[Mirioron]

>For the same reason they were thinking about the "iPad" and then "iPhone" (tablet consideration actually came first internally even though in 2004 it was redirected toward the phone first) long, long before it "viable as a consumer product" duh. You don't get out ahead of things by waiting until after your competitors do it to get started, you make it happen early with your own R&D.

But that's exactly what happened with the iPad though. Apple's competitors had already released tablet-type devices for years, they just weren't really ready as consumer products: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Tablet_PC

[xoa]

I can't tell if you're trying to be serious or are being sarcastic. Like, Apple started work on the Newton in the late 80s and released the first one in 1993 too. So what? Viable consumer product for these things involved innovations in tech like multitouch capacitance vs resistance displays, a critical tipping point of processor, battery, wireless and display tech, the right UX and stack behind it, etc. But Apple didn't get there in 6 months, they did it on the back of years and years of R&D ahead of time. Same with stuff like their own chips, the PA Semi acquisition was in 2008, and the first real fruit (actual custom Apple core) was the A6 in 2012. Bringing it all the way back to notebook form factors took until the M1 (where PA Semi actually was aiming at with the 7W PWRficient), 12 years later. I'm genuinely befuddled that the idea of "get started years early" is a radical proposition to some people on HN. You also don't get useful patents in a field (critical nowadays in tech) without being way out in front. Even if the vast majority of R&D ends up leading to dead ends it's still worth it when it's important enough and gets close enough.

Identifying the likely optimal display mechanism has been primarily a matter of physics and biology. Without implants, can't do better than photons directly onto retina which also easily deals with lens/focus issues. There's never been anything to indicate that's physically impossible either. So "just" a matter of lots of hard work, but Apple has the kind of profit and strategic outlook to justify that. They've done so repeatedly. And this is central to their core business and talents as well. That other lesser tech might be of use in niches that aren't of interest to Apple, or that earlier efforts can't hit the strict superset tipping point, misses the forest for the trees.

[Bud]

I didn't ask why they didn't "think" about it a couple years early. I asked why they would make it a priority 10 years out.