Audiobus: Use your music apps together.

What is Audiobus?Audiobus is an award-winning music app for iPhone and iPad which lets you use your other music apps together. Chain effects on your favourite synth, run the output of apps or Audio Units into an app like GarageBand or Loopy, or select a different audio interface output for each app. Route MIDI between apps — drive a synth from a MIDI sequencer, or add an arpeggiator to your MIDI keyboard — or sync with your external MIDI gear. And control your entire setup from a MIDI controller.

Download on the App Store

Audiobus is the app that makes the rest of your setup better.

Apple Vision Pro reviews

Looks quite positive

«1345678

Comments

  • edited January 30

    Most of them seem to be pretty similar. It’s impressive tech without a real use case so far, and it gets heavy fast. The Verge had a pretty good review that went more into the downsides of the displays too.

  • edited January 30

    @Tarekith said:
    Most of them seem to be pretty similar. It’s impressive tech without a real use case so far, and it gets heavy fast. The Verge had a pretty good review that went more into the downsides of the displays too.

    real use case?
    3D porn...
    Edit: not just 3D, but AR+AI as well :smile:

  • I'm sure it's impressive quality but this is a developers version because it needs apps and to be lighter, slimmer, cheaper etc. I got bored pretty quickly sitting on the moon watching films in VR even though it's fun initially. And you can't even play the best VR games which are out there, so you can't even access some of the best VR experiences with it after spending that much.

    I also don't see the point of using an avatar in a virtual call when you can use your real face on something like Zoom which is better for everyone.

  • edited January 30

    @Tarekith said:
    Most of them seem to be pretty similar. It’s impressive tech without a real use case so far, and it gets heavy fast. The Verge had a pretty good review that went more into the downsides of the displays too.

    Yeah this video is much better, you can see the quality of the screen at the front, looks terrible. I expect they will drop this anyway one day when the glasses can reveal your real eyes, this is just a placeholder.
    Also it's good to hear a review from someone with VR experience and the field of view is too narrow, which I don't enjoy, especially not in AR mode.

    I think if Apple sold it as a VR headset which does really good AR it would be more genuine in their marketing.

  • @Carnbot said:
    Yeah this video is much better, you can see the quality of the screen at the front, looks terrible. I expect they will drop this anyway one day when the glasses can reveal your real eyes, this is just a placeholder.

    I suspect this is the first thing that will get dropped totally in the cost reduced consumer version for mere mortals.

  • @cyberheater said:

    @Carnbot said:
    Yeah this video is much better, you can see the quality of the screen at the front, looks terrible. I expect they will drop this anyway one day when the glasses can reveal your real eyes, this is just a placeholder.

    I suspect this is the first thing that will get dropped totally in the cost reduced consumer version for mere mortals.

    Yeah I expect so, also there's no chance I would ever buy a headset which doesn't allow sideloading. But I would expect it will be there by version 3 or 4.

  • @Carnbot said:
    I'm sure it's impressive quality but this is a developers version because it needs apps and to be lighter, slimmer, cheaper etc. I got bored pretty quickly sitting on the moon watching films in VR even though it's fun initially. And you can't even play the best VR games which are out there, so you can't even access some of the best VR experiences with it after spending that much.

    I also don't see the point of using an avatar in a virtual call when you can use your real face on something like Zoom which is better for everyone.

    AR and VR are still niche markets, but at least AR will become less so after the "killer apps" are developed. We don't even know what that might be yet.

  • edited January 30

    @Tarekith said:
    Most of them seem to be pretty similar. It’s impressive tech without a real use case so far, and it gets heavy fast. The Verge had a pretty good review that went more into the downsides of the displays too.

    This could be the toughest opponent for VP initially:

  • @Carnbot said:

    @cyberheater said:

    @Carnbot said:
    Yeah this video is much better, you can see the quality of the screen at the front, looks terrible. I expect they will drop this anyway one day when the glasses can reveal your real eyes, this is just a placeholder.

    I suspect this is the first thing that will get dropped totally in the cost reduced consumer version for mere mortals.

    Yeah I expect so, also there's no chance I would ever buy a headset which doesn't allow sideloading. But I would expect it will be there by version 3 or 4.

    Unless legally compelled to I really doubt apple will allow any side loading.

  • @NeuM said:

    @Carnbot said:
    I'm sure it's impressive quality but this is a developers version because it needs apps and to be lighter, slimmer, cheaper etc. I got bored pretty quickly sitting on the moon watching films in VR even though it's fun initially. And you can't even play the best VR games which are out there, so you can't even access some of the best VR experiences with it after spending that much.

    I also don't see the point of using an avatar in a virtual call when you can use your real face on something like Zoom which is better for everyone.

    AR and VR are still niche markets, but at least AR will become less so after the "killer apps" are developed. We don't even know what that might be yet.

    I expect most likely it will always be niche, because people like to interact with real things but I'm sure it will grow to be a significant niche.

  • @cyberheater said:

    @Carnbot said:

    @cyberheater said:

    @Carnbot said:
    Yeah this video is much better, you can see the quality of the screen at the front, looks terrible. I expect they will drop this anyway one day when the glasses can reveal your real eyes, this is just a placeholder.

    I suspect this is the first thing that will get dropped totally in the cost reduced consumer version for mere mortals.

    Yeah I expect so, also there's no chance I would ever buy a headset which doesn't allow sideloading. But I would expect it will be there by version 3 or 4.

    Unless legally compelled to I really doubt apple will allow any side loading.

    Yes I mean they will probably be made to allow it by then as they will need more people to buy and develop for it.

  • @Carnbot said:

    @cyberheater said:

    @Carnbot said:

    @cyberheater said:

    @Carnbot said:
    Yeah this video is much better, you can see the quality of the screen at the front, looks terrible. I expect they will drop this anyway one day when the glasses can reveal your real eyes, this is just a placeholder.

    I suspect this is the first thing that will get dropped totally in the cost reduced consumer version for mere mortals.

    Yeah I expect so, also there's no chance I would ever buy a headset which doesn't allow sideloading. But I would expect it will be there by version 3 or 4.

    Unless legally compelled to I really doubt apple will allow any side loading.

    Yes I mean they will probably be made to allow it by then as they will need more people to buy and develop for it.

    There's no "monopoly" in AR/VR headsets and there's no reason for Apple to do that. Their headset is getting great reviews, but the market for this will develop slowly until these can be worn as easily as a pair of sunglasses and worn all day. It'll get "there" eventually.

  • I’m open minded about this as a first iteration of something new. Apple always has its critics - iPod / iPhone / AirPods were met in some quarters with complete derision and bound to fail.

    I think underestimating apple is probably a mistake at this point and if the rumours are true - that they’ve sold 200+ thousand of these already (about $700m worth) - they may be on to something.

  • @NeuM said:
    but the market for this will develop slowly until these can be worn as easily as a pair of sunglasses and worn all day. It'll get "there" eventually.

    Yes. The holy grail moment. Easy to put on, light, all day battery life with incredible visuals and tracking and amazing performance to boot. I'm hoping less than 5 years away.

  • @NeuM said:

    @Carnbot said:

    @cyberheater said:

    @Carnbot said:

    @cyberheater said:

    @Carnbot said:
    Yeah this video is much better, you can see the quality of the screen at the front, looks terrible. I expect they will drop this anyway one day when the glasses can reveal your real eyes, this is just a placeholder.

    I suspect this is the first thing that will get dropped totally in the cost reduced consumer version for mere mortals.

    Yeah I expect so, also there's no chance I would ever buy a headset which doesn't allow sideloading. But I would expect it will be there by version 3 or 4.

    Unless legally compelled to I really doubt apple will allow any side loading.

    Yes I mean they will probably be made to allow it by then as they will need more people to buy and develop for it.

    There's no "monopoly" in AR/VR headsets and there's no reason for Apple to do that. Their headset is getting great reviews, but the market for this will develop slowly until these can be worn as easily as a pair of sunglasses and worn all day. It'll get "there" eventually.

    I'm sure it's just the way they will have to go if they want to operate in the EU in the future and they will need all markets for this device. It also makes sense for a headset. I use the sideloading feature all the time for file operations on my VR headset, it's a pro feature but I rarely buy anything outside the official appstore if ever. :)

  • @cyberheater said:

    @NeuM said:
    but the market for this will develop slowly until these can be worn as easily as a pair of sunglasses and worn all day. It'll get "there" eventually.

    Yes. The holy grail moment. Easy to put on, light, all day battery life with incredible visuals and tracking and amazing performance to boot. I'm hoping less than 5 years away.

    Exactly this. My guess is closer to ten years (mainly due to battery constraints - though we’re apparently still on the brink of a doubling of energy density) but it’ll get there.

  • edited January 30

    @swarmboy said:

    @cyberheater said:

    @NeuM said:
    but the market for this will develop slowly until these can be worn as easily as a pair of sunglasses and worn all day. It'll get "there" eventually.

    Yes. The holy grail moment. Easy to put on, light, all day battery life with incredible visuals and tracking and amazing performance to boot. I'm hoping less than 5 years away.

    Exactly this. My guess is closer to ten years (mainly due to battery constraints - though we’re apparently still on the brink of a doubling of energy density) but it’ll get there.

    Considering Apple is already using 3 nm scale chips (something I wasn't even sure I'd see in my lifetime) in their devices (which means they are extremely power efficient), it's not unreasonable to imagine in 5 years or less they'll have a very, very light and compact version of this headset. Something they'll have to do to get there is turn the entire front of the device into a "camera" and sensors which are as flat as possible to reduce weight and thickness to the front. I think they'll be able to do this by simulating camera lenses with much smaller sensors and then interpolating image information from the data collected using A.I.

  • @swarmboy said:
    I’m open minded about this as a first iteration of something new. Apple always has its critics - iPod / iPhone / AirPods were met in some quarters with complete derision and bound to fail.

    I think underestimating apple is probably a mistake at this point and if the rumours are true - that they’ve sold 200+ thousand of these already (about $700m worth) - they may be on to something.

    For comparison sake, Meta has sold around 12 million Quest 2 units and it isn't considered a success.

  • @NeuM said:

    @swarmboy said:

    @cyberheater said:

    @NeuM said:
    but the market for this will develop slowly until these can be worn as easily as a pair of sunglasses and worn all day. It'll get "there" eventually.

    Yes. The holy grail moment. Easy to put on, light, all day battery life with incredible visuals and tracking and amazing performance to boot. I'm hoping less than 5 years away.

    Exactly this. My guess is closer to ten years (mainly due to battery constraints - though we’re apparently still on the brink of a doubling of energy density) but it’ll get there.

    Considering Apple is already using 3 nm scale chips (something I wasn't even sure I'd see in my lifetime) in their devices (which means they are extremely power efficient), it's not unreasonable to imagine in 5 years or less they'll have a very, very light and compact version of this headset. Something they'll have to do to get there is turn the entire front of the device into a "camera" and sensors which are as flat as possible to reduce weight and thickness to the front. I think they'll be able to do this by simulating camera lenses with much smaller sensors and then interpolating image information from the data collected using A.I.

    Could be. TSMC have already announced at 2nm fab, for which Apple is reportedly the first customer…

  • @MadeofWax said:

    @swarmboy said:
    I’m open minded about this as a first iteration of something new. Apple always has its critics - iPod / iPhone / AirPods were met in some quarters with complete derision and bound to fail.

    I think underestimating apple is probably a mistake at this point and if the rumours are true - that they’ve sold 200+ thousand of these already (about $700m worth) - they may be on to something.

    For comparison sake, Meta has sold around 12 million Quest 2 units and it isn't considered a success.

    What's Meta's profit margin on those Quest 2 units?

    https://www.androidcentral.com/despite-quest-2-sales-success-meta-lost-102-billion-vrar-last-year

  • @MadeofWax said:

    @swarmboy said:
    I’m open minded about this as a first iteration of something new. Apple always has its critics - iPod / iPhone / AirPods were met in some quarters with complete derision and bound to fail.

    I think underestimating apple is probably a mistake at this point and if the rumours are true - that they’ve sold 200+ thousand of these already (about $700m worth) - they may be on to something.

    For comparison sake, Meta has sold around 12 million Quest 2 units and it isn't considered a success.

    I hear you and I’m not sold on the thing - the front facing screen is creepy as hell, it’s heavy and the battery pack.well…plus, is there an actual use case in its present form? Not sure.

    But still. 12 million quest 2s is something like $4bn across three years. Apple sold this many headsets in a weekend…in one country…and it’s really fucking expensive.

    And it was the same story with the initial iPod - Mac only, FireWire, much more expensive than the competition (close to $1k in today’s money) but everyone I knew who used one basically had to have one.

    The iPad, too - it was all “it’s just a big phone” but now it’s practically the generic noun for tablet computer. And similarly, everyone I knew who saw one went “oh, that’s cool and useful” and got one.

    So all this rambling aside, I guess it will depend on the actual users reactions to it.

  • edited January 31

    Apples augmented reality approach to this makes sense. It comes across as getting the infrastructure up and working before full blown implementation.

    Their strength has always been having a strong application architecture available to drive sales and that looks like what they are building now.

    From the looks of it wouldn’t be surprised to see actual glasses style AR optics in the next couple of years (likely some final technical challenges to overcome).

    Wouldn’t be surprised to see them move the processing to the iPhone with some some sort of high speed wireless connection. The iPhone 19 AR Pro Deluxe starting at only $4295 (256gb storage).

  • @NeuM said:

    @MadeofWax said:

    @swarmboy said:
    I’m open minded about this as a first iteration of something new. Apple always has its critics - iPod / iPhone / AirPods were met in some quarters with complete derision and bound to fail.

    I think underestimating apple is probably a mistake at this point and if the rumours are true - that they’ve sold 200+ thousand of these already (about $700m worth) - they may be on to something.

    For comparison sake, Meta has sold around 12 million Quest 2 units and it isn't considered a success.

    What's Meta's profit margin on those Quest 2 units?

    https://www.androidcentral.com/despite-quest-2-sales-success-meta-lost-102-billion-vrar-last-year

    I'll be honest. I have no idea. Meta has definitely lost billions so far in the VR headset space and quite frankly I'm surprised Zuckerberg continues to try, but I'm glad he does. I've owned a GearVR Note 4 edition (way back in 2016), a GearVR Note 8 edition, a Windows Mixed Reality headset for my PC and a Meta Quest 2. I'm a VR enthusiast through and through.

    When Apple announced AVP I was excited. I was watching when they unveiled it and it was a huge letdown. I had hoped they would somehow figure out a new form factor.

    I'll give credit where it's due, the AVP is a much more powerful device and it looks like a premium product (aside from the digital googly eyes) but it isn't what I was hoping for. I honestly thought if anyone could make VR awesome, Apple had the resources and the industrial design experience to pull it off.

    Maybe a few more iterations down the line it will be something closer to what I hoped it would be. But I'm afraid it will still be out of my price range.

  • @MadeofWax said:
    When Apple announced AVP I was excited. I was watching when they unveiled it and it was a huge letdown. I had hoped they would somehow figure out a new form factor.

    I'll give credit where it's due, the AVP is a much more powerful device and it looks like a premium product (aside from the digital googly eyes) but it isn't what I was hoping for. I honestly thought if anyone could make VR awesome, Apple had the resources and the industrial design experience to pull it off.

    We should consider the possibility that maybe this is the best that can be done with current technology in this space.

  • Yeah, I read that in the Post earlier today. The thought it provoked for me was "aren’t you a little late to the game on this, especially since the first entrant was Meta, fercryinoutloud?"

  • VR is only interesting to tech reviewers and people working in niche scenarios. And this version just doesn't have a use case it's not fixing a problem... We already have massive TVs and if we are on the ice fields of Greenland under the aurora we are probably there to get away from massive TVs. VR is tech companies pinning all their hopes on 90s technology.

    The problem is people wAnt/need to be less immersed than more immersed, look at how quickly rabbit sold in presales. Mobile phones and computers and to a lesser extent tablets became so ubiquitous because they solve a particular need. VR doesn't do that except in some weird utopian tech bro way.

    The fact is it's expensive, unwieldy and makes you feel seasick it's not for the general market... Ever...

    Plus it makes you look like a massive dork. And I'm sorry to say that's a major hurdle.

  • But every negative brought up in the article is pure speculation. That isn't an article, it's a hit piece.

  • wimwim
    edited January 31

    @NeuM said:

    But every negative brought up in the article is pure speculation. That isn't an article, it's a hit piece.

    Touched a nerve eh? 😂

    Of course it's speculation. They don't claim otherwise. Hit piece? I don't see it that way. What's wrong with healthy skepticism and speculation when it comes to new technology? I didn't read anything that wasn't a potential area of concern with the technology.

    Or is it just that the article is centered around an Apple product? You seem to become very defensive most times when anyone goes negative on Apple. That's just my personal impression. Could be unfair, and I'm not trying to piss you off.

    All that said. I trust Apple more than any other technology company when it comes to privacy protection. I will never trust anyone completely. And I definitely will never trust that anyone will be completely effective at preventing clever users of this stuff from figuring out ways to misuse it.

    Does that mean it should be suppressed or regulated? No. But it must be vigilantly watched. It opens up massive attack vectors that people won't likely be prepared to deal with.

  • @wim said:

    @NeuM said:

    But every negative brought up in the article is pure speculation. That isn't an article, it's a hit piece.

    Touched a nerve eh? 😂

    Of course it's speculation. They don't claim otherwise. Hit piece? I don't see it that way. What's wrong with healthy skepticism and speculation when it comes to new technology? I didn't read anything that wasn't a potential area of concern with the technology.

    Or is it just that the article is centered around an Apple product? You seem to become very defensive most times when anyone goes negative on Apple. That's just my personal impression. Could be unfair, and I'm not trying to piss you off.

    All that said. I trust Apple more than any other technology company when it comes to privacy protection. I will never trust anyone completely. And I definitely will never trust that anyone will be completely effective at preventing clever users of this stuff from figuring out ways to misuse it.

    Does that mean it should be suppressed or regulated? No. But it must be vigilantly watched. It opens up massive attack vectors that people won't likely be prepared to deal with.

    Oh, come on now. Washington Post is publishing a hit piece because they know that negative coverage gets more attention than neutral or positive coverage. This is not new. And it's also not news.

Sign In or Register to comment.