this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2024
40 points (84.5% liked)

Unpopular Opinion

6326 readers
7 users here now

Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!

How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.

If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.

Guidelines:

Tag your post, if possible (not required)

  • If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
  • If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].

Rules:

1. NO POLITICS

Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.

2. Be civil.

Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...

Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.

5. No trolling.

This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.

Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Rooki@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
admiralpatrick@lemmy.world
lemann@lemmy.world
ptz@dubvee.org
40
Google Glass had a better see-through solution than the Apple Vision Pro (lemmy.world)
submitted 8 months ago by udon@lemmy.world to c/unpopularopinion@lemmy.world
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Whatever use cases they try to push for social settings, I think Google Glass was still the better solution. Nobody uses their Vision Pro outside, and it's way too expensive as just another VR headset to use at home.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] WolfLink@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 months ago

They don't do that to allow consumers or hobbyists tweak the device in ways they want. They want to establish a functional ecosystem, so they need apps.

Those two statements, allowing consumers and hobbyists to tweak the device in the ways they want, and having a functional ecosystem of apps, are loosely equivalent.

I know the difference is you want hobbyists to be able to change more than Apple allows. But it isn’t a binary hobbyists or not.