With the Vision Pro you're paying thousands for a device that can be used as an advertiser's wet dream. I'm not even thinking of the opportunity for the predatory ads that can be used by fine tuning ads with colors that catch your eye by analyzing your eye tracking. Instead of this obvious comment I am thinking of cameras with the Lidar et al constructing a pattern for your room and elsewhere. While metadata was more abstract, as Snowden pointed out, collect enough and those supposedly anonymized start to become more easily identifiable. The Vision Pro is in technicolor by everything in comparison, even those cable boxes with sketchy sensors added were comparatively in B&W.

Thoughts?

Advertisers tend to prefer platforms that lots of people use on a daily basis

They also prefer platforms that aren't openly hostile to advertising, at least if it involves user tracking. Of all the places to be concerned about ads, an Apple device isn't really one of them.

For now yes but by the time they get it rolled down to a price point for mass adoption they'll have gotten enough of the kinks out that advertisers will be drooling to use it for predatory ads.

Oh and eric one of Apple's new monitoring tools is an AI-based effort so that they can now use it as a tool to spy on people, no more argument of them against Intelligence agencies that we can't give you a backdoor because code. Apple will just rent that snooping service for top dollar. The only way you know if its there....? You don't, it's based in their closed source code. My point being is I believe Apple will go back on adverising as well, it just will be less clearly invasive.

Sure, the company that repeatedly refuses FBI requests to unlock devices, has been very vocal privacy advocates even when it hasn't won them many friends, and which has gone all-in on end-to-end encryption that they can't have backdoors for since that's simply not how end-to-end encryption works mathematically speaking, is going to do that. Right. Whatever you say. There's no reasoning with paranoid delusionals, that's for sure. I'm sure it makes you feel very smart, though.

By your level of speech I deduce you understand the topic.

Albeit I don't know which were the OP's intentions when talking about this, I know mine when I say what I will say:
Do not fear companies gaining power. Do not fear when States gain power necessarily.

Fear when the State and Big companies are in agreement for something.
Normally the end result is less freedom and authoritarism.

Still, Im talking in broad terms and we know that this topic is highly complex and subjective on many areas.
I don't think we can continue talking about this in this Forum though. (As it involves politics.)

The precedent this kind of technology gives is higher than what you're saying and I believe you do understand what Im talking about, even if you disagree with the theories. Not conspiracies. Im talking about academic theories about tecnocracy, AI, governments and the likes of 1984, which are seriously discussed.

Even if, again, you disagree, I'd say we can't ignore the fact that those advancements are precedents.
Even if, again, you are an AI advocate, I'd say you can't disagree with the fact that things are way more complex in reality than just "its end to end encrypted".

Anyway, I can respect your opinion, even if we probably disagree.

Which is exactly why I'd trust Apple before Google, who is all about ads. Apple is far from perfect; they make mistakes and decisions that are either stupid or annoying, but they've repeatedly gone to bat for privacy regardless of whether it made them popular with anyone, including the government. They make most of their money from hardware, which makes them far less susceptible to pressure in the form of ads/spyware. If something is end-to-end encrypted, there is no possible way for a backdoor to exist. The EU's recent attempt at mandating this encryption but also having a backdoor for the "good guys" to spy on people (as if that would not immediately be co-opted by bad actors, including some of the "good guys") is like demanding that water be wet but also not wet. Apple's refusal to unlock phones for the authorities is because they literally can't, regardless of whether they want to or not.

Whatever else the VisionPro may be, it won't have ads or spy on people. I'd be a lot more concerned about Oculus headsets, given the Meta ownership. They did stop requiring mandatory Facebook accounts, but they'd need to do a lot more than that to be even slightly trustworthy.

Its fair from you to admit that Apple is not perfect, but you prefer it in comparison to Google.
Fair I mean, because that is exactly what my explanation about 'precedent' points to.
Its not only about 'end to end encryption', in the sense of security or backdoors, that's what I meant, but all the precedent this kind of technology opens in society as a whole and how, as you explained, government entities would, will and are actually, demanding data from companies. In one way or the other, that happens, regardless of their success.

Not talking about Apple or Google here. Examples on general terms only:
The thing is, will they keep the unencrypted data out of the governments hands?
Will all data be truly encrypted, or will they create encryption that can be unencrypted by them with specific keys?
How are you 100% certain that this is not happening right now with any company?
What if an authoritarian government rises and demands that all data must be collected for authoritarian purposes?

By you level of speech, I will say it again, you understand what Im talking about, even if you disagree, which is ok.
Nobody can deny that those precedents exist though, and I believe you will be fair to understand and agree with this, judging by what your post explains. ---

But then again, I will stop it here because of Forum rules about politics.

Eric I will simply say most companies....if they want to have their cake and eat it too they will. If they can be massive hypocrites and be almost assured they won~t get caught they will take the chance.

As a separate commentary for AI itself we need massive amounts of separate infant AI(preferably as bare a seed as possible) to grow in devices the sizes of Tamagotchi, for children and adults to raise them similarly and differently. Sam Alton is deluded to think the future of AI is only massive skyscrapers full of FPGA and GPU~s. This would include creation from whatever computer languages are possible.

I think a better argument for open source VR is simply the prevention of metaverses and cryptocurrency usage. Just code something that outright deletes Etherium, Bitcoin, Doge, and other things the moment you connect your device to it.

I mean, there's other reasons but not ones I can openly mention here.

Addendum: Well, that and Apple does happen to be the quintessential example of a Poison Garden.

Thanks for your response and caution.

Oh and eric the tool that Apple has is called CSAM and look it up to see how Open Source is no longer a luxury to have but a necessity with that.

That's a Spambot. And not even a particularly realistic facsimile thereof.

0 games, registered this month, no avatar, vapid reply that didn't actually say anything? It's a GPT bot in the wild.

That's why people believe in the Dead Internet theory.
Tell me, are you a bot Darvond (because I can't pronunciate nor write your new nick. hahaha)?

Would a bot wilfully name a furry artist such as FierceDeityLynx or Trinity-Fate? Or even dare to mention artists such as Feastings2 or Ci44? Whygena, home of the infamous mouse mage?

Nah, my new name is just the same as my old name, but in ancient runic.