When volume is ramped up, these could easily become less expensive than bifocals; after all, there's only one grinding operation per lens instead of two.
Common misconception, nowadays there's only one grinding process when you make bifocals. Bifocal lens blanks come to an opticians with the front of the lens already finished to a set/known curvature/power. The lens 'surfacing' equipment simply cuts/polishes the rear of the lens to the required shape to produce the require powered lens as prescribed by the optician, the finished lens is then 'glazed' into the spectacle frame as a normal lens would be. Lens blanks are incredibly cheap already... seriously... markups can be immense (in the mid 90's we were paying £10 for a pair of Nikon NL80 lenses which retailed for >£200)... the difference between the cost of single vision vs bifocals is about 2 to 1 (depending on power and material).
They could put in a rangefinder that automatically chose the correct magnification based on what's in front of your head. If there was an in FOV "aiming dot" (a la HUD) you could aim the range finder at your object of interest.
What would happen if you're driving a car, Would the windscreen get in the way?
[disclosure - I used to make spectacles for a living before the internet] You may have different types of progressive lenses. there are numerous manufacturers of them out there and the progressive bifocal area differs across most of them. if you are finding it too narrow then your optician should be able to prescribe a different pair.
Executive bifocals (these basically look like split lenses with the entire lower portion of the lens being the 'reading' area) might well suit those of you with multiple monitor setups as it would cover the lower field of vision. Speak to your Dispensing Optician and explain your needs and they should be able to easily prescribe the right lenses for you.... if they can't then go to another Opticians
Just three or four years ago nobody had ever called a software program an "app". That term is new and unique to the iPhone. Software was sold as "software", "programs", and sometimes "software applications", but I had never heard the term "app" before the iPhone.
Sorry but you're wrong there. As has been pointed out before, 'app' has been used as an abbreviation in the Warez/BBS/FXP scene for many years and then latterly has been adopted by the likes of Google & Apple. If you have never heard of this abbreviation before then I can only assume that you are young and are relatively new to the world of computers or associated tech-scenes.
Go read the old marketing for the Blackberry, for Windows CE, for Palm. None of them use the term "app". Just because the iPhone has such a dominant marketing position the term "app" has come to mean cell phone software.
You're probably right (I haven't checked), but then using slang/abbreviations in formal marketing literature is a bit of a no-no. Apple simply cottoned onto to their users being a bit more accepting of such abbreviations in everyday speak, it does not mean they 'invented' the word.
Micro"SOFT" sells software. It's not MicroApp, is it? Apple made a cute catchy term for it's programs. Let Microsoft try to do the same. I'm sure Microsoft marketing can come up with something catchy, like "There's an executable for that".
Putting aside that I don;t really understand your differentiation of 'app' and 'software' Apple didn't make, invent or create anything new in the use of this word, they have simply seized upon the terms use in the wider community in an attempt to build on their tech credentials by using a commonly and frequently used abbreviation. Arguably Google were using the word 'apps' before the 2007 introduction of the iphone or the 2008 introduction of the App Store. Google were referring to to 'Google Apps For Your Domain' in Aug 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Apps). Here's some more uses of it in the wild:
And that's with just 5mins searching. We can categorically show that Apple neither invented or created this phrase. Arguably they may well have popularised tit, but that's no reason for them to be able to trademark it.
Unbelievably the Daily Mail has published this today as well:
Mercury in flu vaccine is linked to autism.
You couldn't make it up.... unless you were the Daily Mail.
On a paper submitted by a physicist colleague: "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." -- Wolfgang Pauli