I'll just surmise JoeJ can't help being antithetic to Marshall McLuhan and this stuff reads like a rallying cry for the "Less discerning consumer" xd
No idea what you mean at all, and i'm too lazy to feed Google translate.
If you want to make a point, illustrate your point, ideally using some examples.
 
I'll just surmise JoeJ can't help being antithetic to Marshall McLuhan and this stuff reads like a rallying cry for the "Less discerning consumer" xd

If you gonna claim "the medium is the message" then the message apple vision, and VR in general sends is "i like screen time so much I'll have screens glued to my face and unironically live the life of Wall-E characters"

And a lot of the reception and talk online has shown most common people (not hard-core tech enthusiasts) hear that message loud and clear.

This would maybe seem more innocent a decade or two ago, but currently the general public is way less optimistic about technology. Thanks in part to internet/social-media adiction, fears of technocratic encroachment, books like "the-social-dilema", the obvious effects informational echo chambers, agressive content curation algos, stories like that of the Cambridge analytica scandal etc.

Zuck's vision for Meta was mostly mocked by the average person, and despite apple's presentation trying to distance itself from that as much as possible, its still getting some of the same treatment.
 
[Removed on user request, but hoping user remembers / understands what i've said, and realizes i'm not the one who have started to get personal.]
 
Last edited:
oops!
If your post doesn't address the topic, but instead addresses a person, your post will be removed and you'll receive a thread post ban of some kind.
 
I'm just happy to have my Dell UP3218K working on the new Mac Studio, which was what I wanted from this years WWDC.

Interesting to see how things shape out with the Game Porting Toolkit.
 
Interesting to see how things shape out with the Game Porting Toolkit.

I saw Steam already is on Mac. So the garden is not walled as high as i thought. :) But i'm sure the amount of Mac games is still tiny.
Would be nice to see something like Proton but for Mac, to improve this. But probably this would work only if Apple takes most of the cost, because Valve does not sell any Mac devices.
That's unlikely i'm afraid. Maybe Apple plans to primarily use the Toolkit to get more content for Apple Arcade.

However, on the long run i see a need to make native ARM games anyway. Windows increases support for ARM, Qualcomm wants to compete M1, and actual handhelds hopefully pave the way to replace expensive desktops with mini PCs.
That's where i see a valuable future for games. Goggles not so much, even if cheap. Also: If SoC becomes the gaming mainstream, NV surely wants ARM support as well.
With that in mind, supporting Vulkan would be much nicer than the Porting Toolkit and probably even easier to do.
 
I saw Steam already is on Mac. So the garden is not walled as high as i thought. :) But i'm sure the amount of Mac games is still tiny.
Would be nice to see something like Proton but for Mac, to improve this. But probably this would work only if Apple takes most of the cost, because Valve does not sell any Mac devices.
That's unlikely i'm afraid. Maybe Apple plans to primarily use the Toolkit to get more content for Apple Arcade.

However, on the long run i see a need to make native ARM games anyway. Windows increases support for ARM, Qualcomm wants to compete M1, and actual handhelds hopefully pave the way to replace expensive desktops with mini PCs.
That's where i see a valuable future for games. Goggles not so much, even if cheap. Also: If SoC becomes the gaming mainstream, NV surely wants ARM support as well.
With that in mind, supporting Vulkan would be much nicer than the Porting Toolkit and probably even easier to do.
Steam have been available for Macs for years and years. It's the only 64-bit version as well.

The point of the Game Porting Toolkit is not to create a Proton like situation but to get native Metal and ARM ports.
 
The point of the Game Porting Toolkit is not to create a Proton like situation but to get native Metal and ARM ports.
But GPT is an emulation library? It uses x86 and DX12 code, and makes it run on ARM and Metal?
That's how they can already run Diablo 4, and it's also how Apple has handled it's various CPU arch transitions.

To get a native ARM game, you need to compile the original source code for ARM.
Real porting work is only needed to replace your SIMD stuff to Neon, and for all OS functions you use e.g. gfx APIs.
You may also need to rework some multithreading stuff, depending on the memory handling of the actual ARM CPU.
But GPT can't do this, having no access to the source code.
It can transpile x86 to ARM and create a new binary, which would be no classic emulation then, but this can't revert decisions the programmers and compilers have made with x86 in mind. So it can't be optimal, which is what i associate to 'native'.
 
Why would GPT not have access to the source code?
Because (private?) people play D4 and CP2077. Source code is not public, so i conclude GPT *must* emulate those games, as there is no other way.
But i did not read about it in detail and can't be 100% sure.

Yes, i assume GPT is similar to Rosetta, but it does not only emulate another CPU, it also emulates another OS and it's APIs. So it's the same as Wine + DXVK for example. If i'm right.
 
But with their own D3D12 to Metal translation layer, which is what makes it possible to play the newest games.
Yes. But for all the rest, including Windows libraries re-implementation, that's Wine. At least that's how I understand it :)
I guess they also had to make changes in Rosetta2 so that it can cooperate with this porting toolkit.
 
Hololens is just a completely different product, there's no way the see-through 50-60 diagonal FOV adds up to anything like this.
There is no way the FoV and fidelity of the vision pro measure up to the quality of reality visible through the hololens.

What the whole adds up to depends on where your prioties are. Best reality with transparent augmentation at say more than a meter away, or best VR objects which can be placed anywhere in a visually substandard facsimile of reality.
 
There is no way the FoV and fidelity of the vision pro measure up to the quality of reality visible through the hololens.

What the whole adds up to depends on where your prioties are. Best reality with transparent augmentation at say more than a meter away, or best VR objects which can be placed anywhere in a visually substandard facsimile of reality.
I doubt passthrough will be used much, probably it will mostly do some remote scene resynthesis and that's for the better. Maybe that's why the travel mode is seperate affair as a whole.
On the transparent display you need perfect handling of depth cues and they are nowhere there or it's even bulkier than now and it's already too bulky for transparent display.

Mostly resynthesis + "dormant" passthrough is an ingenious take on AR. Will be imitated.
 
Back
Top