533: A Conversation With Your Teeth
01:48:21 Share

From Relay, this is Upgrade, episode 533 for October 14th, 2024. Today's show is brought to you by Delete Me, Uni Pizza Ovens, Vitally, and Tip Top. My name is Mike Hurley, and I'm joined by Jason Snell. Hi, Jason.

Hi, Mike. 533 was... We are now... I can't believe I didn't mention this last week. 532 and 533 were our phone numbers when I was a kid. We had a 533 number, 5330501, and 5326753 was my phone number in high school. Don't dial those numbers now. They might be signed to somebody else. Probably...

Not. And I haven't revealed the area code specifically to make it slightly more obscure for people. But don't call those numbers. The people aren't there anymore. My parents don't have that number. My mom's number is a cell phone that she got when they moved into a motorhome. Because back then, number portability wasn't a thing. And when I was given my first corporate cell phone, whenever even that was, I assume at IDG,

who knew that the number that they were assigning me randomly at that time would be presumably my phone number for the rest of my life. So weird times anyway, but a classic. So shout out to 533 and 532. Shout out. I have a snow talk question for you that comes from Ben who wants to know, what is your footwear of choice when at home? Weird, weird, weird question. Look, maybe Ben has a thing and he just wants to know about it. That's all. Okay. I wear socks a lot.

Oh, okay. I want a little more cushion than bare feet. So unless it's like really hot, I wear socks a lot. In the winter...

And often, and we're not a shoes off house, so I will also just leave my shoes on sometimes if I, for, you know, whatever logistical reasons. And then the other, my other answer is that I've got these, these slippers that you told me about. Oh, the Mojaves? Yes. Yeah. Is that what they, is that what they are? Yep. With the rubber on the front? Yeah. Yeah. Mojave slippers. I've been, I've been wearing Mojaves for years. I love Mojaves.

Yeah. So I have those. And I, I, in the winter I wear those. I used to wear, uh, slippers that were like, uh, like little sheepskin slippers that were really, really nice, but they, I, I wore them so much that they fell apart and it was very hard to find a replacement. And I didn't like all the replacements had soles, uh,

like flat soles instead of it just sort of being a soft bottom, which I didn't like. But these slippers, and you're going to have to put a link in the show notes to these slippers now. They are nice. And even though they've got flat soles, they're different because they're slip-ons and all of that. They have rubber tips on them sometimes. Yeah, I like them a lot. I've been a fan of Mahabis for years. They have a bunch of different ones. These have the rubber tips and...

they're comfy. So I wear those and especially I wear those to for me a lot of it is temperature regulations like in the winter and it's cold and damp sometimes in my house and my feet get cold sometimes especially when I'm just sitting at my desk my feet get cold. So it's nice like I have them on right now because I was feeling like it's a little cooler in here than usual and my feet are cold and

And so why don't I get the slippers out, which I haven't worn in a while. So we're in slipper weather now. So that's, you know, it's a variety. It's a variety. Do you have a footwear of choice when you are at home? Always my, I have, I'm wearing my hobbies now in the studio and I wear my hobbies at home too. Oh, wow. You have, do you have like a studio pair of slippers? I actually have two pairs of slippers at the studio. So I had an original pair that I bought when I first moved in to the studio here. Um, and, um,

Something that I noticed was the very fronts of them were getting wore away. And I think it's because when I'm sitting at the desk recording, I kind of kick my feet on the ground in a way that I don't. I move a lot. Anybody that watches the video knows this. I fidget constantly when I'm recording. I don't know what it is that makes me do that, but I do. And so they were wearing away a little. So then I...

I was going to buy a new pair and then saw that Mojave's now make these ones where the rubber goes over the toe, so that wouldn't happen. So now I have my in-the-studio pair, and then I also have my going-to-the-bathroom pair because I don't have a bathroom in my studio. I have to go out or go and fill up my water bottle or whatever. So I put those ones on to leave, and then I have my good ones for when I'm here. So yeah, lots of slippers. Oh, wow. I just want to say you are...

When you come into work and you've got slippers to put on there, you are getting so close to being Mr. Rogers. Okay. Like I need a cardigan too when I get in? Yeah. Well, that's what I was going to say is your next thing is that you need to take off your jacket or whatever else you're wearing and put on a nice cardigan. I actually do do that sometimes. Like when it's cold in the fair, I have hoodies that are just studio hoodies. And so like I'll take off whatever I'm wearing and put on a studio hoodie, which can either be a cortex hoodie or an upgrade hoodie, depending on how cold it is.

Oh, boy. Look, it's really lovely here in the neighborhood. I don't know what to tell you. I cannot wait to one day visit the land of make-believe, by which I mean Mega Studio. It's amazing. I also have a sock recommendation while we're on it. Okay. Oh, yeah, sure. I really like and I subscribe to the Awesome Socks Club, which is from Hank and John Green. And I'll put a link to that in the show notes, too. They have really weird and fun socks. I like socks subscriptions.

I cannot let this go without making a couple of sock recommendations myself. Yeah, we've come to that. It has. We're dueling sock recommendations. I really like, for people in the U.S., American Trench makes really nice socks, although they have gotten kind of away from the stripy socks. I bought them because I really like the stripy socks. And now they seem to have decided that they don't like stripes anymore.

anymore and it makes me sad. But you know who does like stripes is another made in America company, Zcano, Z-K-A-N-O. And I've been buying socks from them and they are really good too. So I'm a big fan of finding non-generic socks that come in interesting patterns and stripes and stuff like that. And they're pretty great. So those are my two favorites. You might like the Awesome Socks Club. It can be a bit weird sometimes, but I like it.

Final sock recommendation Bomba socks They're like ankle socks

uh are incredible and every couple of years i'll buy myself like 20 of them and i'll just use those lauren and sometimes a sponsor um lauren and julian both love love love the bomba socks i've never gotten the right size so they've ended up taking them because i can never get them to fit because that's part of it too but the um

But the problem with the novelty socks is that often the socks aren't very good. It's a fun pattern because I got a sock subscription at one point and it was really fun and I liked those socks, but they were kind of thin and I really didn't like them. And I like them stripey and I like them... Some of them like...

like fuzzy, that's also kind of nice. Especially since I'm wearing it around the house, which brings us all the way back around to the original Snell Talk question. This is great. We've done some good work here. I feel like we could just knock off from the day right now, but I guess we've got to do a whole upgrade. Unfortunately so. Can't all be about socks. Can it? Let's find out. It could be, but I think I might run out of steam in about two minutes. It's the sock addict. It's a new podcast. We're going to have to start. Sock addict. Sock addict.

If you would like to send in a question of your own, and obviously it can be about anything, just go to upgradefeedback.com and help us start the show with a snow talk. Thank you to Ben for that fun question. I have some follow-up for you, Jason and everybody. We had a great time on Connected last week. You joined me and Federico, and we had a really fun time. So if you've not listened to that, you should go listen to that. I think people would enjoy it. It was a really good episode of Connected. The worst thing about that episode...

was that I didn't have an episode of Connected to listen to last week. Yeah. Because I usually listen. Mm-hmm. So I couldn't. I did listen live. Yes, but in an active live. Yeah. Yeah. But then it came into my overcast, and I was like, nope. I do. Also, by the way, just not to pat ourselves on the back here, but I consider that one of the all-time great podcast titles.

Yeah, it was real good. I consume all of my dark secrets. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Which makes sense in context and otherwise does not. Anyway, I hope people listen if they haven't.

The screen recording security dialogue prompt in macOS Sequoia has been changed. This is a quote from MacRumors, which I believe was from Apple, saying, users will see fewer dialogues if they regularly use apps in which they have already acknowledged and accepted the risks. This was the exact middle ground that we were hoping for. Yeah, so it's trying to basically say, if you use this app that uses these permissions on a regular basis, what's the risk?

We are going to reduce how much we annoy you by this. Like I said, my understanding is that there's some degree of kicking the can down the road here where it's like the timer starts and then you launch it and it goes, all right, and it resets the timer. And I don't know if there is ultimately a non-resettable effect.

extension of that. I don't know the details. It's very hard to tell because this is all about letting things happen over time. But better, it's a little bit silly that we are at this point. But what it suggests, truthfully, is that Apple built a new thing and said, this is a new thing. Everybody needs to do it. And we're going to deprecate the old thing and throw up a thing that yells at users because their developer did something, which is always a bad idea. Throw the developer under the bus, right? But

Then they got feedback, which is like, yeah, but you made this decision in error because there's actually a problem. There's a whole bunch of apps that people use that don't fit into your solution. And so what are they supposed to do? And to Apple's credit, they didn't say, well, forget about it. They said, no, the reasons we're going ahead with this. But since we didn't take these other things into account, let's mitigate that for now. And the next step is they need to adjust their performance.

trajectory with these features to get those other things to work in a way that works for users, works for developers, and works for Apple security people. So it's not great because it's a sign that they weren't paying attention to some of these details early enough and didn't think them through.

But it's good in that they seem to have listened to the criticism. And that's good for users who have a lot of apps that use the screen recording permissions to do things that are not recording, you know, sharing windows over Zoom. And so it's better. Not ideal and kind of ridiculous that we got to this point. But at least this happened.

I mean, this is a, as you say, right? Like if you're going to, I actually think this is a really good system for dealing with this, like being smart about what I'm doing. Again, we'll see how it goes, right? Yeah.

I wanted to mention something that I've been really enjoying. Just a little change that I noticed with my AirPods Pro. This either happened in iOS 18 or maybe it's in 18.1. I'm not sure exactly when, but I have noticed that the responsiveness to loud noises has significantly improved. Like, for example, if I'm listening to a podcast and I use a hand dryer, the audio level goes up immediately. Wow.

Like I've noticed something, something has happened at least with my, my specific setup in that the, the kind of what it's supposed to be doing, like increasing the volume when it hears loud noises, just in general, that has been significantly better for me since I was 18. So I'm really happy about that. Like it was always pretty good, but now I'm, now it's really good. And I think that's great.

Yeah. I wanted to do a little, while we're on this subject, I wanted to do a little follow-up, a little follow-out, rather, follow-out. Because there are, ATP has been talking about this a little bit, and I've seen it in other places too. I don't want to just say it's ATP. But I've discovered that I seem to not be looking at the different modes of noise canceling in AirPods Pro the same way other people do. Okay.

And I'm trying to phrase it that way because maybe it's me. Maybe it's not them. But I use AirPods Pro 2 every day to walk the dog. It's just me and the dog. And so I've had a chance to try this out. And I will admit it is in my noise range.

neighborhood noise profile, right? I've got a busy road a couple blocks away and a freeway about like five blocks away. And so there's some background noise as well as busy road noise at different points in the walk and at other points in the walk it's quieter. And then I've got cars, you know, I'm walking on streets so there are cars going by. There's a school in the back of my neighborhood so there are people driving back in the back streets where I walk the dog to get to the school so there's some traffic. Anyway, I feel like

For what it's worth. Take us for what it's worth. There are these three modes that seem to be confusing people. There's transparency, adaptive, which is new, and noise cancellation. And the part that made me wonder if I was going nuts was Casey Liss saying, friend of the show, good friend of the show. Friend of the show. Saying he tried to use adaptive mode to mow the lawn. Yeah.

And I just thought, no, Casey. No, you wouldn't do that. Mowing the lawn is noisy. Put it in noise canceling mode. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Adaptive is not that good. Right. I don't think it's made for that. So here's how I view it. And maybe this is not how Apple views it, although I think it is, but maybe it's not.

transparency and noise canceling. The idea there was it's a quick toggle since they've got microphones on it. They've got a very clever quick toggle. If you're concerned about being able to hear the world around you while you've got your AirPods in, you put it in transparency mode. And I know there are people like Stephen Hackett who just, that's not good enough. I used to walk down the streets of San Francisco with in-ear headphones in super dangerous, by the way,

At one point, I actually bought a little box that Shure made that was in line with a little microphone to let you let in some of the noise from outside. But really, practically, it was too much. It was too silly. It's like analog transparency. Yeah, that's what it was. That's exactly what it was. So for me, AirPods Pro and AirPods in my ears...

I feel like they let in so much audio compared to the in-ear headphones. Okay. So transparency mode is very clever, though, because it lets that stuff go through, which is why I don't really understand Stephen not having one of his AirPods in. No, I don't get it either. Because I feel like when you've got AirPods in in transparency mode, unless your stuff is turned up too high or whatever, you can hear everything. And if you pause your audio, you can hear everything. It's like being...

you know, with nothing in your ears. That's what transparency is. It's Apple trying to simulate all the audio it's blocking. It's repassing it through. It's this virtual transparency. Okay, great. And then noise canceling is we're going to listen to every noise out there in the world and we're going to nullify it so that you can't hear any of it. And it works pretty well. Not perfectly, obviously, but pretty well. Adaptive, I believe, adaptive is what Apple would like to

transparency to be. I believe Apple thinks that adaptive is transparency 2.0. 100%. Yes. Because what adaptive is trying to do is let through variable noises like a car going by.

But smooth out. So in my neighborhood, right, adaptive takes the freeway hum away because the freeway hum is just a background, you know, broadband noise. It has no information. It's just a noise in the background that's meaningless and it takes it out and it's great and it allows more clarity in what I'm listening to, whereas transparency lets it through.

But when I'm walking and everybody's going to be different, but when I'm walking with the dog on the streets using adaptive mode, I can hear every car coming from behind me before it passes me by. I know where all the cars are. I can hear clearly every kind of random noise that are the noises that I need to hear to be safe.

That's why I love adaptive mode and why when I walk the dog, 100% of the, well, no, 98% of the time I'm in adaptive mode. The other 2% is I'm not on a busy street and there's like,

A guy with a weed whacker or a guy with a blower or something like that where there's like noise, like loud noise or there's a bulldozer or there's a, you know, anything like that. Then I will put it in noise canceling and go past them and then go back into adaptive. But I think adaptive is the best. But the way to think about it is it's transparency, but better because there's some noises and transparency that you just...

that you don't need to hear because they're not meaningful. And if the reason that you're letting noise in to your AirPods is to keep you safe and to hear the world around you, then that's why I think Adaptive... I think Apple nailed it because I can...

it gives me everything I need to hear and nothing I don't. And like, thumbs up. That is how that's supposed to work. So I would never use it to mow the lawn. Lawn mowing is a noise-canceling experience. Blowing leaves off of my patio is a noise-canceling experience. But adaptive is great for walking the dog outside. Yeah, I am...

I have my AirPods Pro in adaptive mode as the default. I never use transparency mode. And then I use noise cancellation for when I'm specifically trying to get rid of the most amount of noise. So like, for example, when I'm cooking, we have like a, you know, like a hob fan, like, you know, like a hood fan.

yes i don't like that noise so i go into noise canceling and it cuts it out yes right same yeah no i cook with i cook with noise canceling on because i don't need to hear there is not i'm not at least i'm not the kind of person who cooks meals who's like oh the the nature of the sizzle from the pan will tell me it's like no it's not i just need to chop some onions and have the fan going and all of those things yeah absolutely

Yeah. So anyway, I mean, use it how you like it, but like adaptive, the goal of adaptive is to be a better transparency that it makes it a more pleasant experience to listen to whatever audio you're listening to while still letting through what's important. Right. That's the whole idea there. Yep. For what it's worth. I agree. I agree. Don't mow your lawn with it, Casey. Come on. No. I mean, you know, give it a go. Like you see what happens, but don't, I wouldn't expect that to be what you, it's not going to do the job. No, no, no.

I also use conversational awareness to just put that out there. Yeah. I can't do that. I, we talked about this on the, on the show before, but like, I can't do that because I, I am giving my dog feedback. Yeah. And it will, it will, it will lower the volume and stuff every time because I'm telling the dog to go that it's because she does things like,

You know, we come up to a curb and she's supposed to stop. And then I say, okay. And then she, then she crosses the street. And every time I do that, not to mention that her name is Maisie. And if I say Maisie a certain way, the vowel sounds sound like the name of a certain personal assistant. Yeah.

Maisie and H-E-Y-S-I-R-I are very similar. And sometimes that triggers something too, which is also bad. So anyway, yeah, I don't use that. I wish I could because conversational awareness is very clever, but it doesn't know that I'm talking to a dog. I want to give Apple a challenge. I want to give the AirPods team a challenge. Okay. Conversational awareness that knows I'm singing. Oh. Right? Like...

If I'm wearing my AirPods Pro, I can't sing along to what I'm listening to. Because it dips the volume. Because it dips the volume and pauses it. That's not what I thought you were going for. Because I thought you were going for what my challenge is. Here's my challenge to Apple. Now that we praised them for adaptive. Yeah. My challenge is conversational awareness should be about dialogue, not monologue. So conversational awareness should be able to hear me talk.

And not worry about it. Because I can hear me talk. It should detect when someone else talks. In a way that's very. And I know that's hard. But like in a way that's very clever. Like somebody else directly. You know nearby who is talking. And maybe it's after I've said something. There's a way to trigger it. But that's what I would like. Because if I'm just muttering to myself. Or talking to my dog. Or singing along. That's not a conversation. So you need to be more aware that it's a.

It's a dialogue and there are other voices present. And then you're like, oh, your little machine learning algorithm says, oh, there's people around. Yeah, I'm not sure how it works. Because like, for example, sometimes, you know, if I have my AirPods in and I'm brushing my teeth, that can actually lower the...

Interesting. The volume. So I'm not sure if it's even, I mean, I don't know. I'm not sure it's actually listening for speaking at all. What is that but a conversation between the toothbrush and your teeth? Me and the toothbrush. And you know what? That is a really good point. Like brushing your teeth, you're really just having a conversation with your teeth if you think about it. That's right. It makes a lot of sense.

It really does. Yeah, we've done, boy, this episode, you know, we haven't even come to the first break yet. My word. This is an award-winning segment right here. This segment alone would be enough, but no, there's a whole other podcast to come. We haven't even started yet. No! Next week, the value. Next week, we're doing a presumptive draft for an October Apple event. We expect there's going to be one. Yeah. So,

So next week we're going to do the draft. I mean, it's possible that by the next episode, we know there's going to be an event anyway, but even if we don't know we're drafting next week. Yeah. So that's the idea is that we think there's probably something the week of the 28th. And so we're just going to go ahead next week and do this. And there are still a couple of ways where this could trip us up. If they decide they're going to do it next week and they tell us tomorrow, we might have to do an emergency draft episode. We'll figure it out. But like, I think we we've done this in the past. Um,

Actually, if I had thought about this a little earlier, we would have done it this week because I think that would have been fine. But we didn't have enough time to plan it that way. But I don't mind. We've been successful so far. In fact, you could argue that doing it a little bit in advance is better because there's a little more mystery in the draft. So we're going to do it next week regardless. And I'm looking forward to it. That'll be a fun one. So I'll get a chance to redeem myself. We'll see.

A chance, I said. A chance.

This episode of Upgrade is brought to you by Delete Me. Privacy is important to a lot of us. It should actually be important to all of us. Do you ever wonder how much of your personal data is out there on the internet for anyone to see? This is an incredibly uncomfortable thought when you consider that having too much of your own information out there can lead to stuff you don't want. Identity theft attempts, phishing, harassment, unwanted spam calls. These are things that

I really don't want. I don't like to think about this stuff out there in the world. I don't like my information, the information that I want to be private, to be public. That is the exact opposite of what I'm looking for. But now you, like me, can protect your privacy with Delete Me.

Having your personal information on the internet can feel a little bit like leaving doors open. Delete.me can help you close that door and keep it locked with your information safe inside, so you don't need to worry about waking up one day and finding out your information has been compromised.

This is why I use Delete.me. Delete.me removes any personal information that I don't want online and can do the same for you. It makes sure that that information stays off. It is a subscription service that removes your personal information from the largest people search databases on the web and in the process helps prevent potential ID theft, doxing and phishing scams. Delete.me does the work, the

the hard work for you. You'll even get a regular personalized privacy report that shows what they found, where they found it, and what they removed. It's not just a one-time service. They're monitoring regularly on your behalf.

Something that I really love about delete me is, well, it's so easy to give them the information that you want, but you only need to give them the information you want to have removed. Like, for example, there's my like relay email address. I want to be available in certain places online because I'm a public person. I have a business. I want people to be able to get in contact with me, but I don't want my personal email address out there or I don't want other information to be widely available.

And what I love is I give this information to delete me and they send me these reports and they're like, hey, look, we found it in these places and we're removing it. And it tells me and gives me an update on all of it. It's super, super good.

Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me, now with a special discount for listeners of this show. Today, you can get 20% off your Delete Me plan when you go to joindeleteme.com slash upgrade20 and use the promo code upgrade20 at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to j-o-i-n-d-e-l-e-t-e-m-e dot com slash upgrade20 and use the code upgrade20 at checkout.

One last time, that is joinDeleteMe.com slash upgrade20 with the promo code upgrade20. Thanks to Delete Me for the support of this show and Relay.

Room around up time, Jason Snell. Yeehaw! Saddle up, giddy up. Mark Gurman is reporting that Dan Riccio, Apple's previous senior vice president of hardware, has retired. So a bit of background. Riccio had been SVP of hardware for a long time, and we'd seen him in tons of iPhone videos, you know, like the Johnny Ive iPhone videos and lots of other products. He stepped down as senior vice president of hardware in 2021, and John Turner stood the role.

since this time and it was announced that he was going to be moving to quote a new project that reported directly to Tim and it was later learned that this was the Vision Pro so he was kind of like overseeing the Vision Pro so like he sat say above Mike Rockwell for example the Vision Group now led by Mike Rockwell on a day to day

reports to John Ternus. So it's kind of like left the special projects area and it's just part of the overall hardware stuff. Interestingly, the way this information was found out was Dan Riccio divulged it during a

like a presentation that he was making to an event at MIT. And he was just like, I've retired and I'm leaving on Friday. That was last week. Wow. So why not? I mean, I love it. Like the guy's just living his life. Like this is kind of how I believe these kids should be able to live their lives rather than pretending it's all a secret all the time.

We've talked about this before, and I think it's one of my favorite things that we talk about because there's not a lot of conversation about that in our sphere, which is how Apple deals with not just things like succession planning, but like

dealing with corporate executives who've been there a long time and have been at a very senior level and have had a lot of stock options and have basically made so much money that they don't need to work anymore. And what do you do with them? And I think there's a few, I mean, Bob Mansfield, he retired and then they called him back and he went back for a little while and then he retired again. Dan Riccio, I think you could really argue that when he was no longer SVP of hardware, that was part of the path

To retirement, but they're like, no, no, no, don't leave yet, Dan. We've got a problem we'd like you to work on. Can you do this vision pro thing for a little while and then retire? And he's like, sure.

I can do that and they give him some more money and he's like yeah I'll you know I'll start building the retirement home now. It's what Johnny did too right? So like they gave him that new role which really looked like a big promotion but it was actually to give him more freedom in his life and not have to be so hands on. To slowly kind of uncouple from Apple because you get the sense too that some of this stuff it's like really high pressure and it's very intense and then you get to a point where like I can't do this intensity anymore and that's when I

I think very intelligently for a company that's got a lot of money, you should do this, which is you main, like it's, it's a senior executive retention program essentially. And the idea there is look,

You can step off the grind, step off the bus of all of this stuff that's super intense as SVP hardware. But we want to keep your mind around. So can we give you kind of like a special project, a little bit less to do? And I know that sometimes that's perceived as being like we're putting you in a window somewhere to stare and not do anything. But I don't think that's the intent because they could just leave then if that's what they wanted to. But it's more like...

You can wind down, but we can still tab your expertise. Maybe I give you a project to work on. Maybe we just keep you around to answer questions and work on little things and all that. But it's a way out the door to retirement that is not peak, everything's super intense, and then boom, it's done, and we never hear from you again. Because those people are really valuable. But the truth is, beyond a certain point, you can't retain them.

At least you can't do anything to retain them. You can retain them. Phil Schiller, it feels like to me, is never going to leave Apple. Like they're going to have to drag him out. Right. Like, but, and he doesn't need the money. As far as I can tell, Phil Schiller doing great. He's been there longer than anybody else. Yeah. Except Chris Espinoza. And if you like, as a senior exec, he's been there the longest.

And he's like an Apple fellow now, but he's still actively involved in all sorts of parts of what Apple is doing. But this is my point is he wants to be there. Otherwise, he wouldn't be there. So if you can find some way to keep somebody who's great around in some role where they want to be there, great. But ultimately, these people have made so much money that if they want to go, you kind of can't keep them. No, because it becomes a problem.

Yeah. So you make it easy. It's a, and it's a brain drain, right? So you try to make it easy on them to stay as long as they're willing to. And then at some point they will still walk away, but at least you got to disengage and they got to spread the, you know, share their knowledge with others. Cause there's that dangerous moment when like, Oh no, Dan Riccio is the only person who knows how to do X. Exactly. It gives them that kind of path to help the people that are going to come up and replace them. I've told you the story before, but, um,

Really quickly, my uncle was the SVP of HR for a Fortune 500 company. And at one point, his accountant or his financial planner basically said to him, given your pension system and all of that, every year you stay after this year, you are going to lose money.

So he retired. And like six months later, the company came to him and said, can we hire you as a consultant? Because we don't know how to do these union negotiations. And he's like, sure. And they paid him more money plus his retirement as a consultant. But like, that's, it's that thing is you don't want to get, you don't want to have to make that call, right? Or Big Bob Mansfield, please come back, right? Like, so you do this, you do this kind of glide path to retirement. I think it's really interesting. I think it's,

Again, we don't know the details from the outside, but I think in general, it's really smart for Apple to do this because first off, they can afford it. And second off, this is a real problem for them. They made a lot of their senior people very, very rich. And those people don't need to work anymore. And so what do you do? You want to develop the next generation of talent, but you also don't want to lose the people who have this important knowledge. And Apple is unlike, you know, unlike many other companies, Apple doesn't do a lot of hiring from outside because their culture is so different. Right.

And so you really need to bring people up from within and retain those senior people as long as you can. So it's really, I mean, it's really interesting. But then at the same time, you can't keep these people forever because then you lose the people that would take those roles because they will go somewhere else. And so like you have to encourage. And I think what Tim Cook has actually started to do, I wouldn't be surprised if he is encouraging his senior leaders to consider these changes. Yeah.

Because it's happening more and more. Yeah, it's gone the glide path. Yeah. Yeah, no, there's definitely been a lot of retirements lately. And I think you're right. I think that the other part of this is you identify stars that are up and coming within your company. And you say...

And this, I mean, this happens when I was a manager. I mean, you identify the stars, you want to identify the talent, the ones you don't want to lose and the ones that you want to bring along and give experience to. And, you know, I suspect that is what, you know, what's been going on with John Ternus as Mark Gurman is reporting is that they think he's a rising star and they're trying to give him a lot of seasoning, regardless of where, you know, if he ends up a CEO or something else like that, that's what goes on. And that's, that's developing your people. It's great. But there does come a moment where you say, we got this guy hanging on.

and our star needs a new challenge. And that may be when you go to Dan Riccio and say, Dan, we really need to bump John up. And he may or may not express an interest in retirement, but you're like, you've been here a long time. You're not going to stay here very much longer. You can stay as long as you want, but we want to put Ternus in this role so that he can get that. And so, yeah, some of it could be

a little, I mean, you should be active because I think that there would otherwise be a tendency for somebody to just stay in their role, even as they're disengaging and getting ready to retire and all of that. And then, yeah, if I'm Apple and if I'm, I'm Deirdre O'Brien, if I'm Tim Cook, I'm looking at that and saying, I want my, my,

Senior senior people who are starting to think about drifting away. I want to put them in a special magic bin of people that are still here and still working on stuff, but are not at that pinnacle because the pinnacle needs to be somebody who's 100% engaged.

And I do believe that it's true that you get to a point when you start to think about retirement, you're not probably 100% engaged at that point. So part of the job here is to identify those people and say, we don't want you to leave. Stay as long as you like, but...

We want to give you the opportunity to disengage a little bit and give an up and coming star their chance to grow into this job. And I mean, different people will react differently to that and all of that. That's the hard thing about managing people. But I think it's Apple's got an extra special challenge because they can't really recruit from the outside. And they've got all these people who've been made very, very rich by this, where if they really just want to go sit on a beach somewhere in Hawaii for the rest of their lives,

they can do that. No problem. So what, you know, how it's, I don't envy them. This is really tough stuff and it's tougher for Apple than almost anybody else. I think it is a testament to Tim Cook that these people stay around. Honestly, I think, and the Apple culture in general too. I think, I mean, like I think that, that look, Schiller,

He believes in it, right? Like that. Yeah. Phil Schiller. I really, I don't, I've not seen into his finances, but given some of his, his stuff, like his work at, at, uh, at what is it? Uh, Boston, uh,

Boston University? I can't... Forgive me, Phil. I get the sense, given how long he's been there, that he's probably financially just fine, right? But he stays. The Shiller Institute is at Boston College. Yeah, Boston College. That's right. Yes, he's got an institute named for him because of his donations, right? He's doing fine, right? At BC on the board of trustees. So...

Why does he stay? And he stays because he believes in it. And I think that there's some... It's about the culture. It's about the sort of the mission of Apple. And yeah, and also about leadership. The idea... Look, if I was thinking of retiring and Tim Cook came to me and said, I know you can retire, but what if we make it easier on you, but we keep you around? Because we really... Like, what can we do to make this something that you want to do for another five years? Like, that...

There are circumstances where the answer is, there's literally nothing you can do. Goodbye. Thank you. It's been great. I'm going to Hanalei and I'm going to go to the beach and do some boogie boarding and goodbye. Right? Like that is a thing you could do. To put it into context, the Schiller Institute was named after him after he committed a multi-year total gift of $25 million. Yeah. So...

I think he's got more than that. I think he's got a lot more than that. No, I mean, obviously, he didn't give all of his money to Boston College. No, no, I'm just saying that seems actually a little light to me. I mean, I don't think he's a billionaire, but I think he's got hundreds of millions of dollars. Yeah, for sure. So anyway, it's a really interesting challenge because I think a lot of us would say, well, if you had the money that an Apple exec has, what would you do? And the answer is I'd quit my job and retire. I don't think I would, but I understand that some people would.

Some people would, but some people wouldn't. Some people would be like, well, no, I like my job. I want to keep doing it. Like if I got that kind of money, I would still do some stuff. I would probably not do the 10 different things I do right now. Sure. And I would probably do some of them from Hawaii. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. But yeah, everybody's different. So it's just, it's...

So I look at this and I think this is an interesting problem that Apple continues to have where they've got senior people that they have to deal with retention and retirement and all of that. And so we've got the case now where they brought in Ternus. He stayed on for a while, worked on Vision Pro, and is now kind of like moving away and funding a program at MIT. Another one back to Boston. Mm-hmm.

And that's, I mean, congratulations to him. And again, really interesting problem for Apple to solve in terms of their brain drain.

9to5Mac is reporting on some potential details of the upcoming iPhone SE 4 that we spoke about last week based on some early case designs that are coming out. Very simple stuff. It would mean, if it is to be believed that these are correct, the iPhone SE 4 will have a single camera, a physical mute switch, not an action button, and no camera control.

Yeah. And no, and there was a rumor about an action button, but, but now it looks like no action button. And I don't think this is surprising. I think that like, those are all the bells and whistles. Yeah. You keep all that stuff off. You, you save a lot, uh, in terms of not having those parts. And the whole idea of the SE is to save, but, and besides which they're putting some of their, their, uh, their,

their price and their margin presumably into using a more advanced processor and having more RAM so that they can do Apple intelligence which I think is probably a given so there's the where we say it was the notch it's going to have a notch with face ID sensor so yeah you'll probably get an action button on the iPhone SE 5 or whatever maybe yeah

things move forward. Eventually. Mark Gurman has given a roundup in his newsletter, Power On, of the products in development in Apple's Vision Group, which is now being overseen by John Ternus. Mark is aware of four products that this group is working on. This group is now getting...

additional focus and attention inside due to what Matt has been up to, which makes sense. And also he mentions that a lot of people moved to this group from the car team and stuff like that. They've moved a lot of engineers around. The four products that are on deck include a cheaper vision headset,

We have cheaper materials to lower the price, slower processor and no iSight feature. So it removes that OLED display on the front. This is set to launch as soon as next year, but they're aiming for a $2,000 price tag.

which is like in our notes, I just wrote LOL. Sorry, because it's like people are thinking and hoping that this cheaper vision headset would mean that there it's going to be within a range that you're, you know, you'd be willing to buy it. But I don't see that. If we consider the current vision pro kind of a developer kit and a, a view of the future, but it's just not here yet, which I think is the only way to view it. It's, it's,

you know, it's, that's the only way to view it. It's, it costs too much and it does too little, even though what it does is amazing. It costs too much and it does too little. I'll never recommend it for anybody at this point. So getting it down to 2000, first off, I remember when those rumors of it costing the original one costing 2000, me saying it's too much. And now here we are where the cheaper one will cost $2,000. Um,

Yeah, it just on one level. Yes, there's a line in German's piece that I really liked, which is with the lower price, Apple is expecting unit sales of the device to be at least double the level of the Vision Pro.

But that's not saying much. And I think that's exactly nailed it, which is one of the things that this will do. If we're lamenting the state of affairs in the Vision Pro where there aren't that many developers and there aren't that many users and it's like, and we know that it's early days, but it's such a high bar, taking it down to $2,000 lowers the bar.

It's still a very high bar, but it's a lot lower. And I think if you're viewing this as a long game, having a cheaper way into this product line in order to get some more users and also to get some more developers with their hands on it. Great. Like, I don't think Apple's plan for vision products...

needs there to be a $500 vision product. I don't. Because I think that they're trying to maintain a level of quality that also keeps your eye on the future where this product category is going. At least not yet.

Not yet. Right. Well, that's true. That's true. In the long run, sure. But we're not anywhere close to that. And so people who want to judge these things based on like that, their regular Apple products, like they're really not like they're, they're not, they're not even close. Uh, the value proposition is not there. So I look at this and think, uh, great. Like it would be better if it was 1500, obviously it'd be better if it was a thousand, but 2000 is better than 3,500. Right.

especially if they have some more compelling content. So they pick up some more user...

users and developers who are more skeptical can actually get in and have it be a little bit better. I also think that the HomePod thing is happening here. One of those bullet points you read out is cheaper materials. And it's like, you know, they made a really nice luxury headset with the Vision Pro, but a lot of that stuff is not necessary. It's nice, but it's not necessary. And getting the price down is going to be helpful, even though it doesn't solve the problem.

You know, it's a better place to be with a $2,000 headset than a $3,500 headset. You know, not great, but better. I'm sure we said this already, but the idea just popped into my head, so I want to reiterate it again. You know, with the Orion, the Meta Orion, there was so much talk from Meta and then just like spoken about by everyone where they were like, oh...

This costs so much money. Costs $10,000 to make it. Right. Not, we would sell it for $10,000. Costs $10,000 to make one. It costs so much money that they were like, we're just not going to do this. Can't do it. I think with the Vision Pro, Apple were like, this costs so much money, but we're going to do it anyway. Like, this is, because essentially that's, the Orion is their vision of the future. Yeah.

I think the Vision Pro has some of those elements to it, but Apple just decided to get it to the point where they could just ship it. Ship it, ship the OS. No, and everybody knows it's too much money. Everybody knows that. They know that. That's the problem I have with reporting. It's like, oh, this is a real flop. If there's anybody at Apple who thought that the $3,500 headset that doesn't do a whole lot was going to be an enormous hit.

Those people should be relieved of their duties because it's a delusion. It's very clear that this is playing by completely different rules from other Apple products.

And that's fine. Also, I'll point out again, Mark Gurman did a report last January, January of 23, that said Apple also had an AR glasses project like Project Orion. And they were like, there's no way we can ship this. It will be too expensive and it'll take too long. And let's do Vision Pro instead. Not thinking, oh, Vision Pro is the solution and people are going to be wearing these down the street, but thinking this gets us a product in the market that's

that people can start playing with. Maybe we'll figure out killer apps for it. We'll experiment with content with the idea that in, you know, in five years, maybe this is more of a thing. And that is, we have an ask upgrade question that maybe we'll get to this week. That's more about this, but it's that idea of like, well, which is their better approach to not ship something, but show it to the public and say it's coming or do what Apple did, which is ship something, but not talk about the other thing that is where they eventually want to go. Cause Apple never talks about future products. And that's,

Anyway, a $2,000 Vision non-pro would be welcome. I think it would be good for what Apple is doing, but is not the solution to the problem of why are millions of people not buying Vision Pros. I think nor is it intended to be, but it's certainly...

And certainly, like Gurman wrote, more people, more than double the people who bought the Vision Pro would buy a cheaper Vision. I think that's true, especially if they can come up with something that's a killer app for it, whether it's entertainment or sports or, you know, whatever. Like, I also think as well, right, I think some of the thing, something that people get really stuck up on and did is that Apple, when they released the product, they kind of

make as much noise as they would any of their other products, right? Like, it got the whole big launch. Because they actually cannot do it another way. They can't. They can't. Apple cannot release a new product and not do the whole song and dance. Like, they have to do that. They put in probably more budget into, like, the launch marketing for that than they would have any of their Macs, any of their iPads, and maybe the iPhone. Like, they really went heavy on it.

Because that's just what they have to do, no matter what the end result will be. Because it's who they are. It's the type of company that they are. Because Apple doesn't do anything... Can't do it half-heartedly. They're too big at this point. And there's too much attention on them for it to do anything quietly. Literally, they can't. Where in hardware, Meta can do this. It's easier for them to do this because they're not the same company. Anyway, moving back to this Montgomery report.

also speaks of a second generation Vision Pro that would have a faster processor to be released in 2026 at the earliest. There is a version of smart glasses in the form of like meta Ray-Bans in their kind of like function on deck for 2027, which in my opinion is too far. I agree. And I'm a little, I mean, maybe this is just because this is the Apple process, but like,

It feels like this is existing tech that they've got in a lot of ways in terms of cameras and connections to iPhones and AirPods and all of those things. And that creating, you know, AirPods that are glasses essentially is what we're saying here, right? They're AirPods that are glasses. They've got cameras and they've got speakers or bone conduction or whatever. And you could use a lot of the same techniques that you use for AirPods in

and connect to your phone and connect to your personal assistant and all of that. It does seem like having to wait three years is a bit much for this. Yeah. I don't know what they're working on, but for a product of this class, I'm not...

sure that they really will produce something that is so mind-blowing right that like it's so significantly better than the company that at this point you know with meta would have been doing this for years right like what is what is meta what is the meta ray-ban product in 2027 you know what i mean like what have they gotten it to if i if i were a person at apple who believed in this product category which there must be because they're thinking of doing them

I would say, how can we get a product shipped by the end of next year? Yes. And I know that's really fast, but I would say, what is that product and how can we do it? Because I think they could do it, but they've got to actually like, they got to do it. They got to try. 2026 for a pair of glasses that have decent speakers in them,

which they know how to do even that kind of thing from the ear pods, whatever they're called, the audio pods on the vision pro, right? Like that kind of thing of like angling it to you with decent cameras in them and connected to your iPhone, like an Apple watch is like Apple. I know how hard this is. I 100% believe that you have the ability to do that within the next 18 months. Yeah. I think, I think they've got the technology to do it. And I think the, the danger is,

And this is a constant danger with modern Apple. And like I said, I think the HomePod showed this, and I think that the Vision Pro shows this, which is they need to...

Especially with new products, they need to be a little more considerate of what the minimum viable product is and not what the perfect product is. Because when I see we're going to do smart glasses in 2027, I think you've over-engineered what you think these smart glasses should be. And I am thinking, here's what they should be. They should connect to your phone.

They should have a camera. They should have audio output. They kind of like AirPods. Whatever you're working on with the, we're about to talk about it, all those rumors of cameras on AirPods, it's the same idea. Whatever you're working on with visual intelligence on the iPhone, it's the same idea. You make a connection to your phone. It's a peripheral. It's a wearable. You've got all the pieces here. Don't overthink this, right? Just ship something.

And then iterate because iterating is what you do best. So ship something. Don't overthink it. Don't make it over over spec and overpriced. Get something out the door. That's I'm not saying bad. I'm saying something out the door. That's good, but is not the perfect thing. Like you, you have a partnership of an optic company now, right? You, you, you have the pieces in place to do this, right? You can work with the opticians that you're working with to create a

the Vision Pro lenses to help you create lenses for this product. The pieces are there. You've got to bring it together because Meta are taking this market. This is theirs now. They own it and it is a cool product. That is a problem. It's not just like this is a nerdy thing.

They have legitimately created a product that people think is cool. And if they continue pushing down that road, that becomes harder and harder to work against.

And so this is an area they should go into. You mentioned AirPods or cameras. That's another thing for 2027. And for both of these products, as well as the visual intelligence feature that's coming at some point to the iPhone, where you can point your iPhone and say, like, what's this? Mark says, quote, the idea is to salvage the billions of dollars spent on the Vision Pro's visual intelligence technology, which can scan the environment around a user, supply useful data. I don't really know what that means. Sure.

But I don't know. Fine. I don't know. Because it doesn't seem very intelligent now, but perhaps that's a thing that's being worked on. Or it's just not exposed. Right. That like Division Pro is aware of so much stuff that's around us and it's identifying things. But it's not like we don't need to know that. But like the hardware knows.

What this sounds like, though, is that Apple is doing the Apple thing where they're like, we are thinking of what if there are cameras on AirPods? What if there are glasses? What if you have a camera that you can point at things and then you've got a device? I think one of the challenges, too, is it's got to be a device that works with your iPhone, which is fine because that's like...

Apple's primary thing. I don't think it even needs to be as intelligent as an Apple Watch. I think it could really be a connection to an iPhone and it sends the images back to the iPhone when you ask or when you're taking a picture or whatever. It basically is an iPhone peripheral

But they've got the pieces. I think that the AirPods with cameras project is interesting. Like it is going down a lot of the same paths that this is. I'm not entirely convinced. Like Meta is ahead, but it is still a pretty niche product. But I think the challenge is,

This is the point where you, I think, have enough signal of how that product is being received to say, this is a thing and we should be there if you're Apple. Right. And it sounds like they do think that they should be there. But I wonder about the urgency of it. Like, I think this is a product that first off, Apple should have probably embraced this idea sooner because it's actually a very good idea. I'm skeptical of how good AirPods with cameras on them are.

actually going to be at capturing the world i don't really know what that's for you know like i'm not sure i know what that like specifically is for um but like this is the thing like how well is the metal ray-bans doing i don't know they're not actually not even saying but it is a product that is getting it's gaining momentum and i think right another three years from now like

Where are we at that point? And is that then a much harder challenge to fight against? We'll see. I mean, who knows what the Department of Justice will have to say by 2027, right? No kidding.

Then where are the meta-ray bands? If they have the ability to be able to talk more directly via a set of APIs like an Apple Watch can, then that makes Apple's job significantly harder. Because then you haven't even got... This is a lot of pie-in-the-sky thinking here. But if they're not able to as easily be like, well, get the Apple ones because it connects to all your stuff. If that becomes a harder sell...

This is an even more complicated project for them, I think. Sure. This episode is brought to you by our friends over at Ooni Pizza Ovens. Ooni is the world's number one pizza oven company that lets you make restaurant-quality pizza in your very own home.

How do they do this? Well, Uni Pizza ovens can reach up to 950 degrees Fahrenheit and cook pizza in as little as 60 seconds and have these incredible pizza stones inside of their oven. This combination of the heat and the stone and all of the technology that they build into their ovens is what will separate the pizza that you can make from those that you'll make in a regular home oven.

Ooni ovens are incredibly quick to heat up. You'll be ready to go in just 20 minutes from getting started, which is enough time to get your toppings ready to get your base all stretched out and all that wonderful stuff.

They also have a whole range of products at Ooni for whatever type of environment you have or the flavor that you're looking for, whether you want authentic wood-fired flavor, the convenience of gas cooking, whether you want flexibility with that. So they have ovens where you could choose to cook with wood, charcoal, or gas, and they even have an electric oven as well. So you can cook with the electric oven inside fireproof.

or outside. They have an Ooni oven to fit your needs and lifestyle. Whether you want to cook on the go, well, you want to get out into the wilderness, you can check out the Fira 12 and the Kira 12G.

If you want the convenience of cooking with gas but love the flavor of wood-fired cooking, the Karoo line is there. And they have some incredible products in the Karoo line now. There's so many incredible things there. My favorite is the oven that I own, which is the Uni Electric Volt 12. You can make pizza both indoors and outdoors, which I love because when the weather is good, we'll make pizza outside. If the weather is bad, which happens...

happens here. We can make pizza inside. But Ooni ovens are for more than just pizza. You can cook juicy burgers, sizzling fajitas, buffalo wings and so much more. They recently released this really cool roasting tray, which is really nice and can help you cook even more wonderful food in your Ooni oven.

They start at just $299. They have free shipping to the US, UK, and EU. And they also have all of the cast iron cookware you might want. They have accessories like pizza peels, thermometers, and tons of other accessories. We even buy our groceries from Ooni too because they've done all the hard work in finding the best items to help you make wonderful pizza at home. Listeners of this show can get 10% off their purchase of an Ooni pizza oven.

All you need to do is go to uni.com and use the code UPGRADE2024 at checkout. Uni Pizza ovens are the best way to bring restaurant-quality pizza to your own home. So go to uni.com, that's O-O-N-I dot com, and use the code UPGRADE2024 and you'll get 10% off. Our thanks to Uni Pizza ovens for their support of this show and relay. So, submerged on Vision Pro. Submerged. Submerged. Yes.

So we spoke about this a little bit last week when it was announced, but Apple have now released their first short film shot completely for Vision Pro with all of the immersive technology cameras that they have. There's a pretty cool making of as well that they put on YouTube that I'll put in the show notes. You watched it and wrote about it last week. I watched it today. I wanted to watch it before we recorded so it would be freshest in my mind.

This is a very, very effective piece of media. I think so too. I think I was fascinated by like how it was made, but I also really enjoyed it. And at the end,

I felt like I would watch more of that. Right. Like it was, it was, I did not have the feeling of like, whew, we got to the end. It's great. It was more like, oh, I could see how there could be another hour of this movie with intense bits that are set pieces and also character things that are going on. And, you know, it was, uh, I was not sure what I was thinking it would be. I wondered if it would be a little more kind of like, aha, it's a submarine. Oh, there's water. Like very kind of like, uh,

I don't know, showing off those details of it. And it wasn't. I think it was really well done, really effectively made. One of the things with this type of technology, and it's the same for all VR stuff, is balancing movement, like how you handle movement, physical movement through space. Video games do this in a lot of ways where you're actually mostly just fixed on a specific spot and you kind of teleport between place to place. This is a very hard thing to do to capture motion sickness.

And I think everyone that I've heard or seen watched it, including me, had at least one point where it was like, this is an uncomfortable feeling right now, like a movement. So Edward Berger, the director who did All Quiet on the Western Front, which is a good movie, he obviously, like I came away with a lot of respect for him because he obviously has given a lot of thought to how this is different from a regular movie. But one of the choices he made, and I was surprised, is how do you do camera movement?

In a format that you potentially are giving people motion sickness or vertigo or weird feelings when you move the camera. And he tried a bunch of things. He's got some slow push-ins that I think work really well. In fact, there's one where it slowly pushes in and turns a little bit. And I was like, that's fine.

He's got some slow pullbacks that I thought that works pretty well. Most of the movie doesn't, the cameras don't move. He has some setups where it's like one angle and then there's like a reverse angle or there's one angle and then you are at a closeup, but you're in the closeup for again, a long time. They definitely learned the lesson. You can't do quick takes. They have to be long takes long. The amount of time per cut is very high in this. A lot of lingering. However, yes, yes. And, and it's, and it's fine. The,

he also does a couple of fast pushes in and fast pulls back. And for me, the fast push in, I was like, Oh, we're doing this. Okay. And the fast pull back. I was like, I don't know. Right. Where he was a little more aggressive. And I think that's really an interesting data point of like, can you move the camera? I think maybe you can, can you move it really fast? Maybe you shouldn't. I don't know. There is a level where that movement is,

Provided you do it right.

and I'm sure there'll be a lot of people trying to learn how to do this, right? Well, you can instill a feeling in someone, right? That maybe you want someone, the viewer, to feel uneased by what is happening. Sure. I mean, it's a real fine line you've got to walk between that and absolute motion sickness. I would like the audience to vomit. Like, no, don't do it. But there is, I'm sure, a level, right? Where like, I don't get motion sickness, but there are parts of it

I've never really suffered from it. There were parts of it I was like, whoa, I don't know about this. I feel a little funny about that one, yeah. That was part of it. The behind-the-scenes stuff is really interesting too. And I've got to hand it to Edward Berger because this was an incredibly difficult job to be given to do this. He is essentially a pioneer. Nobody's done this before. And like...

Apple came to him with a bag of money and said, would you be interested in doing this? And he's like, okay, let's do it. Was that a bag of money? I was having a thought on this, right? Because they were talking about the sets. The sets were very, very detailed because they kind of had to adjust it. Because the actual image quality was incredible. I've not seen something in VR where the camera quality was so good. So I think they did the right job in trying to build this technology with partners because it looked...

amazing. But that, and because of the fact that you're able to, really, you're able to choose where you want to look, to make it look good, the sets need to be very highly detailed. It felt very much like going to Disneyland. Yes. To Disneyland.

where they have to build the entire thing. Whereas on a movie, you only have to build little parts of it. They had to build the entire thing because you can look around. Just like if you're in a line at an amusement park or you're on the Star Wars ride or whatever, they're not building a movie set now. They're building an environment that people are going to stand in and you can't have parts of it that fall down because people will look wherever they want. And that's true here too. So that was one of the thoughts I had is I felt like I was...

In the two things that it reminded me of were one being in something like Rise of the Resistance where you're, you know, it's not just a ride. You, you are, you know, you exit a portion. Yeah. You exit a portion of the, of the ride and then you're in like sets and you move on to the next part. And, and it, so it reminded me of that.

And then the other thing it reminded me of is theater. Like the fact that you have these takes where there's a character or there are two characters and they're just sitting there, it's a guy getting up out of his bunk and all of that. Like that felt very much like theater because it's a long take. And, and, and so really it's down to the physical performance of an actor. It's not what we usually see from movies because in movies, it's not just the actor, it's the actor and the director and the editor making a story in individual shots. Yeah.

Whereas this, it's like I'm sitting in a theater where the set is the bunks on the submarine and I can look wherever I want, but all the physicality, all the movement, everything that's happening in that scene is the actor and what he's doing. And it's not movie-like at all, but it's theater-like. It is familiar in a way. And so this is, I mean, it just struck me like,

this is a movie but it's also a bunch of different other things. It's a new thing. It's a new thing. But like one of the things they were saying like and again about the expense is unlike a regular set they actually can't

They have to integrate the lighting and the audio into the set. And it's like the audio a lot, the audio is being recorded of the people actually moving, which is not typically how you would create the audio for a movie. You can't hang microphones up. You can't have any equipment in the front 180, right? Because they'll be in the shot. And that means lighting and all that. I'm reminded of...

In Citizen Kane, famously, there are ceilings. And it's like movie sets don't have ceilings. So you very rarely see ceilings in movie sets. But in Citizen Kane, there are ceilings. And how they did it was they're basically like sheets.

that are lit to make it look like it's a solid ceiling, but it's not. It's a fake. But that's the only way. I mean, it's very hard to do it where you don't have a traditional thing where we can hang lights and all that. And they couldn't do it. So they have to have a lot of onset lighting. And also, it wouldn't be realistic, right? It wouldn't look, in a 180-degree environment, it would not look realistic.

realistic to have a big light blasting on somebody from somewhere, right? Because that's not what the space would be like. So completely changes, again, it completely changes the way you have to stage this. And yeah, it's just very different. But it made me think there is this weird, I think weird sometimes, anti-CGI movement online where people are like...

everything was practical that meant it was better and like well i think well if you are one of those people uh this is the format for you right you want more immersive content i mean yeah yeah except except one way to solve some of these technical issues is to use vfx i know to clear out things right but i just thought it was very when i was watching it and like seeing the sets that they built it was funny to me and but it also i think indicated that

I expect it was essentially a blank check for this project. It feels like. Let's build a floodable all-metal submarine set. It kind of had that feeling to it. But I think for good reason. I think this movie...

serves to do what we are currently doing. It is essentially a marketing piece for people like us who have these and talk about this stuff to share with people like this is cool. Because this is what we're asking for and have been asking for for all year. Give us cool stuff to talk about. This is a cool thing. A very, very cool thing to talk about. It is. Also, I would say...

I have to assume that there are a lot of filmmakers who are watching this thing and going, huh. Yeah. Like, interesting. And one of those filmmakers will be the next person to talk to Apple about making something in this format. Yeah. Someone's going to watch this and be like, I would like to play in that toy box.

for a nice chunk of change, right? There's going to be more short, I really hope, but I think this is successful enough. In fact, I think it is very successful. I found myself quite emotionally attached to the story by the end of it and it's only like a 15 minute story.

But I really wanted everybody to do well. And I want to know more about these characters. And I want to know where they go to next. Because I felt very intimate with these characters. Like I am very much with them. And that is, you mentioned it in your piece. It's not just the visuals, the audio as well. Like that combination really, really sells this piece. Yeah. Also, one of the things that impressed me, because I know that some people will say,

Well, you know, it's good for spectacle and you can make an action set piece here. But I really do believe that one of the things about this that I like is the range of it, that it's a character piece.

It's a suspense piece and it's an action piece. And the character piece is good because, again, it's theater life. I know a lot of people don't go to live theater. We have a subscription to our local theater company and we go to live theater, you know, six, seven, eight times a year, something like that, because we'll throw in a couple in San Francisco. Lauren really likes live theater and I've come to I really like it, too. It's it's, again, a completely different medium.

And is very interesting. So it has some aspects of that that I really like. You do make a connection with those guys. You're sitting there watching, you know, you're in the room with them as they're eating their, like, pickles and whatever else the terrible food is that they've stolen from the mess. Like, it's really...

effective in doing that, which is why when I got to the end, I also had that feeling of like, I could see a more hunt for red October or crimson tide or whatever else, another, you know, claustrophobic submarine movie or something like that. I could see that because I,

It would again have the pacing of there's some action set pieces and there's some character stuff and that you put it all together and does it work? I think it does. This is a short, short, short story because it is limited to a couple of character bits and then an action set piece and then that's the end of the movie. But I came up to the surface afterward, was no longer submerged, went to the

wondering, you know, like, well, where does this go from here? And I would love to see more, like, not just, I don't need a sequel to submerge, but like the idea of like, if this had been longer, I would have been in on, on the ride. And I love, so I loved, I loved it as an experience. And I also loved it to see a smart director trying to figure out and his team trying to figure out, um,

what is an immersive movie? Like literally, like what do we do here? And I think a lot of the choices I, we have mentioned, I mentioned in my piece, I think a lot of the particular shots he chooses are very interesting too. There's some closeups and I thought, and there, and there's some shots where the depth of field is very limited. So everything in the background is super blurry. And I thought these are really smart film grammar things of saying, how do you focus people's, uh,

eyes on one thing when they've got a whole 180 degree range. And the answer is you move the camera really close to the actor and there's nothing but blur in the background. And all you can do is look at the actor's face. And I thought that's really effective, right? Like that, that I I'm not distracted. I know where to look now. And that's a different technique than you'd use in a regular 16 by nine, you know, kind of film, uh,

But I thought it was effective. And so it was a real joy to see all of these decisions being made because, you know, everybody's learning this. And we learned from the MLS highlights. We learned what not to do with sports highlights as an immersive. Because they have another sports thing coming, right? They do. They have NBA All-Star Weekend, which was, again, eight months ago. And it's just coming out.

I don't know what's going on with the production time here. They're just playing, right? Yeah, they're messing around with it. So we'll see how that looks. We'll see how that looks and see if they made some different decisions over the MLS highlights thing. The Super Bowl thing that they did, I thought was better. I thought that the Super Bowl thing was calmer. Yeah. But I don't know. I don't know. Apple, I have a pitch. If you want to bring the money truck to me...

I have a pitch. I would like to make an immersive movie version of one of my favorite films, Glengarry Glen Ross.

Oh, wow. Work very well because like that movie, you're essentially just in one room. It's a play. It's a play. It's a play. It was a play adapted to a movie and it still uses a play. But also in a lot of places, you're just in different parts of the same office. So you have these like set pieces. I would say something similar, which is I want to see a theatrical experience here on an immersive. It doesn't necessarily have to literally be a stage show.

turned into immersive like Hamilton where it's like live from the theater but it also doesn't need to be a movie what I'm thinking is could you make a play but build the whole set yeah

Yeah. You don't have to sit in the audience. You can just be with the specific scene. You can just be in that scene. Ideally in the very small number of sets that are used because plays can't really change the set. That would be another way to do it. I think trying it out just as a play where you've got the best seat in the house and you're just at a play would be cool. But I think that maybe there is some experimentation to do there. But that is one of the takeaways I have from Submerged is the live theater vibe is real and it's good. Like it's

It's different, but I really like it. I love the fact that I was watching that guy. I was very aware of it, but I'm aware of that when I watch live theater too. I'm aware that I'm watching a performance, especially at the start, but I really enjoyed the fact that that actor...

you know, he is just in a short film, right? Like you, you wouldn't really make a connection to that actor in film, but in theater or in submerged, it's just like me and that guy and that guy is performing and he's all that's moving on screen and it's his whole body and he's giving a performance. And like, that is, I really got some strong theater vibes from that. And I think that there, that is something I want to see Apple, uh,

And creators explore with this format. The way that the format kind of exists and works kind of allows for a little more mundanity to occur. Right? Like things you can kind of sit in the moment a little bit more. Yeah, I like it. I think it's really interesting. Yep.

This episode is brought to you by Vitally. Vitally is bringing in a new era for customer service productivity with their all-in-one platform. Vitally's collaborative workspace combines your customer data with all of the capabilities that you expect from today's project management and work platforms.

With Vitally, you can measure the effectiveness of OKRs and operational strategies on customer outcomes at scale thanks to their goals feature. Goals allows you to track the progress of your accounts against target metrics, meaning you can standardize goal setting across the board so you know exactly how effective your processes really are. And best of all, Vitally is designed for today's customer success team. That is why Vitally operates with

unparalleled efficiency, improves net revenue retention, and delivers best-in-class customer experiences. Vitaly is offering a free pair of AirPods Pro for every Upgrade listener who books a qualified meeting. So, if you're a customer success decision maker, schedule your call today by going to vitally.io slash upgrade. That is vitally.io slash upgrade for a free pair of AirPods Pro when you schedule a qualified meeting. Thanks to Vitally for their support of this show. And relay. So...

It was announced last week at the, I think, at the Bloomberg Screen Time event, which is put on by Lucas Shore at Bloomberg, that Apple TV Plus is going to be made available as an Amazon Prime channel. So this means that you will be able to subscribe for $9.99 a month via Amazon Prime to get Apple shows. Yeah. Why do you think Apple would do this? I think...

So Apple's strategy. Okay, so originally the strategy was we thought like, oh, get people to buy Apple products and use content on Apple products. But then they extended the TV app to other platforms.

other streaming boxes and stuff. Okay. Now it's, you don't even need the TV app. You can just get it within Prime. So I think the idea is probably that Apple is really tired of having such a tiny audience for their content. And they have enough content now that they're trying to find more people to watch it. Because if you look at

I think as well as they're doing creatively, if you look at the numbers from Nielsen and otherwise, they are not being viewed. Except for Ted Lasso. Even Ted Lasso. It usually scores pretty well and has scored well in the streaming charts.

I remember that being a thing. Right, but that's for an individual show. But if you look at overall who's watching Apple TV Plus, the subscription numbers are just not there. So I think what they've decided is...

They want more viewers. I think that is the bottom line. And they're like, look, if we can get more viewers via Amazon channels, let's do it. Let's just do it. And so it's an interesting experiment. So basically, Amazon has this thing where you can sign up for other streaming services inside the Prime Video app and just watch them there. And all the shows, you can do Paramount Plus and whatever else, and you can just get them right there. So we'll see.

I guess it asks the question, and I think it kind of answers it, but it's still an interesting question anyway, as to whether Apple at this point truly see TV Plus as a standalone service that people would seek out specifically rather than part of the bundle, the Apple bundle. Yeah. It's interesting. I think this is a little bit of just realism, which is Apple...

Apple's making TV Plus content for certain reasons, including having content that's associated with its brand, having content that's available in its app, having content that's available in its services bundle. All of that is true. I think what they've realized is it's not going to be enough, right? Like, even if it fulfills 100% of their strategy, it's still going to be a tiny percentage of people.

And one way you broaden and get more interest in your platform and more interest in your content is by having it available elsewhere. So does this really, I would argue putting it on Amazon does not cut into potential future bundle sales, right? Apple one sales.

probably doesn't even cut into future Apple TV sales. Although part of the challenge here is also like the perception that Apple to use Apple TV plus you have to be in Apple, right? You have to be in the Apple thing and it's going to be on prime video. So anybody who uses prime video is like, Oh, I can just get Apple here. And even though the answer is you could have gotten Apple anyway, like forget about that. Forget about that. You can get it, you can get it here and you can watch it here and that that broadens their audience for it. So I think it's,

That's my take on it, at least right now, is that they are reaching the audience that they can reach, and it's not enough, they feel, for various reasons. Maybe it's not enough for the creators, it's not enough for the money they spend, and like...

It's all kind of experimental anyway. So why not experiment with this? I don't think Apple TV plus was ever meant to be like a brick wall where it's like, unless you're in our ecosystem, you can't watch Ted lasso. I don't think that was ever really the idea. It was more like to make the ecosystem shinier and nicer and make everybody feel good about being in it and maybe drawing some people in and getting them to pay a little more money to Apple. But I don't think it was ever really intended as being we're over here and you can't watch this thing. And again,

ultimately they do want more people to watch Apple TV Plus. And they have gotten to the point that they genuinely can put up a subscription in other places and be like, there is enough good content for you here. Like it's not going to be coming as quickly as a Netflix, but like there is good prestige content available on this service, like without a doubt.

So they can do it. It's a good... I mean, it helps that it's now, right? Now... I mean, I know it's $10 and not $5 anymore, but now there's a library. They actually have... We've been doing this long enough talking about it. There's a library. So now they can actually...

say, you know, come and we've got all these seasons of slow horses and all of Ted Lasso and all of foundation and two seasons of shrinking. And we've got severance coming back and, and Amazon, you know what? Amazon's pretty good as a marketer, right? Like there's advantages to being in the Amazon ecosystem because when severance comes back,

Amazon will promote it because Amazon does that. Amazon doesn't just like hide all these things and only promote their own stuff. They do promote stuff that's on channels. And if you search for, for, for severance or Ted lasso on Amazon, when Apple's in channels, it will come up and say, yes, it is available. Click here to subscribe to TV plus within channels and you get that show. And so there's lots of side benefits because it turns out Amazon. Yeah. They're all about the marketing.

I saw, I think it was Benjamin Mayo from 9to5Mac talking about this, and it's just like a funny thought. Amazon has succeeded at becoming the all-in-one TV service in a way that Apple wanted to, right? Like, I think, they don't have everything, but like, this is what Apple wanted. This is what a TV app was supposed to do. And there are channels in there, but it feels like Amazon has succeeded in

more with Prime. Yeah, I think unsurprisingly, I mean, it's a little different because Apple's goal is about, I think in the TV app is about data. I don't think they need to sell you a channel, although they do have them. And I think Amazon has been more successful at that than Apple. I think the real challenge is that you don't have to be a partner of Apple's in terms of reselling your service. You just have to be on their platform and share their data. And the problem, of course, is that nobody, Netflix doesn't share with anybody.

And you can't buy Netflix inside of Amazon Prime either, right? Because it's just... Netflix doesn't want... It doesn't need to. It doesn't need to. So that is a challenge. Netflix wants to just be the be-all end-all because it's number one. But it is true. Like...

I don't know. I don't know how much of reselling channels was really Apple's primary strategy versus just having all the apps. Remember like that? That's the question, right? Is an app is a channel kind of, even if you're paying for max somewhere else, if you've got the max app on your Apple TV, uh, or on your iPad or your iPhone in the TV app, it'll, you know, it works together. It all works that the apps are like channels, uh,

Um, so it's okay. Right. Um, it's okay. But yes, Amazon seems to have done a better job probably in part because a lot of prime video customers are just there because they got prime and so they have prime video. So they've got the app and then Amazon's good at marketing. And so reselling services fits into what Amazon does. Yeah.

I wanted to mention as well, you published your iPhone 16 review, 16 Pro review. Yeah. And there were two things I wanted to pull out. At long last. Yeah, you know, it's how it goes sometimes. We're busy. Well, after, you know, the embargo reviews come out and it's like everybody's had more than a week or, you know, to deal with them. And then what can I add having just gotten it? Yeah. If I wait a week, then I'm,

I'm giving you a week late what everybody gave you a week ago. And so I ended up turning it into what I described on social media as being a series of essays about aspects of the iPhone 16, because that's after, you know, several weeks, that's what I'm left with. There were two things I want to talk about. One was just, you know, you mentioned that, you know, people get a bit bored or again, we get bored of the way that the iPhone looks, but next year,

could be the monumental phone, you know, like whether it's this skinny phone or whether they do the flip phone or whether that comes a year or two after. But like this phone design that we have now, the way that it looks actually might be something akin to the iPhone 7 or the iPhone 8 of like, hey, they're going to look different after this one. And that could be interesting.

And that also the idea of the iPhone Ultra, that's gone. Like we were talking about that, right? Like are they going to do this Ultra phone? But it doesn't look like that is the case anymore in that regard of like the most iPhone where they might actually be going in a different direction with this super skinny phone. Right, exactly. The Max has come back to the regular Pro and it feels like based on the reports, this is the last year of this

potentially of this very, very long cycle where we are using sort of the same phone and

whatever that phone ends up being and it'll be expensive and all that, but a new look iPhone, you know, it just doesn't come, the distance keeps getting longer. But it may be that in the next couple of years, we'll actually have some really surprising iPhones. But I feel like basic iPhone design, Apple feels is more or less solved. It's, it feels very much like the laptop thing where Apple's like, no, it's a, it's a metal laptop in a monochrome color.

I mean, it's like, you know what it is. It was the MacBook Air back in 2011, and now it's basically all laptops look like that from Apple, and they're satisfied with that, more or less. They tinker around the edges, but nothing huge. The generations was like original iPhone, iPhone 4, iPhone 6, iPhone 10, and 12. Like these are like the ways in which they have changed design. Yeah.

And so it's actually been quite a long time. Yeah. Yeah. The original iPhone and then the three and the three GS and then the four and the five were the same. Yes, they are different, but I think like there are, there is enough similarities between the original and the three G that you could kind of just like wrap them together. That's sure. That's sure. And then you get the four, five and then you get the six, seven, eight, nine. And then, and then things get a little bit money because 10 or muddy because 10 is similar to 12.

And the XR, which came out the same year as the XS, is sort of like the base model a couple years later. So it's a little bit muddied, but I feel like from the X on, you've kind of got a bunch of phones that are the same. Yeah. But certainly from the XII on. I think the flat-sided XII, it had enough of difference going on. That's when it resolved into a single product line after a little bit of muddiness, which I think we're about to do again. I feel like if Mark Gurman's reports are right, Yeah.

We're about to enter a muddy time where the old design is available and there's a new design. And then there's the next year, there's another design. And then how do those resolve down to being more like a little tighter set of products that are available? Probably takes three or four years to get there. I think that's where we're headed. Give me the mess. So this is the end of kind of... And again, the point I make in the review is...

I actually say like, here are all the iterations you get if you're coming from a 12 or a 13 or a 14, right? Like there are a lot of changes that have happened since the iPhone 12 and you forget how many of them there are.

So that's the iteration kind of thing. And that's why people don't, you know, maybe our listeners do, but most people don't buy a phone every year. It is every two, three, four years and they get a nice big upgrade, but it's also not as must have as it used to be because those upgrades are all smaller, which is why you wait four years and then you get a really juicy upgrade.

The other thing, the main thing I think that you focus on in the video, in the review, is camera. The righty-o. Yeah, the righty. The wordsy is camera control. Your kind of thesis is you don't feel like the camera control is bad, but just wasn't executed as well as it could have been. Yeah, that's exactly it. I like the impulse to do camera control.

I like the impulse of putting a hardware button on and saying it works like the button you would have on a camera. Remember cameras, everybody, which some people don't, but you know, cameras had buttons. And if you pushed it all the way down, it took a picture. And then a lot of them, if you pushed it half the way down, it would focus. And some of them had a little ring or a little, uh, for a mode or a little wheel that you could dial and stuff like that. And so I get what they're trying to go here, but it's a couple of things. First off, uh,

What I said was, I think they plussed it too much. You know, that's that Disney concept, which is you take a thing and then you're like, let's add a thing and another thing and another thing. And now it's really amazing because we added all these jokes and this little extra whizzy thing and all that. And I think that's a good instinct, but I think that sometimes you can go too far. And, you know, we've been talking about Apple's tendency to overdo with something like the HomePod or the Vision Pro.

And I would say the camera control got overdone because that is a button. It does not need to be a button with a haptic, with a force sensor, and with a touch-sensitive swipe control on the top. It's a lot. And I'm impressed that they do it. Yes, the prowess of the hardware design team is amazing. But...

Is it too much? I would say they didn't necessarily need to be all of that. But my big problem too, is then on the software side. And this is why when we were in Memphis, I said it had touch bar vibes is I think the software side is really misguided. I think that I think while you can learn it, it's way too complicated. It's too easy to get wrong. And as a pro feature, great.

As the default feature for regular people, I just think it's a mistake. I can't. And as I was writing it, I was increasingly like thinking about this and thinking like, why is it this way? By default, camera button, push it halfway down to focus. Now, I know your iPhone is smart. It autofocuses. But the idea is modern cameras are smart, too, and they still do this because the idea is there's like a little crosshair somewhere.

And you're basically telling the camera, no, no, no, I want you to, I'm going to put it halfway down. I want you to focus on this thing in the foreground, and then I'm going to move it to the background or focus on this thing in the background or in the midfield. And that's the center focus point. And it's a metaphor. It's like a, it's a, it's a very commonly used thing. And Apple has said that that feature is coming to camera control in a software update in the future.

I do not understand why that was not the first feature. I do not understand why flipping around through photographic styles or zooming or switching cameras is the thing that shipped by default, but that the

replicating classic camera look and feel was not the first thing to try and then introduce more complexity for people who want more complexity. At the very least, though, yeah, a zoom or what I have it set to is switching between the cameras. Yeah, which is good. Which is, it's fine. But anyway, this is my feeling. The good news is camera control can be fixed in software updates to be better. But I do...

I do question Apple's choices. I think that they made some questionable choices. Love the ambition, love the impulse to build a piece of hardware, but fundamentally, the more I've thought about it, the more I think the camera control wasn't really executed right because I think by default, it's too fiddly, it's too messy, it's too hard to learn. And while you can learn it and it's a great, ultimately, it's a great power user feature that it should not be

In the faces of people who are using it as a regular person, because I think it over complicates it. It's too easy to get it wrong and it's going to turn people off. And I think it would be better if it was simple and that normal people could use it simply and that.

But more advanced people could say, oh, oh, did you read that story? Or I guess, okay, did you see that TikTok about how you can enable this setting that lets you change the styles? It's like, yes, that's what this should be. But it's almost like they're so proud of the fact that they packed all that technology in that button that they're like, let's turn it all on by default.

And I think it's a mistake. I just, I do. I think that they overdid it and they made something that should be broadly usable because the whole idea of the button is it's a button you push down and they made it too much. And I think that they, I just, I think they blew it. I think that it is, they need to do some extra work. And the good news is they can. They can change a lot of the conception of camera control with software because again, impulse good, some of the execution bad, you can fix the execution and software updates.

This episode is brought to you by TipTop. TipTop is a completely new way to pay that makes everything you buy more affordable and sustainable with trade-in at checkout. The way it works is incredibly easy. When you're making a purchase of TipTop, you simply select any item that you own that you want to trade in from TipTop's catalog of over 50,000 choices, and you receive instant credit towards your purchase.

You send your old item in and you've made your purchase cheaper and you've helped the planet by keeping your old stuff in circulation.

If you're someone who has things lying around that you've been meaning to sell, you can use them to buy new at TipTop partners like Nothing, Daylight, Cradlewise, and King of Christmas. If you're a merchant, you can easily enable TipTop with no upfront cost with support for integration with any store. Plus, they're offering $10,000 in TipTop promotional credit that you can use to help your customers learn about TipTop.

If you're a merchant, you can get started today by visiting tiptop.com slash upgradefm and you can sign up and claim the promo credit. If you're a customer that wants to trade something in, there's a full list of partner stores there too. That's tiptop.com slash upgradefm, T-I-P-T-O-P dot com slash upgradefm. Our thanks to Tip Top for their support of this show and all of Relay. And I really like saying that. Tip Top. Tip Top. Let's finish out with some Ask Upgrade questions.

First one comes from Brayden. This is a big question, but it's a good question. Okay.

Brayden says, following your recent discussion on the Meta Orion tech demo and not knowing what Apple is working on fully behind the scenes, do you think that it would benefit Apple to come from a more open approach in the future? I'm not saying they should talk about products in the near-term pipeline, but should maybe do more things like the Knowledge Navigator demo from 1987 to show how tech could benefit human life and well-being without revealing specifics about future products. Um, okay. I mean...

It would be a huge cultural shift. The problem that I have with it is when you're doing something like knowledge navigator, I mean, it's cool, but what does it mean? Like, it's not real. It's more like a, this is our vision of the future and this is where you'll be someday. And while that's fun to look back, like knowledge navigator, like,

It's fun to look back at it, but Apple of 1987 was not capable of doing anything like it. Right. And so it ends up being what it's brand marketing. Yeah. And, and I see you could make the argument that it's brand marketing. I think what Apple would tell you is that companies that need to show you stuff that's not shipping and might never ship are

are trying to justify their existence and they've got nothing to ship. And I would say that Steve Jobs coming back to Apple really intensified that, right? It's real hard to ship. The product of shipping is what matters. I will agree. Vision Pro is a great example where

They would probably have been better off doing a low key. You know, we're working on this thing. We're going to make developer kits available. They're very expensive, but this is a direction we're going in the future. And I feel like given, as we said earlier today, given Apple stature, the focus on Apple, it's almost impossible for them to actually do that. Nothing they do is low key. Nothing they do can be low key. It will never be low key. So they just kind of like do what they're going to do. I think there's a good argument to be made.

potentially, that if it hurts you to have Meta out there doing Orion when you've done that work and you've got it internally, if it hurts you in some way, could you discuss disclosing it and saying, here is where we think the future of this product are going and we're on it? But I think I would argue, if I was inside Apple, that if we have it and are confident that we're going to get there around the same time Meta is...

Why do we need to show it? I guess the answer would be if there's a reason, if you want to motivate developers, if you want to give people reasons to view Vision Pro differently as a stepping stone to something else, like you could do it. But I think always the argument inside Apple, and I think it's mostly a good argument, is companies don't show products that don't exist out of a position of strength.

they do it out of position of weakness. Now, the question is like, well, was Meta showing weakness when they showed Orion? And my answer is yes. Meta was perceived as have wasted money on their entire VR and AR project. It was a Mark Zuckerberg project.

where people are like, oh, he should have been spending money on AI and instead he was spending it on this stupid VR stuff that nobody cares about and he changed the name of the company and it's dumb. Why did he do it? And also Meta is perceived as having lesser products than Vision Pro. They tried a high-end model, right, which you bought,

And it was a flop and they killed it. And now they're selling on like a $300 VR helmet, which is great. It's fun. Those games are fun and all of that. But like there's this perception that they're down in the kind of junk area making a games console and Apple is making this sophisticated thing that's the future and all of that. So I think there were some reasons why the meta felt like they were in a position of weakness. They said, we've got this thing. We need to show people that we...

actually are on this and we're doing amazing stuff. And so they showed it. My question is, does Apple feel like they're ever in a position that's so weak that they need to release something or show something that they're working on in order to justify their existence? And I would say thus far, modern, rich, post Steve Jobs return, Apple has never felt that way. And so, yeah,

I guess that's my argument is it would be fun, but I can tell you having covered 90s Apple, 90s Apple was in dire straits. They were a mess. They were spending money on all sorts of things that were never going to ship. And 1990s Apple was great at showing you things from their design lab and product concepts. They did it all the time. We put on the cover of Mac user. They put on the cover of Mac world like mid 90s. Apple was like, sure, here are eight Macs that we're thinking of shipping someday or not.

And, you know, a couple of them looked kind of like what the 20th anniversary Mac ended up being. But they just put it out there. 90s Apple was about to die, right? Like, it was not a good sign. It was fun, but it was not a good sign. So I get how exciting it would be and how we all want Apple to say what their plan is in the long run for Vision OS and Vision Pro. But they're not going to do it. And if they do it, I'd actually be really worried. Yeah.

Because that's bad, right? Because they're coming from a position of weakness. They can't dazzle you with what they're doing today and they're afraid you're going to go away and stop paying attention to them. So they're going to show you something shiny, even though the shiny thing is not something that they're going to sell. I just don't see it.

Aaron asks, how does the idea of products like meta Ray-Bans compared to Google Glass from 10 years ago? Is it that we've come far enough in technical capabilities for these products to be explored more? Or is it that these things are becoming more socially acceptable? Like, why does the Ray-Ban succeed where Google Glass failed? I know this is going to be weird, but part of it is Google Glass was five or six years out from the first iPhone. Yeah.

And now it's 2024. Yeah. We've had a decade or more where every single person around you has a camera. Yep. And when their phone is out of their pocket, they are taking pictures basically. And so I think culturally it's very different. Also, I would say meta Ray-Bans, especially because they're not AR products at all. Meta Ray-Bans are sunglasses with a camera in them. What they're not is sunglasses.

Glasses with like a weird screen thing and like that where you look like a cyborg. Part of it is that they're more stealthy. And I know you could say that they're sneaky, but I'd say they aren't as disruptive to it.

And on top of that, we're all used to this. I mean, that's that for me, that's certainly my feeling now is back then it was like, who does this guy think he is walking into this meeting and taking video of all of us? And now it's like everybody, everybody in this meeting has three different devices that can record audio and video. Like it's kind of over.

But also, I think they don't look as disruptive and that that's part of it. And that's going to be one of the challenges in the long run with things like Orion or whatever Apple might want to do is they do need to not look disruptive. If it looks like there's a cyborg coming down the street, people are going to react much worse than if it's somebody with Ray-Bans with a little circle in it. I mean, because people...

wearing AirPods, people have a reaction to that, right? Like, especially in the early days, people were like, oh, you got these weird things in your ears. The Apple Watch was like, oh, like people, you know, you're checking your watch a lot, you're not paying any attention. Yeah.

i just have to get over it we do the biggest change i agree with you like the what people think about is their privacy i think on the whole has changed and it's become less about you in the real world and more your information that's online or in private places like i think the idea that somebody would have a camera and they can take a picture of you i i think that that we have passed that

We have passed that line a long time ago now. Like a long, long, long time ago. Right or wrong. Yeah. Right or wrong. And I would argue that, yes, of course there's still nuance here in terms of what's the right behavior? What's the etiquette? What is being transgressive versus being normal? And like, absolutely, there are conversations, but I feel like it's just more accepted that

the doorbells have cameras and, and houses have cameras pointing out at the street and everybody's got a camera in their pocket, which means any kind of behavior that can happen good or bad can be captured. And, and like the world has, has just changed where I think probably wrongly in a lot of cases, the perception back in 2013 was that public space was kind of

free from that even though it probably wasn't that much but like if you if you behave like a jerk on the street or in a park or something guess what there will be dozens of videos of your behavior because that's the world we live in now that's gonna happen but

Like I know there's that, there's that video. I know people are going to send it to us. I'm going to talk, I'm going to talk about it or just, just trying to stop it. Like those, uh, Harvard students who did that thing where they were wearing meta Ray-Bans and it was streaming live to an Instagram page and they were able to use the facial detection. Like, yeah, that stuff is wild, but like also I could just do it on my phone. And like, I know it's less, it's, it's less obtrusive when I'm just doing it with cameras on my face, but like,

The technology that they were using was just coming to an iPhone. Like, that's what was going on. Yeah, their stunt is literally...

It was not about meta ray bands. It was about how much facial recognition technology exists on the internet and how much data about every individual person is on the internet. Yeah. The glasses were immaterial because you could absolutely just do it with your phone. Or just set a physical camera. You said put a ring doorbell. Yeah. Just there and just have it running all the time. Like there are so many ways to do it. There are issues there, but yeah, that's not it. And I assume, right? Like-

This is the world we live in. It's the panopticon, right? It is literally everything is being viewed and recorded or could be. And so I think at that level, when you're living in that world, having some glasses that have a camera on it is not that... I mean, everything's got a camera on it and everything's got a microphone on it. And that's just...

And it's only going to be more because as more of these AI features take off, that's what we're going to get is who is that person? What was the conversation that was had? I feel like we talk about the companies that have talked about doing like, we'll record everything you do. And then you can play back a transcript of everything you do later. And it was like, oh, well, that sounds illegal and bad and all that. And it's like, yes, but I agree.

I totally see a future where your personal assistant may not be able to give you a full transcript of that conversation you had, but we'll say at 1030, you had a brief conversation with so-and-so about this thing, a summary, right? And like, that stuff's going to happen. It's just, it's all going to happen. And, um,

Yeah. So I'm not making a value judgment necessarily, but just saying I think that's the answer to Aaron's question is that the world has changed in terms of this stuff and cultural acceptance of this stuff has changed at least a bit. Plus, I say don't undersell the cyborg thing, which is I think Google Glass looked weird and Ray-Bans don't.

If you would like to send in a question for us to answer in a future episode or you have any feedback or follow-up, just go to upgradefeedback.com and you can send them in there. If you want to read Jason's review or check out his other work, go to sixcolors.com and you can hear him here on Relay and at theincomparable.com as well. You can listen to my shows here on Relay. You can check out my product work at cortexbrand.com. You can find us online. Jason is at jsnell. I am at imike.com.

You can watch clips of this show on TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube. We are at Upgrade Relay. Thank you to our members who support us with Upgrade Plus. I think this week we're going to talk a little bit about some prep for the draft that we're going to do. Maybe set some rules. I don't know. We'll see. Thank you to our sponsors, Tip Top, Vitaly, Uni, and Delete Me for their support of this show. But most of all, thank you for listening. Until next time, say goodbye, Jason Snow. Goodbye, Mike Hurley.