The companies in question should just pass on the fees to their users. Want to use your Chase account with a third-party payment provider? That's a $15 service fee. When Chase starts bleeding customers, they'll rethink their strategy.
Crazy pricing scheme Is it $3125 for seven? Why not just use two $20 accounts to get six per month for $40?
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, but presumably the second plan offers more than just 40% more videos per day.
It should be obvious that changing a 0 to a 1 (whether or not one swaps other digits) is not cutting a zero off the price. The normal price is not $3490.99, either.
Yeah, the snark is high in this thread.
But in all seriousness, $3,499 really is an order of magnitude too expensive to compete against Quest at $499. If they had game availability that could compete with Quest, they might be able to get away with more like $750, but not $3.5k, or even $2k, realistically. It's just way too overpriced for something that in practice is only usable for gaming.
There's always Debian.
$3,490.99 to $4,391.99
Cutting a zero off the price, yeah, but faster, no.
So, something like $3,490.99 to $3491.00?
No, that's adding a zero.
The wealthy aren't the problem with inflation. Giving money to them (or not taxing it away from them, same thing) isn't inflationary, they'll more or less invest the money to increase their wealth. Rich people always want more money.
Ah, but for the most part, that money just sits there. Investing money in stocks has only limited impact on anything, in practice, which is why it doesn't impact inflation much. The money doesn't ever get spent on anything that meaningfully contributes to strengthening the economy.
Cutting checks to people on the street, that's inflationary because they spend the money on goods.
It is, but not proportionately. The increase in funds availability does increase demand, which increases scarcity, but the price people spend on goods and services doesn't increase to absorb all of the extra money going in — just some of it. That's why if you compare San Jose, CA to Jackson, TN, the median salary differs by more than a factor of 2.8, while the overall cost of living differs by only a factor of 1.9 (and if you ignore the housing costs that are largely caused by San Jose being landlocked, by only a factor of 1.5).
Improving people's standard of living has little to do with giving them money. You need more goods, which then become relatively cheaper within the existing money supply because of the lack of scarcity. That means producing said goods, whether we're talking about consumer stuff or housing.
While true, absent government intervention in how people run their companies, you can't prevent scarcity. Scarcity allows companies to charge higher prices for the same amount of labor, so except when you're talking about true commodities, companies have a perverse incentive to keep supply down as much as possible, so long as they stay below the point where the profit margins become too high relative to the barriers to entry into the market and another competitor is encouraged to enter the market and compete with them.
Because the people working on that product want to stay employed. Unless Apple cancels the product and lays all those people off it will continue to be developed.
I suspect that Apple's hardware design teams are rather fluid in terms of what projects they work on. Certainly nothing fundamentally prevents Apple from shifting them to work on the next-next iPhone design, or designing eyeglasses with a HUD, or designing some other new consumer device that someone comes up with. There's really no need for an updated version of the Vision Pro hardware right now, IMO, unless doing so would reduce the price by a factor of 4 to make it able to compete with Oculus. They'd be *way* better off having those people work on other projects until the technology reaches a point where there is a pressing need to do a hardware revision.
I never heard anyone complain the original vision pro was "slow", so why are they adding a faster chip?
I can't imagine. Spending more money on Vision Pro hardware right now seems like throwing good money after bad. For most users, Vision Pro is a fun toy, and an expensive one at that. Toys don't get upgraded very often even if they work well and are frequently used. Unfortunately for Apple, surveys show that users aren't using them very much at all, and there's no reason to believe that CPU speed has anything to do with the lack of use, which means you should expect nearly zero upgrades unless Apple takes a cue from the PC playbook and makes them connector-compatible with the existing design so that users can bring them into an Apple retail store and get a $500 main board swap. And even then, upgrades would be a hard sell.
Similarly, users who don't own one are not going to be persuaded to buy one because the new version is faster. Cutting a zero off the price, yeah, but faster, no.
What Apple should do is focus on making the software and user interface not suck. Once they get it to that point and sales start to pick up, *then* start thinking about a new version with a faster CPU. For starters, what we want to see is:
Get those three things, and the platform will be an immediate success. As long as doing any meaningful work with the device requires being tethered to a physical keyboard, which completely defeats the purpose of using a headset, and as long as a significant number of apps that you might want to run cannot be used at all without being tethered to a Mac, any marketing claims of it being a "spatial computer" are rather comically aspirational, to the point of being an outright lie.
Alternatively, Apple could try to make Vision Pro compete with Oculus by throwing money at the gaming industry in one form or another, but that will still have a pretty limited market, and would require Apple acknowledging that it's really just a high-end gaming headset, so I wouldn't hold my breath. Oh, and you'd probably need controllers to make that work well, so that would be a pretty big pivot.
And of course, Apple could also pivot by acknowledging that Vision Pro was the wrong approach for augmented reality and take a cue from Android XR instead of Oculus, by building an iOS-compatible eyewear fashion accessory that provides a HUD rather than a full active blending of reality with computer-generated content, and supports a more modest feature set, such as real-time text translation, reminding you of people's names and recent conversations, highlighting foods it thinks you might like on restaurant menus, providing access to email and text messages without whipping out your phone, letting you watch movies while out for a walk, etc.
None of these things involve taking Vision Pro and giving it a faster CPU, though. That's just pouring money down the drain. The only rational reason to do that would be if they're going to run into contractual costs related to continuing to build the M2 chip in small quantities and if the R&D costs for doing the board rev are less than the projected annual cost of continuing to make (or stockpile) the old chips. This seems unlikely to me, but I'm willing to acknowledge that it is a possibility.
Just like the subject says, supersymmetry, an elegant solution to a number of problems, in particular the best theoretical extension to the Standard Model, slides closer to oblivion with each large scale and small scale (accelerator) experiment meant to find these large supersymmetrical particles.
If you didn't have an interest before in eating tinamou, why would you develop one just because some company makes them big?
I mean, there's literally photographs. Here's another shot of the NACS charger. Here's one of a Tesla plugged in, to a NACS connector. Here's another.
I mean, you're asking me to not believe my own eyes.
Literally, the other drivers leaving reviews at the site disagree with you. When was the last time you were there? Here's all the reviews:
Feb 28, 2025
MKF
Tesla Model Y
NACS (Tesla) 16 KilowattsDec 8, 2024
ProphetM
Tesla Model 3
NACS (Tesla)
Another great charge under the windmill at this wonderful museum!Oct 1, 2023
SJacks
Fiat 500e 2013
We have a standard J-1772, and there was none of this plug type supplied at the ~4 charge stations (2 plugs each). Most if the plug-types were the CCS-Type 1. This station info should be updated.Sep 9, 2023
tesla3joe
Tesla Model 3
Tesla
After hours use the service entrance. Charger is under the big windmill.Jun 9, 2023
TessieK
Tesla Model S
This place is open and working! I called first to make sure the gate was open. Andy answered and was so sweet. He greeted us at the gate and took us to the charger.Nov 24, 2022
rsager
Tesla Model 3
Arrived when museum was closed and the gate was locked so there was no access to the chargers. their phone message said their hours were Friday through Sunday? But that we could arrange visits to the museum on other days.Aug 27, 2022
AmericanVanilla
Tesla Model Y
Tesla 6 Kilowatts
Maximum 24A ChargerAug 27, 2022
blackmamba
Tesla 6 Kilowatts
We were in a pretty tricky situation in this area on the way to Vegas. Charging facilities are fairly limited in this area but this location helped close the gap to get to the closest super charger in needles. It seems that the charger can be accessed at any time of the day. The location is scenic with art installations by the host museum. Watch out for wild life. Leave a donation this service is seriously needed (and appreciated) in this area.Mar 1, 2022
Sperry
Tesla Model 3
Great stop
Was this helpful?
Dec 30, 2021
EVJerry
Tesla Model X
What a neat Historic Route 66 spot where my Spirit of Tesla - 2017 Tesla Model X used the service entrance to get to the windmill for a Level 2 Tesla destination charger (5 kW atv240 volts)...along with 120- volt Level 1 outlet. I will be back to visit this exquisite "Study The Past" historical site.Dec 13, 2021
Nyroc
Chevrolet Bolt EV 2017
Tesla
Nice place to go back in history. Very enjoyable
The Tesla Destination is now housed in a shelter. I didn’t test it with my adapter but looks in great condition.Nov 21, 2020
bee_harris
Tesla Model 3
TeslaApr 28, 2019
ProphetM
Tesla Model 3
Tesla 239 Volts 24 Amps 5 Kilowatts
Inaugural charge from their new Tesla Destination Charger! Output is 24 amps max (30 amp breaker).Mar 12, 2019
ProphetM
Tesla Model 3
Wall 118 Volts 12 Amps 1 Kilowatts
Great historical museum on Route 66! Just 120v right now but 240v planned soon.
And the worst thing is not you dying, but the fact that you'll probably be killing someone else who was being a responsible driver, and possibly their entire family, in the process.
Please demonstrate how using the bathroom and buying a snack / drink turns a 24 hour journey into a week-long journey.
Quite the opposite, not taking rest breaks can very readily turn a 24 hour journey into an eternal journey, when you die in a car accident.
The cost of living hasn't affected its popularity.
