why

47:26

don't we do it everywhere? It's kind of like if Apple said, you

47:28

know what? Side loading everywhere. EU is making

47:30

us do it. So we're just going to make it global. Apple

47:33

has not done that. And arguably Apple has also

47:35

not done that in the EU either, but we'll

47:37

see. It turns out. So

47:39

there's that one thing. But the second thing is I look at this and

47:41

I say, Microsoft doing

47:44

this now is like, okay, we

47:48

use this strategy to

47:50

push out Slack for

47:52

years and we got away with

47:55

it. Now that we've essentially won

47:57

and Slack has been pushed out. Yeah, sure.

48:00

We'll make it separate. It's

48:03

like if you let Microsoft do this

48:05

for, I don't know, five to ten

48:07

years and they push out the competitor

48:09

and hurt that company so badly that

48:11

they essentially, like all the companies that

48:14

were going to use Teams

48:16

simply because it's free, by now they have.

48:19

Like the only ones still holding onto Slack are the

48:21

few companies that can bear to see that line item

48:23

or maybe they don't pay for Microsoft Office or whatever.

48:26

It's like closing the barn door after the horse has

48:28

already left. When

48:31

I look at this, I'm like, do you see Apple as a

48:33

different way to be evil? If

48:36

you do the anti-competitive thing and

48:39

get away with it for long enough, then

48:42

you can quote unquote self-regulate

48:44

the first time you're forced to do this in

48:47

any jurisdiction, oh, the EU forces do it, now

48:49

we'll self-regulate and do it globally. Aren't we a

48:51

good company? There's so much

48:53

of a better, more shrewd strategy than Apple is

48:55

doing from my perspective because you get to have

48:58

your cake and eat it too. They

49:00

got to crush Slack, right? They got to

49:03

replace it in all these places and now

49:05

they also presumably will head off anti-trust about

49:07

the specific issue in any other country because

49:09

you know what? The EU made us do

49:11

it and we're voluntarily doing it every place

49:14

else. That is just genius,

49:16

evil genius, but genius. I

49:18

mean Microsoft's really good at that. Microsoft

49:20

has also seen what the

49:23

DOJ can do. They have been

49:25

directly affected by it and we

49:28

can quibble about whether the big DOJ Microsoft case

49:30

in the late 90s, like what that actually did

49:32

or accomplished, but the reality is Microsoft had to

49:34

deal with it for a long time and it

49:36

was a huge pain in their rear end. They

49:40

know what the DOJ can do. The

49:42

difference here is that I think Microsoft,

49:44

when they're doing things that are blatantly

49:47

anti-competitive, they know it. Whereas

49:49

Apple, I get the feeling still that

49:52

Apple's upper leadership and honestly many people in

49:55

the company, but certainly the upper leadership, they

49:57

are so convinced that they are... completely

50:00

entitled to do what they're doing, I

50:03

don't think they even see the possibility yet

50:06

that they could be wrong and that they could be forced

50:08

to do other things. Even now that

50:10

the EU has just forced them to do other things,

50:13

I still think Apple is

50:15

still going to fight it tooth and nail.

50:17

They're still going to never change their minds

50:19

about what they are entitled to do. And

50:23

I think it will take – similar to what

50:26

Microsoft has now, I think it will

50:28

take a new generation of Apple leadership

50:30

before we start to see them play

50:32

better ball with regulators. I

50:35

don't see that happening with the current leadership

50:38

and not only just

50:40

like Tim Cook in particular, the current

50:42

generation of leadership. Everyone

50:44

at the Apple SVP level who

50:46

was over say age 60, which

50:48

is I think most of them

50:50

or at least like 55, there's

50:52

like one generation of Apple power

50:54

that's really in right now. I

50:57

think they will all have to go

50:59

and be replaced before there's

51:01

even a chance of the

51:03

current entitlement culture being

51:06

a little bit more pragmatic with the environment

51:08

they're in now. I mean

51:10

that happened to Microsoft too. Yes. In the

51:12

Ballmer era, it was just a continuation of the Gates

51:14

era essentially and it took Sachin Nadella to come into

51:16

– among many other things. But he did many smart

51:18

things to turn the company around. But

51:21

that was the dividing line between old Microsoft and

51:23

new Microsoft because Ballmer was just a Gates extension.

51:27

And Nadella was like, I have a new idea about how

51:29

Microsoft can be. And I

51:31

feel like Nadella also has a new idea

51:33

of how to deal with regulation, with

51:36

this self-regulation after already getting most of the benefits of being

51:38

a monopoly. And by the way, I think –

51:40

don't quote me on this so you can read the article in the

51:42

notes to find out the details. But I believe part

51:44

of the thing of breaking it out separately

51:47

was like all the companies that are currently getting

51:49

it as part of their contract for office, their

51:51

price doesn't change. So it's

51:53

only like for new customers going forward, like not only

51:55

did we get all those wins and push Slack out,

51:57

we're going to consolidate them. But

52:00

not because if they went to all those customers and say,

52:02

oh, by the way, now teams cost an additional 1.5 million

52:04

per year, the employees would say, hey, wait a second, that

52:06

was zero dollars on the budget just went to 1.5 million.

52:10

Can we just give that to Slack instead? And there would be much rejoicing. But

52:12

that's not what they did. Yeah,

52:14

I don't know. I just as Marco said, you know,

52:16

we're both really I really wish that Apple had taken

52:19

the initiative to self-regulate because

52:21

I genuinely think if they

52:24

showed even an ounce

52:26

of I don't know if contrition is

52:28

really the word I'm looking for, but

52:30

if they showed an ounce of responsibility

52:32

and conceded

52:34

even the littlest bit that, hey, maybe

52:36

we should pull back a little on

52:38

our entitlement, which I know we've covered

52:40

it a million times, but I'll say

52:42

it again. I couldn't agree with Marco

52:44

more that they feel entitled. And

52:47

so if they had

52:49

shown even just the teeniest bit

52:51

of willingness to give on this,

52:53

I genuinely think that there would be considerably

52:56

less antitrust pressure globally.

52:59

But because there being such petulant children

53:01

about it, here we are. And so,

53:04

you know, you eff around and

53:06

now they're finding out. So this is

53:08

what happens. And again, I think it

53:10

will take a generation of their leadership to turn

53:12

over before we see the

53:15

satin Adela of Apple, like the kind

53:17

of like the newer generation, the more

53:19

pragmatic for the current

53:22

conditions kind of leader. You

53:24

look at Apple now and all those people

53:26

who were in leadership positions at Apple now in

53:29

that upper leadership, they were there when Apple

53:31

was the underdog. And so they still have

53:33

so much of that underdog mindset. It's

53:35

going to take the rising through the ranks and the

53:38

time for a new generation

53:40

of Apple leadership who came up while

53:43

Apple was already the big dominant,

53:46

honestly, bully slash monopolist, however you wanted

53:48

to find it. It's going to take

53:50

that generation of leadership in the company

53:52

to Inherit Power before we see

53:55

meaningful change in this area because the

53:57

current generation just will never, ever see

53:59

it. that way I mean you know

54:01

he made a comparison to Bomber and

54:03

look, I know Tim Cook did a

54:05

better job by most measures then Steve

54:07

Ballmer. But make no mistake, Tim Cook

54:09

is a Steve Bomber type doing a

54:11

Steve Bomber role. He says doing had

54:13

better, but it's exactly the same side.

54:15

It's physician and Tim Cook is exactly

54:17

the same kind of leader in a

54:19

lot of ways to get them a

54:21

better job of it than Bomber did.

54:23

I know any better values? I would

54:25

say like that Bomber did not have

54:27

a baby girl. Environmental plus Yes. but

54:29

but. Cook Saw has many of the

54:31

same strengths and weaknesses that is Evelyn

54:34

extension of because he came up with

54:36

jobs like and hopefully Apple won't have

54:38

the experience of Microsoft like transition. Big

54:40

assert Paredones transition was that Microsoft was

54:42

essentially a fading star. Like the dominance

54:44

of the place where I was dominant

54:46

like in you know, Office and Pcs

54:48

and stuff like that became less important

54:50

and all bombers attempts to bring Microsoft

54:53

into the future did not pan out.

54:55

There was a lot of big acquisitions,

54:57

ah, you know all the time Said

54:59

mobile failed. By Nokia wasn't great idea of

55:01

Skype purchase than the was like other people

55:03

were doing things a Microsoft was trying to

55:05

do things the old way, windows and office

55:07

but also new stuff and it just you

55:09

know windows everywhere in the furthermore him and

55:11

finances were not about the threats so that

55:13

Adele's said take over with was kind of

55:15

like. Are you should make

55:17

me the new Ceo because Microsoft despite like

55:20

you know the stock price and of and

55:22

you know that the numbers the bomb or

55:24

applied to to say I've been a great

55:26

cel look at these numbers and some cook

55:28

has even begun a prospective. Despite all that

55:30

the board could see that like look Microsoft

55:32

is not. Minnesota not ascendant, right?

55:34

Yes, they're making a lot of money, but they're making

55:36

a lot of money ago. if I got. A

55:40

trailing indicator like they they have a lot of

55:42

existing businesses that have incredible amount of inertia and

55:44

Bomber is good at continuing to milk them and

55:47

make tons of money and grow that business. But

55:49

what is the future like like in it and.

55:52

Microsoft. Did phase of the point where. they

55:55

wanted a a new leader who

55:57

could put the sign back on

55:59

microsoft And I would hope that Apple

56:02

doesn't have to get to that position where

56:04

either the place where Apple was dominant becomes

56:06

less important, which I don't think is any

56:08

fear of happening anytime soon, or that Apple

56:11

is not seen as having a future beyond

56:13

the stuff that it has done. I

56:16

don't think that has happened yet either. The generational thing

56:18

was like, oh, Tim Cook will retire and all those people

56:20

will retire. But I

56:22

think for the... I mean, that's the good thing

56:24

about Apple. Because if they don't screw things up,

56:26

and they certainly haven't, again, Tim Cook has done

56:28

amazing things with every metric you could possibly measure

56:30

at Apple. If

56:32

they don't screw things up, maybe you

56:34

just do need a generational turnover to say, we're going

56:36

to continue to do all the things that Apple used

56:39

to do, but we don't be jerks about certain stuff.

56:42

It's not a big change, but it is type of

56:44

like, you need a new sheriff in town, right? Or

56:46

you need a big change of heart from Tim Cook,

56:48

which doesn't seem to be forthcoming, right? So

56:50

I really hope it's not like Apple, the

56:52

fading star, never got into hollow headbands, like their Vision

56:54

Pro was a flop, but the hollow headband from some

56:57

company we've never heard of is taking the world by

56:59

storm. And yeah, Apple still has the phone market, but

57:01

phones are less important now that we have hollow headbands.

57:03

And you know what I mean? That's where Microsoft was

57:05

when Adele took over and said, it's not going

57:07

to be the Windows company anymore. We're going to

57:09

ship Linux. We're going to put our software in

57:11

every platform. That strategy,

57:14

Balmor would never have done that. Gates would never have

57:16

done that. And there's all sorts of things that Tim Cook

57:18

would never have done. But honestly, I don't think Apple needs

57:21

that kind of turnaround. They just need leadership that takes

57:23

a different view of their

57:26

place in the ecosystem that they've

57:28

created. It's a

57:30

course correction, not a revamp. Because

57:32

if Apple gets to the point where it

57:35

needs a revamp, that

57:37

means things have gone really badly. I mean, that's

57:39

where they... If they're 90 days from

57:41

bankruptcy, like they were in 97 or whatever, yeah,

57:43

new leadership has a lot of leeway to do

57:45

all sorts of great things. But I hope they

57:47

don't get to that point. Well, I

57:49

mean, so two clarifications on that. I mean, first of all,

57:52

I think we... The

57:54

story has yet to be finished, but We

57:56

haven't seen how Apple's handling AI stuff

57:59

yet. And so I

58:01

think that is one area where. He.

58:03

Could reveal problems if they really dropped the

58:05

ball on it. Now we'll see what happens

58:07

they again like. We have lots a strong

58:09

rumors of big stuff coming in just a

58:12

few short months so we'll see that. Yeah

58:14

we don't know how the story and yet

58:16

but that is one area where it is

58:18

possible that Apple could still dropped the ball

58:20

and have a lot of the tech industry

58:22

disrupt Apple's businesses by using that. So we'll

58:24

see what happens there are there is the

58:26

reason I for the reason I was thinking

58:28

that wouldn't be as bad with because the

58:30

thing that. Really hard Microsoft

58:32

was the rise of mobile. Yes,

58:34

and mobile is za saying right

58:37

now. So. Even if the

58:39

current large language models are a big thing

58:41

and out before really behind them. The.

58:43

Phone is still nothing and yes the phone is

58:45

less valuable the doesn't have a good L am

58:48

in. I mean like I can see how they

58:50

could. You know they can fall behind in this

58:52

area. but as long as they continue their I

58:54

phone dominance at the same level. Or

58:57

close to it. That not like.

58:59

That's why give a whole had banned fictional

59:01

example. There's not some new realm of the

59:03

tech sector, some new platform that is now

59:05

the shell. The. Phone will still be the

59:07

show even with a I. Com.

59:09

It isn't enough. It is possible yikes that

59:11

if they do such a bad job on

59:14

a I'd been doubled during the I phone

59:16

or whatever. But there's so much else to

59:18

recommend the I phone that I don't That

59:20

could hurt not much. but like medicine, just

59:22

me being in the large language, My pessimism,

59:24

they're they're very useful. Apple should use that

59:26

technology, but I don't think it's so revolutionary

59:28

that if Apple is a poor job of

59:30

it, it's going to hurt the I phone

59:32

to in the same the same way that

59:34

mobile hurt the Pc. i mean

59:36

we'll see i think you're probably right

59:39

my was a don't bet against smartphone

59:41

i think you're probably right but the

59:43

this generation of young modern a i

59:45

techniques and the types of models that

59:47

are that aren't being created and deployed

59:49

now in in really compelling way than

59:51

a lot cases i think this is

59:53

the most credible attack yet on the

59:55

smartphone be as in many cases he

59:58

added that we talked about it And

1:00:00

over time, a couple weeks ago, the Rabbit

1:00:02

R1 and its idea of the large action

1:00:04

model. And yeah, there's a lot of reasons

1:00:06

right now where we're looking at version one

1:00:08

of this and saying, well, that has all

1:00:10

these shortcomings. It probably won't be very good.

1:00:13

Here's why we might not want

1:00:15

to use it or where it might fail. But this

1:00:17

is version one. The things we're seeing,

1:00:19

look at the Humane AI pin. That

1:00:21

is something that I don't think

1:00:24

has much of a use right now in

1:00:26

what we see now, but that is also

1:00:28

a direct attack on the smartphone. At

1:00:31

some point, one of these attacks might

1:00:33

actually succeed because we're seeing

1:00:35

really only the very early versions of it. But

1:00:38

if one of those does eventually take

1:00:40

off and start really undermining

1:00:43

the smartphone in some way, Apple

1:00:45

better be there. And so I think that

1:00:47

kind of a Balmer moment could happen to

1:00:49

Apple. We can see it. We can see

1:00:51

how it could happen. If

1:00:54

it comes from an area where Apple is not

1:00:56

strong, and I think – we'll see

1:00:58

how that goes. When we talk about the

1:01:00

Rabbit R1 and the Humane AI pin though, that stuff so

1:01:02

wants to be on a phone. So I think the only

1:01:04

way that would happen to Apple is it ends up being

1:01:06

on Android phones but not on iPhones through to stupid App

1:01:09

Store policy reasons. And that

1:01:11

would hurt Apple, but those things so clearly want to

1:01:13

be on a phone. It's just that the companies putting

1:01:15

them out don't have a phone platform to put them

1:01:17

on. So they're trying to go down their own with

1:01:20

pins and the little play date type thing. But

1:01:23

those things just feel so naturally at home on

1:01:25

a phone. And it remains to be seen, like

1:01:27

we said, when we talked about the Apple AI stuff

1:01:29

most recently. Is the AI stuff a

1:01:31

commodity or is it a competitive advantage?

1:01:33

Because if it's a commodity, Apple will just license it or make some

1:01:35

of its own or whatever. But

1:01:38

if it's a competitive advantage, how big is that advantage

1:01:40

and how much is the way against all the other

1:01:42

stuff? That's why I threw a whole headband out there

1:01:44

because it's like what if there's something that replaces the

1:01:46

phone? But a lot of that AI stuff is going

1:01:48

to be perfectly – its natural home is on the

1:01:50

phone. It's the computing device that you already have that

1:01:52

already has microphones, that already has cameras, that

1:01:54

already is connected to the internet. You already pay for

1:01:56

that connection. It already has a platform and software and CPUs

1:01:58

in it. all the stuff you

1:02:00

need and you just need to connect it to the large language model. And

1:02:03

yeah, Apple could screw that up by being dumb and

1:02:05

everyone else connects to a large language model and no

1:02:07

one wants to license it to Apple or Apple has

1:02:10

a KERDI1. But I just

1:02:12

look at how much the terribleness of Siri

1:02:14

has hurt the iPhone and the answer is not

1:02:16

that much. Despite the fact that the voice systems

1:02:18

on every other platform have been better significantly

1:02:20

for years, it hasn't really hurt the iPhone too

1:02:22

much. So I still feel like the... I

1:02:26

keep saying hollow headband and people probably thinking I'm saying

1:02:28

Vision Pro, but I'm trying to think of some fantastical

1:02:30

future thing that obviates our need to hold rectangles with

1:02:32

screens. Well, and so this actually

1:02:34

leads me into the second refutation or kind

1:02:36

of clarification I want to make on this

1:02:39

whole topic is the way that I think

1:02:41

we've all characterized it here and there in

1:02:43

this conversation with Apple's behavior now, we've kind

1:02:45

of said like we wish they would be

1:02:47

a little like let go a little bit

1:02:50

or be a little bit nicer or more

1:02:52

gracious with some of these App

1:02:55

Store related policies. The

1:02:57

failure of leadership here is not

1:03:00

that they are not being nice enough and

1:03:02

for them to ease up their grip a little bit

1:03:04

on some of these areas would not

1:03:07

be them being charitable. I think

1:03:09

it's actually strategically the right move

1:03:11

to have done that for lots

1:03:13

of reasons that would generally benefit

1:03:15

the company and its users and

1:03:17

developers all because the grip they

1:03:19

have held has been so damaging

1:03:22

to the entire ecosystem and to

1:03:24

them and their products that

1:03:26

has invited so much of this

1:03:29

regulation and the regulation comes with

1:03:31

it the possibility to significantly

1:03:33

negatively affect them if for instance, if

1:03:35

you look at what the DOJ is

1:03:37

asking for in the lawsuit, they're

1:03:40

asking for some pretty significant changes

1:03:42

to the way Apple makes integrated

1:03:45

products. That is

1:03:47

a massive attack on Apple's

1:03:49

entire method of making products.

1:03:51

It is a huge attack

1:03:53

on key components of their

1:03:56

operating system, their hardware, their

1:03:58

integration. If the DOJ

1:04:00

gets what it wants, even if the DOJ only

1:04:03

gets part of what it wants, it

1:04:05

could really negatively impact Apple.

1:04:08

And for Apple's leadership to have basically

1:04:11

driven the ship directly into this

1:04:13

and invited these attacks from governments

1:04:15

by being so incredibly

1:04:17

anti-competitive in so many areas for

1:04:19

so long, I think

1:04:22

that shows a failure of leadership and a

1:04:24

failure of strategy. When I say I

1:04:26

wish Apple would have avoided some of this by loosening the

1:04:28

grip a little bit, I'm not saying that

1:04:30

they should have been nice, that they should have been

1:04:32

charitable, that they should have been generous. No, I'm saying

1:04:34

they actually made a strategic error that will cost them

1:04:37

more in the long term in much larger areas. Yeah,

1:04:39

we've been saying that for – it feels like

1:04:42

for years now, but the problem is Apple disagrees

1:04:44

with us so quickly. So characterizing it

1:04:46

the way we do of like that they should loosen

1:04:48

their grip or they should be nicer is trying to

1:04:50

tell them what behavior they should change, but the argument

1:04:52

has always been Apple – if you do this,

1:04:55

it will literally be better for you in the

1:04:57

long run, which I've always said is supposed to

1:04:59

be – Apple is always going on about how

1:05:01

like we take a long view, we don't care

1:05:04

about the ROI, we do what's right. And

1:05:06

they have done – Apple has done – it's

1:05:09

not just hype. Apple has done many, many things

1:05:11

since the return of Steve Jobs going on for

1:05:13

decades, including in the Tim Cook era,

1:05:15

decisions that are bad in the short term but

1:05:17

good in the long term. Apple does that all

1:05:19

the time except in this one area. And the

1:05:21

reason is because they disagree with us. They don't

1:05:23

think it's going to happen in the long term.

1:05:26

We obviously think it is, but we don't run

1:05:28

Apple. So yeah, when we say they should be

1:05:30

nicer, it's not because we were telling them to

1:05:33

be magnanimous or to give up money or whatever.

1:05:35

It's because we literally think it will make the

1:05:37

company more money in the long run, like so

1:05:39

many other things that they have done that were

1:05:41

sort of counter to conventional wisdom, counter to what

1:05:43

their competitors were doing that seemed like a bad

1:05:46

move that took years to come to fruition. So

1:05:49

many of those are why Apple is where it is

1:05:51

today. And we're trying to say this is another one,

1:05:53

Apple, and they're saying they disagree. And

1:05:55

what Marco was saying, if he was ready to make this

1:05:57

reference, he could have. The

1:06:00

more Apple tightens its grip, the more developers will

1:06:02

slip through its fingers. We

1:06:05

are brought to you this week by ATP members. Please

1:06:09

consider becoming a member today. You probably are

1:06:11

not one because one of the benefits of

1:06:13

the member feeds is that you don't hear

1:06:15

ads like this or the other ad in

1:06:17

this episode inserted into the show. You

1:06:20

also get bonus content as a member.

1:06:22

So not only do we have the

1:06:24

roughly monthly specials we've been doing for

1:06:26

various tech and non-tech topics, but

1:06:29

now we've introduced recently ATP

1:06:31

Overtime. Every single episode now

1:06:33

has member-exclusive bonus content in the form

1:06:36

of one extra tech topic that is stuck on

1:06:38

the end of the show for members. So

1:06:40

if you're a member, you get a little bit

1:06:42

more ATP in every single episode plus no ads.

1:06:44

You also get access to the bootleg feed because

1:06:47

our unedited livestream, many people love listening that way.

1:06:49

You get to hear the raw uncut show. It's

1:06:51

released sooner than the regular episode, and it includes

1:06:53

extra stuff beating an end, kind of managing

1:06:55

the livestream, and choosing titles and stuff like that.

1:06:58

It's kind of fun. You also

1:07:00

get access to some merchandise discounts when we do sales,

1:07:02

little stuff like that here and there. But for the

1:07:04

most part, what you're paying for with

1:07:06

membership usually is the bonus content. People

1:07:08

love it. See for yourself ATP.fm slash

1:07:10

join, and there you can see that

1:07:12

you cost about eight bucks a month

1:07:14

for membership, and you have annual plans

1:07:16

available, different currencies available, but basically it's

1:07:18

eight bucks a month or close enough

1:07:21

in your currency. Check

1:07:23

it out today, ATP.fm slash join.

1:07:25

Please consider becoming a member today.

1:07:28

It is the best way to support the show.

1:07:30

It supports us directly. There's no middle people taking

1:07:32

a cut. There's no indirect relationship. It's

1:07:35

a direct relationship between you and us. You

1:07:37

give us eight bucks a month or equivalent, and

1:07:40

we give you bonus content and the rest of

1:07:42

the podcast with no ads basically. So check it

1:07:44

out today, ATP.fm slash join. Thank you so much

1:07:46

for your consideration, and now back to the show.

1:07:53

Apple Vision Pro personas can now be

1:07:55

3D and float freely across different apps.

1:07:57

So reading from the Verge. Starting

1:08:03

today as Virg writes, Vision Pro Personas will be

1:08:05

able to do more than hover like a ghost

1:08:07

in FaceTime calls. Now you can use them in

1:08:09

SharePlay-enabled apps to collaborate, play games, or watch media

1:08:11

with other people. Apple is calling this

1:08:13

a spatial persona. The idea is to make it feel

1:08:15

like you're in the same physical space as another user.

1:08:18

It was part of what Apple showed in

1:08:20

developer previews last year but hasn't been available

1:08:22

in the actual persona beta until now. I

1:08:24

will point you to this week's Connected where

1:08:27

they discussed this and had a really good

1:08:29

conversation about it. I do plan

1:08:31

on trying this in the next couple of days.

1:08:33

In fact, I was trying to get some time

1:08:35

with Mike from Connected in

1:08:37

order to try this before we recorded it. It

1:08:39

just, our schedules didn't work out today. I apologize

1:08:41

to all of you for not having been able

1:08:43

to make that work but stuff happens. Check

1:08:46

out Connected if you're interested in that. Marco, I'm

1:08:48

assuming you haven't tried it because you never asked

1:08:50

me to. I'm not sure how many people you

1:08:52

know with Vision Pro. What

1:08:55

is your understanding here? You're

1:08:57

right. I have not tried it. In fact,

1:09:00

my Vision Pro is not even in

1:09:02

my house right now. I actually lent

1:09:04

it to a friend

1:09:07

for a few days because I

1:09:09

hardly ever use it. I wish that

1:09:13

this was not my answer to this question but I

1:09:16

don't think this is going to change my usage

1:09:18

of the Vision Pro at all because, I mean,

1:09:21

first of all, I still can't get it to look right with my eyes.

1:09:24

That's a separate problem. I guess that's a me problem

1:09:26

just like how AirPods never fit me until the AirPod

1:09:28

Pros. The Vision Pro does

1:09:30

not work with my eyes. I

1:09:33

know it's not my eyes fault because when I

1:09:35

put on my son's $500 Metacrest 3, everything is

1:09:39

tack sharp. I can see every single

1:09:41

sharp edge of all of those blocky

1:09:43

pixels on those little resolution screens. With

1:09:46

no adjustments, all I do, I crank the little head thing back

1:09:48

because he's a kid so he has a head smaller than mine.

1:09:50

I just crank the little head thing back to make it bigger,

1:09:52

stick it on my head. No adjustments,

1:09:54

no setup, perfectly sharp. And

1:09:57

I put on the Vision Pro no matter what I do with the Vision

1:09:59

Pro. I've tried everything,

1:10:02

believe me, everything I've tried

1:10:05

and it is a blurry mess. And so I

1:10:08

have a very hard time using it for anything.

1:10:12

Even if I get past that, I think

1:10:15

this is – first of all, I have major concerns about the Vision

1:10:17

Pro. I'll get to those in a little bit when we talk about

1:10:19

the soccer video, but I'm

1:10:21

not motivated to use it. I'm going weeks

1:10:24

at a time without even putting it

1:10:27

on because I'm just not finding those

1:10:29

compelling use cases that fit into my

1:10:31

life. Yeah, so

1:10:34

recently – I don't know, maybe it was a

1:10:36

couple of months back – I added a shortcut

1:10:39

to – and I think we might have talked

1:10:41

about this on the show. I added a shortcut

1:10:43

to both my iPad and the kids' hand-me-down iPad

1:10:46

that will send me a push notification when either

1:10:48

of those iPads falls below 20% battery. And

1:10:51

I did that because even

1:10:53

though the iPad is not an essential device

1:10:55

for me and is mostly not an

1:10:57

essential device for the kids, I

1:11:00

am never happy when it's completely

1:11:02

discharged. And I would notice probably

1:11:05

relatively quickly and probably

1:11:08

at an inopportune moment

1:11:10

I have no idea what the battery state

1:11:12

of my Vision Pro is ever. And

1:11:16

that's mostly okay because I'm just not using

1:11:18

it that much. And I think

1:11:22

it's a few different reasons. You guys

1:11:24

covered this really well from a developer in like

1:11:26

business perspective under the radar or the most recent

1:11:28

under the radar. There's

1:11:31

obviously more to it than just the business perspective, but

1:11:35

from a personal and user perspective, I do very

1:11:38

much like the product. And

1:11:42

I think it is, as everyone has

1:11:44

said, a technological marvel. I

1:11:47

don't have a lot of occasions for

1:11:49

it in my life. And

1:11:52

I think a lot of that is because

1:11:54

it's so immensely antisocial. I think Apple did

1:11:56

as good a job as they possibly could

1:11:58

with making it social. But inevitably,

1:12:00

you have a humongous set

1:12:03

of goggles on your face between you

1:12:05

and your eyes and the other person's

1:12:07

eyes. And

1:12:10

that's just never going to work. You're never going to be

1:12:12

able to watch something together because my

1:12:14

limited experience with Share Play is not great. And

1:12:17

what are you going to do? You're going to have one person looking

1:12:19

at a TV and the other person looking at the Vision Pro in

1:12:21

the same damn room? Like, that's, that's, yeah, Aaron, why don't you sit

1:12:23

next to me with these idiotic goggles on

1:12:25

my face while we watch this movie together

1:12:28

because the fidelity on the Vision Pro, you

1:12:30

just don't understand, honey. It's just that much

1:12:32

better. Right now. We're going

1:12:34

to spend $7,000 on Vision's Pro instead of

1:12:36

getting, instead of just using our TV together.

1:12:38

Right, right, right. And as we established,

1:12:40

the fidelity actually isn't better if you have a

1:12:43

4K television, decent 4K television that you're a reasonable

1:12:45

distance from. Or a subwoofer. Yeah, right,

1:12:47

right, exactly. So anyways, there

1:12:49

are occasions when it is freaking

1:12:52

magical. And I really do mean

1:12:54

that. I mean, being, I will

1:12:56

forever and always be dumbfounded and

1:12:58

incredibly impressed by Mac Virtual Display.

1:13:02

And the handful of times I brought the

1:13:04

Vision Pro to like the library to work,

1:13:07

I have used the Mac Virtual Display

1:13:09

and it is just chef's kiss. It

1:13:11

is just incredible. I could not

1:13:13

say enough good things about it. The

1:13:15

problem though is that you're that idiot at the

1:13:18

library wearing the Vision Pro. And so the only

1:13:20

times I've been able to do it because I

1:13:22

just haven't had the gumption to do it otherwise

1:13:24

is when I'm in a private room that granted,

1:13:27

you know, has glass walls on behind me or

1:13:29

whatever. But I'm facing an interior wall and

1:13:31

so the only thing that people can see as they walk

1:13:34

by is the back of my head. And

1:13:36

I'm secluded from the rest of the library.

1:13:39

And the other day I went back to Wegmans to work for

1:13:41

the first time in a long time. And

1:13:44

it's really delightful at Wegmans. You know, there's really

1:13:46

great Wi-Fi, and no, not to say our libraries

1:13:48

are bad by any stretch. But

1:13:50

anyways, Wegmans is really nice. It's got comfortable chairs, really

1:13:52

great Wi-Fi, power all over the place. And

1:13:55

you know, if I'm thirsty or hungry or whatever, I can go

1:13:57

and grab a snack. But I'm not going

1:13:59

to use the Vision Pro. there. It's just too look

1:14:01

at me, look at me. And so

1:14:03

I haven't had a

1:14:06

lot of places where I think to myself, you know

1:14:08

what? Now is vision pro

1:14:10

time. And the only times I can really

1:14:12

think of other than when I'm working privately

1:14:14

even in a public spot is

1:14:16

on the rare occasions that Erin has a social thing

1:14:18

in the evening so she's out, the kids are asleep,

1:14:21

and then hell yeah I'll put that on and watch

1:14:23

a movie because I'll watch something in 3D or what

1:14:26

have you or I'll do

1:14:28

something along those lines and that's pretty cool. And

1:14:31

bringing us

1:14:33

to the next topic, you know

1:14:35

the immersive stuff is

1:14:37

just phenomenal even though this new

1:14:39

video kind of wasn't. So

1:14:42

what am I talking about? So when

1:14:44

Apple first debuted the vision pro there

1:14:46

were several immersive experiences and again just

1:14:48

to set the table or set the

1:14:52

conversation, there's 3D

1:14:54

where you're looking at say

1:14:56

a rectangle and there's

1:14:59

depth to the images in that

1:15:01

rectangle, right? But you can't

1:15:03

change your perspective at all. You're

1:15:05

still always looking at a fixed,

1:15:07

from a fixed camera, you're looking

1:15:09

at something that now has depth in

1:15:11

a way that my television on my wall does

1:15:13

not but it's still

1:15:16

a rectangle. There's nothing you can do about that. And

1:15:18

when you mean fixed camera just to be clear, what

1:15:20

you basically can't do is you can't move the camera

1:15:22

forward or backwards up or down left or right but

1:15:24

you can rotate because the camera's field of view is

1:15:26

larger than your field of view so you can turn

1:15:28

your head, imagine your head, the camera's replaced with your

1:15:30

head, you can turn your head, you can look up,

1:15:32

you can look down, you can look up, you can

1:15:35

look right but you can't take a step forward. But

1:15:37

I know what that's, you're getting ahead of me. I'm

1:15:39

talking about just vanilla 3D like Marvel movies is what

1:15:41

I'm saying. Same answer though, same answer. If

1:15:43

you're sitting close to the screen you can't ever change

1:15:45

your perspective in a 3D movie

1:15:48

same way. Like even if you're sitting in the front row you

1:15:50

can turn your head to the left, you can turn your head

1:15:52

to the right, you can look up, you can look down but

1:15:54

you can't take a step forward and see like more of the

1:15:56

back of something like, oh I can't see what's written on the

1:15:58

side of that truck, let me take two two steps forward and now

1:16:00

I can see it. That's not how 3D

1:16:02

movies work and that's not how Vision Pro

1:16:05

3D works for these things that we're recording.

1:16:08

Right, but I mean, just to make sure we're saying the

1:16:10

same thing, 3D is when you're

1:16:12

watching a Marvel movie or something along those lines

1:16:14

and there's depth to that movie in a way

1:16:16

that there isn't depth in your TV. But

1:16:19

you have zero control over the perspective of what you're

1:16:21

looking at. You are along for the ride. With

1:16:24

immersive stuff, and I think this is what

1:16:26

you're describing, John, with immersive stuff, yes, you

1:16:28

can turn your head, you can

1:16:31

go up and down left or right, and

1:16:33

that will actively change what you're looking at.

1:16:35

You have, you are immersed in

1:16:37

this environment. You have agency

1:16:39

over where you're looking. Well, it's definitely just because

1:16:41

the screen is really wide and really tall. Yeah,

1:16:45

it's basically using a 180 degree camera. It's

1:16:49

like you're sitting extremely close to a

1:16:51

very large 3D movie. The

1:16:54

screen that wraps around you. Yeah, you still

1:16:56

can't shift your head left or right and

1:16:59

look around objects. That's not a thing

1:17:01

you can do. You're still fixed

1:17:03

in what you are seeing, but

1:17:05

your field of view is way bigger.

1:17:09

And the comparison in the Vision Pro world is

1:17:11

the immersive environments that are 3D modeled where

1:17:14

you can actually take

1:17:17

one step forward before you go in and

1:17:19

turn your head to the side of the

1:17:21

surroundings. Those are 3D modeled and you're essentially

1:17:23

changing the position of the camera because the

1:17:25

camera is your eyes in those immersive 3D

1:17:27

model environments. Right, so

1:17:29

in any case, what we're talking about

1:17:31

is when the Vision Pro was released,

1:17:33

there were I think four off top

1:17:35

of my head immersive experiences. So there

1:17:37

was a thing with a woman on

1:17:39

a tightrope on a fjord in Norway,

1:17:42

I guess. There was a completely computer

1:17:44

animated dinosaur experience. This is not the

1:17:46

thing that everyone got in the demo

1:17:48

in June. This is like your, it's

1:17:50

a video effectively, but it's an immersive

1:17:52

video. So you can look around and

1:17:54

change your perspective. There

1:17:56

was a thing about rhinoceroses

1:17:59

or something along those. lines where this was a

1:18:01

documentary, a very brief documentary. And then

1:18:03

finally, there was the something like half

1:18:05

an hour, 45 minute Alicia Keys concert

1:18:08

where you're in a studio

1:18:10

space and the perspective occasionally changes between

1:18:12

cameras. But the point is you can

1:18:14

look around and you know, if if

1:18:16

the bass players just jamming out and

1:18:18

doing something incredibly exciting, you can turn

1:18:20

your head and watch the bass player,

1:18:22

which is pretty freakin cool. So that

1:18:24

was the only four things. And for

1:18:26

the Rhino one and for the, the,

1:18:28

um, the tightroping one, tightrope

1:18:30

walking one, they were listed as episode

1:18:32

one back in February two or whatever

1:18:34

it was that this came out. And

1:18:37

we still haven't gotten anything since. But,

1:18:39

uh, last week, Apple released their

1:18:41

immersive video sports film on Apple

1:18:43

vision pro. And this was an

1:18:46

immersive video featuring highlights from the 2023

1:18:49

major league soccer cup playoffs. So this

1:18:51

is the American soccer slash football, uh,

1:18:55

what the Brits would call football, um, uh,

1:18:58

playoffs and, and in finals. And

1:19:00

the first time I watched it, I

1:19:03

was really,

1:19:06

really disappointed by it. And it's been

1:19:09

talked about a lot. I forget specifically where,

1:19:11

um, Jason Snell talked about it at six

1:19:13

colors a bit and Ben talked about it

1:19:16

on strip. Ben Thompson talked about it on

1:19:18

Stratecory a bit. And also I think it

1:19:20

was covered on dithering if I'm not mistaken.

1:19:22

But the problem with the immersive video, the

1:19:24

soccer video is that it

1:19:27

was edited like a commercial

1:19:29

for regular old TV. So

1:19:32

it was, Oh, look over here. Change. Look over

1:19:34

here. Oh, look at this thing. Now look at

1:19:36

that thing. Now look at this thing. Now look

1:19:38

at that thing, which is fine.

1:19:40

If you're watching something where you don't

1:19:42

have any influence on what you're looking

1:19:44

at, but so

1:19:46

often I would be put in

1:19:48

a situation where I'm, I'm maybe the

1:19:50

players are walking onto the field on either side of me. You

1:19:52

know, you're at the edge of the field, the perspective of the

1:19:54

cameras at the edge of the field, the players are walking by

1:19:56

you onto your left and to your right, going to the center

1:19:59

of the field. do like a coin

1:20:01

toss or whatever. And you're naturally panning and

1:20:03

tilting your head, you know, and trying to

1:20:05

see different things that are happening in the

1:20:07

scene. And by the time

1:20:09

you're just getting a feel for like, okay,

1:20:11

I see the scene, I get what's going

1:20:13

on here, and I'm now going

1:20:16

to concentrate on wherever the video appears to

1:20:18

want me to concentrate. Well guess what? Now

1:20:20

we're somewhere else. And what made it even

1:20:22

worse was a lot of times there would

1:20:24

be a soccer ball rolling down the field

1:20:26

as people are kicking it down the field.

1:20:28

And you would get this like view from

1:20:30

way off in the corner. And you'd be looking

1:20:32

Oh, where's the soccer ball? There it is. All

1:20:34

right, I'm gonna focus on soccer ball, which is

1:20:37

approximately, you know, down to my left. And then

1:20:39

next thing you know, Oh, now the soccer ball

1:20:41

is over to my right. And it

1:20:43

was infuriating.

1:20:46

The second time I watched it, which was about an hour ago, knowing

1:20:49

what I was getting into, I liked

1:20:51

it a lot more. But it's really

1:20:54

damn annoying. Because the whole point of

1:20:56

immersive video where you can change the

1:20:58

perspective by tilting your head all around,

1:21:00

is that you want to give that

1:21:02

some space and some air to breathe,

1:21:05

you know, and you want to be

1:21:07

able to look

1:21:09

where you want to freakin look. And

1:21:11

the Alicia Keys thing did this so much

1:21:13

better because they had nothing we talked about

1:21:15

this on the show, like several of these

1:21:17

different position or as positioned

1:21:19

throughout the studio space, and they

1:21:22

would cut between them, but they would do

1:21:24

it like every minute or two.

1:21:26

And so you can really settle in to

1:21:28

where the camera is, and look around and

1:21:30

take in what you want to take in.

1:21:32

And yeah, it occasionally was annoying if like

1:21:34

you were positioned on one extreme end of

1:21:36

the studio. And that bassist who's just killing

1:21:38

it is way on the other end of

1:21:40

the studio. So you so they're far away,

1:21:43

and you can look over where they are,

1:21:45

but they're far away. And that's annoying.

1:21:47

But it's still nice that you have

1:21:50

the space to settle in and look

1:21:52

at what you want to look at.

1:21:54

And with this, it was just rapid

1:21:56

fire in a way that was extremely

1:21:59

off put. So I have

1:22:01

some quotes to read, but Marco, you said you did

1:22:03

watch this, is that right? I have not. I mean,

1:22:05

because honestly, like every time

1:22:07

I've watched video on my

1:22:09

Vision Pro, I've gotten eye strain and a

1:22:11

headache, and I have to stop. Because again,

1:22:14

I can't get it to be that sharp.

1:22:17

And again, I've tried everything.

1:22:19

I have tried the reader lenses. I've

1:22:22

tried different settings. I have tried the

1:22:24

different hacks for the face shields, having

1:22:26

no face shield, different gaskets. I

1:22:29

have tried everything. It doesn't look good

1:22:31

enough. I would feel a lot better just watching something on

1:22:33

a laptop. But that being said,

1:22:35

this isn't particularly for me because I'm not a

1:22:38

sports person. I understand what people

1:22:40

are saying and what you're saying about how it's

1:22:43

edited like a traditional

1:22:45

video and it's not really

1:22:47

edited for the new format. And

1:22:50

I forgive them for that, for the very

1:22:52

first tease or whatever in

1:22:55

most ways. I think

1:22:57

the way that I have concerns,

1:23:01

it points to the larger concern I have

1:23:03

with the Vision Pro, which is did

1:23:06

no one at Apple think

1:23:08

this was a problem? Did they

1:23:10

watch it? Because so far, everyone

1:23:13

who has watched it who knows

1:23:15

sports and who knows the Vision

1:23:17

Pro in our tech press group

1:23:20

here, everyone's had the same feedback. I'm like,

1:23:22

oh yeah, this is not the right style for this. It's disorienting.

1:23:24

It's not good. Did

1:23:26

Apple not know that? Did they not put it through a

1:23:29

test audience of any kind? Apple's

1:23:31

a big company though. And I think

1:23:33

the evidence that Apple institutionally does know

1:23:35

this is all the demos they actually

1:23:37

gave on the Vision Pro thing, all

1:23:40

of those had, not just the Alicia

1:23:42

Keys thing, but the typewriter walker, all

1:23:44

those things had a stationary camera without

1:23:46

lots of cuts. The people

1:23:49

who made those must have understood that because

1:23:51

there was such a variety of content in

1:23:53

the short little demo and all of it

1:23:55

was like the one thing that did move

1:23:57

was like the slow moving demo. drone

1:24:00

shot that you see in like the Apple

1:24:02

TV screensaver, it's just so slowly like no

1:24:04

fast movement, no fast cuts, like so somewhere

1:24:06

in the organization, probably in the Vision Pro

1:24:09

team, are people that know this. Now who

1:24:11

put together this MLS thing? Probably

1:24:14

an entirely different set of people. And

1:24:16

you know, big companies, like people

1:24:19

in one org aren't communicating with people in the other org, or

1:24:21

if they are, they don't want to be told what to do.

1:24:24

And that's where I give some forgiveness because it's like,

1:24:26

look, the people who did this, either

1:24:31

didn't know, hadn't taken on board the

1:24:33

institutional knowledge that clearly exists in Apple

1:24:35

related to Vision Pro stuff, or

1:24:37

they had heard that advice but thought, well, but

1:24:39

we've been cutting sports together for our entire career,

1:24:41

so we know better. So we're going to try

1:24:44

it like this, right? And

1:24:46

there is a little bit of a dance here because

1:24:48

the dance is between the person doing the editing and

1:24:50

the person doing the watching. Casey was watching in the

1:24:52

way that he chose to watch immersive content, which was

1:24:54

finding the things that he wanted to look at and

1:24:57

looking at them. You could also look

1:24:59

at immersive content without moving your head at all and just

1:25:01

look at what's in front of you and enjoy the 3D

1:25:03

effect, which is the way some other people may do it.

1:25:06

Obviously they haven't worked out the kinks here, but I

1:25:08

think maybe if

1:25:11

this knowledge was communicated, maybe

1:25:13

the sports people said, well, that's too limiting. Yeah, that

1:25:15

works fine for your demo where you have a locked

1:25:17

off camera and you change from

1:25:19

one camera to another once every 90 seconds. But

1:25:22

that's not going to work for an exciting

1:25:25

sports thing. And by the way, I think the biggest

1:25:27

problem with the sports thing was that it was a

1:25:29

five minute highlight reel that is

1:25:31

not teasing you for any longer content because there is

1:25:33

no longer content. You know what I mean? And

1:25:36

it's a five minute highlight reel for games that happened last

1:25:38

year. It's a highlight reel. What would be great when you

1:25:40

can watch the whole game in immersive video? You can't. So

1:25:44

anyway, but yes, I hope

1:25:46

this is just one of the stung-ups, but I will point out that so

1:25:49

this how to handle

1:25:53

making things exciting in video while also making it trackable is

1:25:55

also a thing in 2D video. And despite the by this

1:25:57

point, I think it's a very good idea to watch the

1:25:59

whole game. 100 plus years of making

1:26:01

moving pictures and how to edit them, still people get it

1:26:03

wrong. And even the most recent example, I was thinking about

1:26:05

this, Casey, when you were saying looking at the base player

1:26:08

or looking off to the side of the soccer ball, the

1:26:11

most recent example that people know from being

1:26:13

on the internet and reading various articles

1:26:15

and reviews about it is Mad Max's Fury Road. Have either

1:26:17

of you saw this movie? Casey must have seen it, right?

1:26:20

I've seen it. Actually, I just rewatched it maybe a

1:26:22

month ago. Parker, have you seen it? Of course not.

1:26:25

Okay. Anyway, when that

1:26:27

movie first came out, one of the many genres

1:26:29

of like sort of, you know, press

1:26:31

surrounding the movie was about the director

1:26:33

and specifically about a technique the director

1:26:36

used, and I'm sure there's a YouTube

1:26:38

video showing it, where there's lots of

1:26:40

quick cuts and lots of actions in action movie. People

1:26:42

are fighting and jumping and crashing cars and shooting and

1:26:44

doing all sorts of stuff like that. And

1:26:46

it does use a lot of fast

1:26:49

cuts. And the technique the director used to make it

1:26:51

so that the audience doesn't get lost is

1:26:53

that when it would do

1:26:55

cut, cut, cut from one, one camera to another

1:26:58

camera to another camera to another perspective, another perspective,

1:27:00

he would doggedly keep the most

1:27:02

interesting thing that you needed to

1:27:04

look at dead center in

1:27:07

the frame, which is not a

1:27:09

thing most people do. Most people are like, Oh, we're

1:27:11

going to compose the image on my frame, and I'll

1:27:13

use rule of thirds, and I'll try to guide the

1:27:15

eye to this thing or whatever. But George

1:27:18

Miller, I think that's the direction I'm correctly realized that if

1:27:20

we're going to do lots of fast cuts in action, I

1:27:22

want people to track it. I don't want them to have

1:27:24

to every time there's a cut figure out where the point

1:27:26

of interest in this frame is. So we kept a dead

1:27:28

center, which are typically seems like it's not so super boring.

1:27:31

Like you're drawing a bullseye and you're like, look, when we

1:27:33

go to this camera, whatever I want them to look at,

1:27:35

I want them to see this hand punching this face. I

1:27:37

want to see this knife being stabbed in

1:27:39

this direction. I want to see just

1:27:42

put a dead center in the frame so

1:27:44

you can put your eyes in the center

1:27:46

of the movie screen or your television screen

1:27:48

and endure incredibly fast, exciting cuts and never

1:27:50

have to move your eyes because whatever they

1:27:52

wanted you to see, most importantly, with dead

1:27:54

center in the frame. And maybe those frames

1:27:56

aren't as artistically interesting if they had been

1:27:59

composed in a. more painterly manner

1:28:01

or whatever, but it allows

1:28:03

very fast action to be more easily

1:28:05

tracked by the people watching it. It

1:28:07

doesn't require them to do anything interesting.

1:28:09

So I would say that if

1:28:12

you go into these immersive things and you never move

1:28:14

your head and you keep your eyes dead center, A,

1:28:17

you're sacrificing one of the

1:28:19

things that's cool in an immersive video, but

1:28:22

B, I bet they would actually work better.

1:28:25

You don't get to look at what you want as cool, but

1:28:28

at least you'll survive the cut. So maybe, Casey, I was going

1:28:30

to ask you, the second time you watch it, did you move

1:28:32

your head less? Probably,

1:28:34

yeah. I didn't think

1:28:36

about it consciously, but yes, probably. It's

1:28:40

too bad, too, because I am

1:28:44

a very enthusiastic viewer of

1:28:47

concert videos. In Plex,

1:28:49

I have probably a couple hundred different concert

1:28:51

videos, and only maybe a hundred of them

1:28:53

are deemed at these concerts. But anyway,

1:28:57

I really enjoy a concert film. I really, truly

1:28:59

do. And I would consider Hamilton, for

1:29:02

example, I know it's not a concert, but I don't

1:29:04

think it's too dissimilar. And

1:29:07

I love a

1:29:09

concert film. I love watching

1:29:11

certain sports. And one

1:29:14

of the most, did

1:29:17

we talk about this on the show? I don't recall

1:29:19

if we have, but one of the most, and I

1:29:21

hate the way they use this term, but the most

1:29:23

blowaway experiences I've had in the intro was when I

1:29:26

use the app, which is currently in beta, I believe

1:29:28

it's called Room. I don't

1:29:30

know if I'll be able to put my hands on a test

1:29:32

flight link or not because it's a test flight only at the

1:29:34

moment. But what Room does

1:29:36

is it lets you use

1:29:39

your F1 TV subscriptions. This

1:29:41

is where you pay to

1:29:44

get the F1 season that you can stream and

1:29:46

watch much later, watch live, what have you. And

1:29:49

F1, being super nerdy, is all about data.

1:29:51

And so they have immense amounts of telemetry

1:29:54

that you can get from F1 TV. They

1:29:57

have camera feeds and audio feeds for every

1:29:59

single day. every single car on the racetrack

1:30:01

they have obviously the footage that's being broadcast

1:30:03

on say ESPN if you're here in the

1:30:05

states but what room does is it says

1:30:07

right we're gonna take the main theme but

1:30:09

dead center in a rectangle right in front

1:30:11

of your face but you can

1:30:14

optionally add several

1:30:16

other panels around it

1:30:18

so you can do i believe that you could do

1:30:20

two panels to the left of the main panel to

1:30:22

panels to the right of main panel so you have

1:30:25

six panels so you have your main feed that's jump

1:30:27

in between you know all the different racers and whatnot

1:30:29

and then upper left you have your favorite driver bottom

1:30:31

left you have that driver's teammate because there's you know

1:30:33

two drivers per team and then maybe upper right you

1:30:36

have your rival uh... in bottom bottom right

1:30:38

you have their teammate or you know however you want to do

1:30:40

it even cooler is

1:30:42

below all this you can optionally put a

1:30:44

3d rendering of the racetrack and you can

1:30:47

see little dots racing around the

1:30:49

racetrack i cannot overstate how

1:30:51

incredibly f***ing cool this was

1:30:54

it is unbelievable

1:30:56

how cool it is

1:30:59

and so and and that's the thing you

1:31:02

can do there's an app called multi

1:31:04

viewer uh... for the desktop

1:31:06

that works okay uh...

1:31:09

but i've tried it in the past and i i i have

1:31:11

not had a good experience with it uh...

1:31:13

you can't do this near as well

1:31:16

on a desktop as you can with uh...

1:31:19

the vision pro and this moment

1:31:21

these moments like and that's not immersive at

1:31:24

all that they're well i get it it's

1:31:26

not really a mercy in the way we're

1:31:28

talking about but it concert an immersive concert

1:31:32

amazing when when

1:31:34

you watch immersive sports granted i'm

1:31:36

getting all these damn cuts all

1:31:38

the time for the brief

1:31:40

way for the three seconds before another cut happens

1:31:43

incredible and for me

1:31:46

i don't feel like i'm just up close

1:31:49

to a screen the way that you guys

1:31:51

have described it to me i

1:31:53

feel like i'm pretty man i really really do

1:31:56

and at the end they do their in your

1:31:58

in the locker room in the team celebrating

1:32:00

and I'm glad I actually watched it again because I

1:32:02

could swear that all these dudes had like vision pros

1:32:04

on even though they're spraying champagne at each other and

1:32:06

I was deeply confused by it. It turns out they

1:32:08

just have some sort of goggles on. I don't know

1:32:10

why I don't know enough about soccer to know what

1:32:12

why those goggles were there in the first place but

1:32:15

regardless in any case you

1:32:18

feel like you're there you feel like you're

1:32:20

in the locker room you feel like you're

1:32:22

about to get sprayed with champagne it is

1:32:24

immersive that's why they call it that and

1:32:27

it has so much

1:32:30

potential it would be

1:32:32

unreal and I think Ben in particular has

1:32:34

been banging the strum for a while it would

1:32:36

be unreal to have say courtside seats in an

1:32:38

NBA game just unreal because you can look up

1:32:41

at the jumbotron if you want you can look

1:32:43

at where the action is I don't

1:32:45

know if this could happen live and certainly given that

1:32:47

it took like three or four months for this to

1:32:49

get put together after the MLS season ended I don't

1:32:52

know if it would happen in a timely fashion

1:32:55

but if it could holy freaking

1:32:57

smokes it's amazing so let me quickly read

1:32:59

a couple of summaries

1:33:01

from Ben and Jason because I think it's relevant Jason

1:33:04

writes as you might expect from the run from the

1:33:06

runtime this video is a highlight package with lots of

1:33:09

quick cuts videos all about quick cuts but immersive video

1:33:11

doesn't work with quick cuts I don't think several times

1:33:13

during the MLS highlights video my head was turned in

1:33:15

one direction taking advantage of the 180 degree immersive space

1:33:17

to watch something happening off to my left or right

1:33:20

only for the vantage point to change to a different

1:33:22

perspective now I was staring at nothing it would take

1:33:24

a few seconds for me to scan my surroundings reorient

1:33:26

oftentimes a delay that led me to miss the highlight

1:33:28

I was meant to be viewing Ben

1:33:31

writes in short this video was

1:33:33

created by a team that had zero understanding a

1:33:35

sufficient pro or why sports fans might be so

1:33:37

excited about it I never got the opportunity to

1:33:39

feel like I was at one of these games

1:33:41

because the moment I started to feel the atmosphere

1:33:43

some amount of immersion there's another cut and frankly

1:33:45

the cuts were so fast I rarely if ever

1:33:48

felt anything this edit may have been perfect for

1:33:50

traditional 2d video posted to YouTube the entire point

1:33:52

of immersive video on the vision pro though is

1:33:54

that it is an entirely new kind of experience

1:33:56

that requires an entirely new approach now to jump

1:33:58

in for a second i cannot

1:34:00

overstate the stuff like it is unlike and

1:34:02

need thing i have done with just a

1:34:04

two d rectangle no matter how great my

1:34:06

two d rectangle is which my t.v. is

1:34:08

pretty good and certainly was a really good

1:34:10

back in twenty nineteen my god this

1:34:13

is just a whole different level so then continue both

1:34:15

of the good that is three days showing different picture

1:34:17

to your left and right i thought that the comparison

1:34:20

to a movie screen via piercing avatar in three d

1:34:22

with the three d glasses and you

1:34:24

are close to the screen you can turn your head left to the

1:34:26

right that would be the closest analogy of as we we

1:34:28

talked about the vision for originally differences vision for

1:34:31

the cut the brightness and half for

1:34:33

each of your eyes because of the civil rights but

1:34:35

it but again it's more though it's it's it's so

1:34:37

much more than that though i really think you're under

1:34:39

selling it when you say that because with avatar in

1:34:42

three d you don't get to change your perspective did

1:34:44

the perspective is your perspective but you don't be used

1:34:46

to establish that you don't have to change the perspective

1:34:48

of the massive video you can turn your head only

1:34:50

if avatar within three d and you didn't have to

1:34:52

work for a ride glasses like if you could see

1:34:55

avatar it's basically like avatar in the vision pro but

1:34:57

it wrapped around you like it wasn't a rectangle in

1:34:59

front it's just essentially a screen wrapped around

1:35:01

you spiritly different picture for left and

1:35:03

right i know uh... no uh... brightness

1:35:05

loss and a high-resolution and that's

1:35:08

not i mean i think just that because

1:35:10

that is significant and that's why they so

1:35:12

profoundly different feeling but it is essentially just

1:35:14

different pictures for your left and right i

1:35:17

i i i hear what you're saying that may

1:35:19

be technically accurate but the experience of it is

1:35:22

vastly different than that the boy and it's not

1:35:24

it's not like a real it's not known when

1:35:26

you're going on and i'm not going to you

1:35:28

you're too hung up on the the technical aspects

1:35:30

you know that but that but that's that is

1:35:32

the difference that is that that is why it

1:35:34

feels that i felt the difference myself i've watched

1:35:36

on the three-d movies like i said i thought

1:35:38

it feels different it's kind of like the touchscreen

1:35:40

on the i-thon felt different well it's just a

1:35:42

touch screen tomorrow's fun to yeah when

1:35:45

you cross the threshold something happens to

1:35:47

make it feel different to your point i think that's

1:35:49

vision pro and i think the thing is that if

1:35:52

you put me in an iMAX

1:35:54

you know theater with let's

1:35:57

suppose i had perfect no break

1:36:00

brightness altering glasses so that

1:36:02

I got a perfect view of this

1:36:04

IMAX screen that's rapping all around me.

1:36:06

I still

1:36:08

would be hard pressed to feel like it would hit

1:36:10

quite as well as a Vision Pro does. Well, but

1:36:12

that technology doesn't exist. That's why you've never felt that

1:36:14

there. Even still. Like, it really, I

1:36:16

cannot stress about how much it is. I mean, that

1:36:18

technology is just, that's the headset. That is, it's a

1:36:20

pair of glasses with no brightness cut off and high

1:36:23

resolution. Right. But all I'm saying is,

1:36:25

even if you're imagining like a 3D movie where

1:36:27

it wraps around you, like, I feel, I genuinely,

1:36:29

to me anyway, feel like it's more than just

1:36:31

that. Well, anyway, to finish up Ben continues, today

1:36:33

is April 1, 2024. The Vision Pro is available

1:36:36

to customers on February 2. In other words,

1:36:38

it has been just short of two months and there

1:36:40

isn't an episode two of any of these videos. There

1:36:42

is, as noted, only one additional immersive video that MLS

1:36:44

highlight reel that I'm so disappointed by. This

1:36:47

is frankly bizarre given that immersive videos arguably

1:36:49