No.104968
>>104966means a lot of for profit tech startups will go under. Things which are already producing a profitable product will keep on doing as normal. Other things will probably sell their IPs into more successful companies with lots of free cashflow.
No.104969
>>104968If Facebook buys VRChat so help me god...
No.104971
>>104966That's some serious ownage.
No.107163
>>>/megu/1055Sorta. This is VRChat, so they're using one form or another of full body tracking (Likely Vives, SlimeVR, or HaritoraX). For example, take this video. They're using 6 tracking points total, 1 headset, 2 controllers, a waist tracker, and 2 feet trackers. In
>>>/megu/1054, they're almost certainly 2 people in completely different locations just synchronizing their motions. Also entirely possible is that the other avatar there that's just on the table is a "puppet" that they spawned from their avatar; something like that is completely within the realm of possibility.
No.107164
Maybe I should demo my SlimeVR trackers one day.
No.107165
>>107163It's odd, because in some of these the dude doesn't seem to move at all or is limited to swaying back and forth like some sorta drum machine, I'd almost say as well this for the one where she's getting pinned down, so I also thought it could be a puppet. In the one you linked brownie does move indepedently but remains static in the second part, possibly because it indeed is remote and they can't react due to not seeing what's going on while perhaps having no physical feedback. Weird stuff, weird stuff.
No.107167
>>107163i shouldn't be surprised and yet i am
the future is now
No.108873
>>108871Furries are the ones really getting into VR right now aren't they? I remember that in VRchat they're all over the place.
No.108874
>>108873Yeah. There's quite a lot of furries in VRChat and Neos. Makes sense. Spending money on a VRChat avatar and VR setup isn't so different from spending money on a fur suit. There's also just a lot of regular people too given how cheap and accessible the Quest 2 is.
No.109039
>>108874Neos specifically has the reputation of being full of furries. I don't really care, but if anyone wants to find them that's where you'll find a higher concentration.
(I wonder if there's money in making virtual fursuits...)
>>109037Cool! Good to see there's still new hardware being made. Does this mean older stuff will be cheaper?
No.109040
>>109039A bit. Quest 2 went down in price back to its launch MSRP of $299 for the 128GB model. Whenever the Quest 3 releases in the fall, the Quest 2 should probably be able to be found for fairly cheap used as well.
Quest 3 is going to be $499 but will have better lenses, better mixed reality, no room setup because of the depth sensor, and 2x the performance. Tracking might seems questionable for the controllers though since there's no longer cameras on the top so stuff like Beat Saber might track the controllers worse. That part is speculation though.
No.109041
>>109037Alright I'm watching even though I don't have a VR thing
No.109042
>>109041OK I finished watching it.
The Attack on Titan and Asgard games seemed cool, although I think the former would make me nauseous pretty fast. Sega bringing back that maracas game is pretty nice, too.
No.109095
has anyone ever met the koruri guy in vrchat
No.109097
>>109095I don't follow their twitter enough, but I really should to see if I can find them during the next comic vket.
No.109232
Whelp. WWDC was today and the Apple headset, "Apple Vision Pro" got announced today. $3500.
Beyond the fact that I still cannot believe that they decided to really decided to have a screen on the front to show people your eyes like was reported about a year or more ago... It just looks so bad... That aside, on the usability of the headset I'm not convinced.
The headset will not having ANY VR-style controls at all. Instead, for navigating the VERY limited UI, it's entirely "touch" based with hand tracking and eye-tracking. Eye-tracking could work as seen in PSVR2, but the hand track is a bit of a question mark for me. The headset very clearly is AR/MR (augmented reality/mixed reality) focused with next to no focus on gaming. They did show someone using a PS5 controller to play a "flatscreen" basketball game, and a keyboard for typing, but eh...
In terms of specs, they're were a bit light. "23 million pixels". Per eye would be maybe 3400 pixels squared, or in my opinion, potentially ~4000 x 3000 pixels for a more 4:3 aspect ratio per eye (which would make more sense given leaks mentioning the headset having a 4K display). Compared to other headsets, this is a dramatic jump in resolution. The Quest Pro, for example, has a resolution of only 1920x1800 per eye. In other words, the Apple Vision Pro has a resolution more than 3 times greater. There's no word on FOV, but it's probably safe to assume that it has a similar FOV to other headsets, meaning likely around 100 degree, maybe up to 110 degrees. Conservative estimate of 105 degrees would mean it could have a PPD of ~32 pixels per degree. For reference, most VR headsets at the moment are around 18-20 PPD. 40 PPD is the lower limit for where most people would no longer be able to distinguish individual pixels. So, the visual experience is certainly going to be unmatched at the very least.
They also mentioned that the headset will have an M2 processor and secondary processor, the so called R1, for managing the 12 cameras on the headset and tracking. The M2 is an incredibly powerful processor and should be head and shoulders above the current VR processors from Snapdragon such as the XR2.
The headset also features a battery pack. By itself, they mentioned that the headset has a battery life of 2 hours, which is fairly typical, however the headset will instead utilized a battery pack that can be put into your pocket rather than having it in the headset or mounted on the strap. The connector for the battery, however, is unfortunately proprietary. The front of the headset, in typical Apple fashion, is entirely made of glass with the headset's main body being made from aluminum. The headstrap itself is somewhat unconventional and has a wide knitted backing with no top strap. It appears to have quite impressive speakers built-in, which should be a relief given that the headset has no 3.5mm jack.
In terms of software though... Things were a lot more lackluster. There was a lot of pre-rendered CG with no real glances at the OS in action. The home basically looked like an app drawer arranged in a hexagonal pattern. The main application they showed was Disney+... Not exactly a world class experience to write home about for your $3500 AR headset. As mentioned before, they showed off what looked like an NBA 2K game that was not VR and basically just a floating screen in front of the person's vision. That was kind of their main shtick. Virtual displays and no VR. However, they did show one interesting idea: instead of having a tap for passthrough like Meta/Oculus headsets, the Apple Vision Pro instead features an adjustable dial that allows users to increase or decrease how much they want to see of the outside world. The example they gave was using the headset on a flight and being able to turn the dial all the way to turn off passthrough and then be able to watch a movie (likely on Disney+) in peace. Albeit, likely to the announce of other passengers given the giant off-ear audio drivers in the headset.
Beyond the "Day 1" announcement of Disney+ being on the headset, they also mentioned that you will be able to use iPad apps in the headset. This could maybe be quite nice given that the iPad ecosystem has been improving considerably for productivity and creative work in recent years, but how usable it will be for those applications remains to be seen given the aforementioned lack of physical controllers.
All in all, the headset appears to be a fairly underwhelming piece of tech. The price is too high. The specs sound phenomenal. The software completely lackluster and uninspiring. Basically the equivalent of strapping an iPhone to your face and being able to shout at Siri to open YouTube.
No.109233
>>109232Here's a better view of the headset by itself. You can see the proprietary battery pack and the quite large off-ear speakers. The headstrap is also removable and the facial interface replaceable for different sizes, but they did not mention alternatives. Also visible are the myriad vents to cool the Apple M2 chip inside. What you cannot see is the dial on the right side of the headset for adjusting passthrough.
Frankly, for the price, given that news pundits were dunking on Meta for releasing a $1500 (now $1000) headset, the Meta Quest Pro, it's honestly a wonder who this headset is even for? It's too expensive for developers, and the lack of inputs make it questionable as far as how companies would even want to use it. At best it seems like a glorified media viewer.
No.109771
>>109232It seems like a step in the right direction for AR, but like you said it seems just too expensive and lackluster in its capability to really make any waves. Maybe if they make cheaper generations or find better uses for it outside of being a glorified iphone then maybe it'll start to shape the environment of AR going forwards. Although I have my doubts that Apple will really be pioneers of the future with the way they are.
No.109772
>>109232The eye things makes a lot of sense, it looks silly but without it you would never know if somebody was watching a movie or watching what was in from of them in real life and even if they did know that they had the person attention without having eyes to look at having a conversation would be weird.
This product seems more like a prototype to me, but I do wonder if they will ever be able to turn this into what they want it to be. Battery technology has a limit, I don't think it's certain that they will be able to fix the battery life and weight to the degree that people would be able to replace their smart phones with it.
No.111521
it used to work on linux
No.114855
>>114854You know I never really hear about it all too often, but how is the audio on these things?
No.114856
>>114855As far as the Quest 2 goes, the default audio is just kind of okay. Personally, I use an attachment to have better on-ear audio, and anecdotally most people I know either use headphones or something else. Not sure about Quest 3. When I demoed it at a store I couldn't really tell if the audio was coming from the display or from the headset itself. If it was coming from the headset, it felt a lot more spatial than the Quest 2 and I could see myself living with the default audio.
No.115414
>>115413However, on another note I was recently a bit intrigued by some of the other prospects of VR and wondered what it's like for more vehicle simulator games. Knowing how the cockpits for stuff like DCS are, I thought that it'd be near perfect for replacing the monitors with VR and it seems like that's true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=op3N3NVuoSwDon't know how you'd really immerse yourself more than this+VR, it seems like a match made in heaven. Only thing that I'm left wondering about VR is if it's somewhat constrained view-wise, or if it gives you side views such that it emulates actual eyesight fov. If someone were to try setting up one of these, what do you think the ideal headset would be?
No.115415
>>115413I've seen something that looks very similar to that before years ago.
Oh, looking at the date that's from 7 years ago.
For mainstream appeal I guess you'd want to do guns, but I think swords and shields would be far more fun and good for exercise. For magic you could hold a staff or just use your hands and move them around in specific patterns to invoke magic. That would be so cool. But then you have to worry about stuff like tennis elbow, or "wii-itis" as they called it for the Nintendo Wiimote. Speaking of, Nintendo would probably be the company that could make VR popular, although once it creates cool gimmicks for its systems developers rarely make use of them...
No.115416
>>115415>Oh, looking at the date that's from 7 years ago.Yeah, looking at more recent stuff posted it looks like the tech has really come far.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6Nh05Qjs4o&t=2sAnd then if you were to combine that with a full-body haptic suit it looks like it'd be actually as close to a full dive vrmmo as we can currently get.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHl969qJS5cAlthough, ballparking the price of actually purchasing all the equipment you'd need for it, it's upwards of like 10k for a near perfect experience so probably still extremely far from widely affordable enough to make an mmo based around. So that future is (sadly) still far out of reach.
No.115421
>>115414>Only thing that I'm left wondering about VR is if it's somewhat constrained view-wise, or if it gives you side views such that it emulates actual eyesight fov.FOV is one of the main specifications when looking at VR headsets. Every headset will be different. The Quest 2 for example is about 95 degrees of horizontal FOV and 98 degrees of vertical FOV.
>If someone were to try setting up one of these, what do you think the ideal headset would be?Well... This depends on a lot of things and what you personally value. The best headset in terms of specs alone would probably be the Varjo Aero which has a claimed horizontal FOV of 115 degrees horizontal and 134 degrees diagonal. It has the highest resolution of any currently available consumer VR headset at 2880x2720 per eye and is limited to 90Hz. That said, it is a traditional bulky form factor headset.
It's nearest competitor is probably the Bigscreen Beyond which has the form factor of a pair of goggles. It's resolution is 2560 x 2560 @ 75Hz; it has a 90Hz mode but this is through DSC (display stream compression) or something? It's FOV is pretty small, however. Somewhat smaller than Quest 2. It's roughly 98 degrees horizontal and 90 degrees vertical.
Both headsets are roughly the same price: $999 USD and $990 USD/EUR. Both rely on the base station ecosystem, meaning you would require a minimum of a single $150 base station required for tracking (not included). This should be fine for sims but for roomscale VR, like VRChat, it's recommended to buy a second or third base station so that you don't suffer from occlusion. The base stations project a planar IR laser that the device captures with IR photosensors placed across its surface to determine the angle and relative distance from the base station. Naturally, this means if there's something between you and the base station, or if you're not facing it, then the device loses tracking. Controllers are also not included with either headset either. The typical controller people use with base stations is the Valve Knuckles controllers which are $280.
>>115415>Nintendo would probably be the company that could make VR popularI mean... They tried to with the Switch Labo VR, but that flopped... Oculus Meta has been doing pretty good. They sold at least 15 million Quest 2s which beat out how many consoles the current Xbox has sold so they're not doing too badly for themselves.
>>115416>And then if you were to combine that with a full-body haptic suitI'm pretty sure the "company" (really just a single guy) making those haptic suits quit and gave up... The two main haptics vests/shirts are from OWO and bHaptics. OWO is essentially a shirt that uses electrode contacts embedded in the shirt to induce muscle contractions. bHaptics on the other hand is more traditional and uses individual rumble motors to simulate touch across a grid of contact points. Both are much, much, more limited in their abilities than most VR accessories because they require actual support from games.
https://owogame.com/https://www.bhaptics.com/>Although, ballparking the price of actually purchasing all the equipment you'd need for it, it's upwards of like 10k for a near perfect experienceWell...
¥Headset: Bigscreen Beyond - $999¥Controllers: $279¥Base Stations (3): $450¥Vive Trackers 3.0 (3): $390¥Kat Walk VR C2+: $1499¥OWO "Original Edition Kit": 499 EUR (528.49 USD)Total (Pre-tax): ~$4150 USD.
Personally, I think VR treadmills are gimmicks :/
No.115422
>>11541610k. Bleh. If only arcades were still a thing. I can't imagine VR would mix well with the "barcade" thing (if those people would even try it)
>It's resolution is 2560 x 2560 @ 75Hz;Damn, that's pretty good. I think I remember reading that graphics don't really matter as much for believable VR experience, though. You could have no textures at all and people can still accept it as a "real" environment if the other stuff like physics and movement are good. These resolutions are going to make the GPU requirements so high.
> They tried to with the Switch Labo VR,Was that the cardboard thing? That's, uhh... well, something, I guess.
>OWOHeh. Was it a group of furries that went professional or was it a funny coincidence?
I guess those prices aren't bad (although out of my range obviously), but then there's the thought of them being obsolete next year...
No.115423
>>115422>graphics don't really matter as much for believable VR experience, thoughSure, but that does not mean that there's not something better. When it comes to VR, I think the Valve Index is honestly the kind of bare minimum when it comes to resolution now. The types of display, optics, FOV, and refresh rate also make a big difference.
OLED is seen as the best of the best because it has perfect blacks whereas LCDs look gray in dark scenes.
"Pancake" lenses are the ideal lens optics currently because they are perfectly clear throughout. Older Fresnel lenses had a very small sweet spot, had lots of glare, and required larger headsets because of lower magnification.
FOV is kind of meh for everything... When you increase FOV you naturally require a larger headset, and more complex optics. The only company doing this is Pimax, but their hardware is kind of... lacking, to be polite. Increased FOV comes at the direct trade-off of less over all clarity because if the resolution remains the same, you're spreading the same number of pixels across a wider area. To counteract this, the Pimax headsets have absurdly high resolutions as well, but still pretty meager PPD (pixels per degree). Also, it's worth repeating that resolution numbers are per eye, so if you see "2560 x 2560 @ 75Hz" that means your PC has to render 2560 x 2560 @ 75 Hz twice.
As far as refresh rates go, 72 to 75Hz is the minimum for VR, but 120Hz is target for most.
There's also the question of tracking. Standalone VR headsets like the Quest 3 or Pico 4 can track themselves, and this means no wires tethering you to a PC. If you're streaming from a PC, however, this means that you may have more compression artifacts than using a direct cable, which some people complain about, and this naturally depends on how good your WiFi is.
>Was it a group of furries that went professional or was it a funny coincidence?I'm not sure about its founding, but from what I've seen of it, they seem more "gamer" focused. Their shirts look like esports jerseys, and their booths at places like CES look pretty normal and generic "gamer-y".
No.115508
>>115421>That said, it is a traditional bulky form factor headsetHow much of a noticeable factor would you say the bulkiness of a set is? If it can be an issue to the point where it actually feels like it's weighing down your head, then I feel like that'd be a bad choice for the long term. In which case probably the other one would seem better, especially if increased FOV decreases clarity like stated in
>>115423, that's a much worse tradeoff. Although I'm surprised that it's cheaper than I though, but still a full set is really still completely outside of a reasonable price range for most people, so I guess the time until they're adopted into the mainstream is still pretty far.
>(really just a single guy)That sucks. You'd think with VR being talked up so much by big companies they'd be interested in such a product to further enhance people's immersion into their metaverses. But maybe cutting it down to just main parts of the body is all that's really seen as necessary for haptic stuff. Although, being able to touch and feel stuff would really up the immersion factor by a thousandfold. Also while treadmills may be gimmicks now, maybe sometime in the future they'll be more incorporated into the general setup if maybe some AAA dev realizes the potential for first person games. Seems unlikely, but Valve's always up to whatever so I think there's a chance. Just think of how cool it'd be to rock climb in a game like this with actual physical controls
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP797pQuo10 (speaking of wonder how this game is doing now)
>If you're streaming from a PC, however, this means that you may have more compression artifacts than using a direct cable, which some people complain about, and this naturally depends on how good your WiFi isI know this makes sense, but it makes me wonder how Stadia or other game streaming stuff were able to work and supposedly boast 4k@60fps if not even a local area connection can accomplish the same from a vr headset.
>>115423>they seem more "gamer" focusedRather than gamers themselves, I assume?
No.115511
>>115508>How much of a noticeable factor would you say the bulkiness of a set is?It depends on the headset and is a combination of two factors: weight and distance off of your face. The more mass there is hanging off of your face and the farther it is away, the more it resists movement when you make quick motions as you turn your head. If you slowly turn your head around it's not too big of an issue, and the top strap should generally be supporting the weight of the headset, not your face, anyways. For casual experiences, weight doesn't matter too much, but lower weight and more compact size will always be more comfortable than heavier and bulkier.
>increased FOV decreases clarityMaybe I should have been a bit more precise. Increased FOV
at the same resolution decreases clarity. The main metric used to compare clarity between headsets is pixels per degree, or PPD. Essentially it is horizontal resolution divided by horizontal FOV. So, for example, if you had two headsets that were both 2560 x 2560 per eye, but one was 100 degrees of horizontal FOV and the other was 140 degrees of horizontal FOV, the one with the lower FOV would appear significantly clearer (25.6 PPD vs 18.2 PPD). For reference, 20/20 vision is approximately 60 PPD, but most people will find 40 PPD to be good enough (I'm not really sure how to describe this. As in, for most consumer applications 40 PPD is seen as being an optimal target for clarity). Currently, most headsets are in the range of ~20 PPD.
>You'd think with VR being talked up so much by big companies they'd be interested in such a product to further enhance people's immersion into their metaverses.A lot of the more immersive stuff in VR is pretty much the domain of startups. As mentioned, there's OWO and bHaptics with their haptics stuff, KAT VR and others with their slide mills, and SlimeVR and Kinect2VR with DIY/Low-cost full-body tracking. Even the companies making headsets are mostly startups. Pico (owned by ByeDance, the parent company of TikTok) and Meta (Formerly Oculus, Formerly Facebook) are the two big manufacturers of headsets. There's also Valve, HTC, Pimax, BigScreen, Varjo, and HP. HP is getting out of VR, and BigScreen is only just now launching their first headset.
And, honestly, there really isn't any such thing as a "metaverse". There's certainly no Sony PSVR "metaverse", and there's no real Meta "metaverse", and there's not a Pico "metaverse" either. There's social games like VRChat, RecRoom, Resonite (Sort of "formerly NeosVR". It's complicated...), Meta Horizons, and a few others not really worth mentioning. VRChat alone has concurrent player counts over 40K, Resonite (the furry one) is ~250, and I can only guess there's
merely dozens of people using Facebook's Meta Horizons... I don't think the "metaverse" as Facebook/Meta described it will be a thing until passthrough becomes much higher resolution, nearer to looking through a pane of glass than feeling like you're looking through cameras. Then we'll see more people using VR/MR for stuff like this. Playing a video in front of you.
>how Stadia or other game streaming stuff were able to work and supposedly boast 4k@60fpsYouTube-style compression. Headsets like the Quest 2 running at 120 Hz can do 200 Mb/s. A typical 1080P video on YouTube is about 8 Mb/s.
>Rather than gamers themselves, I assume?I didn't really mean it like that. I meant it in the way that e-sports is "gamer-y".
No.115512
>>115511>And, honestly, there really isn't any such thing as a "metaverse". There's certainly no Sony PSVR "metaverse", and there's no real Meta "metaverse", and there's not a Pico "metaverse" either. There's social games like VRChat...I feel like the true metaverse will only be realized by a AAA budget with also the willingness to allow mods (unlike vrchat). This leaves pretty much only Valve as a potential candidate to actually build one. I hope they do, too, since I don't know how much I trust any of the other companies with running one.
No.115513
Valve will finish the metaverse before adding a new, ready made gun to tf2
No.117709
Got to play some beat saber at christmas and it's really fun, VR certainly feels much better to actually play than just looking at.
No.119339
>>119330For once, I really want to go to an Apple store and try one out. Generally speaking, though, the reviews I've seen seem generally pretty underwhelming. Apple has pushed that this is a platform for, "Spatial Computing," but they really haven't put any particular focus into software that would really make that a reality. At the moment, the headset has the typical apps you would find on a new smartphone: photos, settings, messages, a browser, music... Nothing that would really draw anyone into using it. Even what should be a major selling point, of being able to connect it to Macbook seems underwhelming. You can spawn a handful of any number of other apps, but you're limited to a single screen from an actual computer. What apps do seems available mostly come from cross-compatibility with iPad apps. Obviously a $3599-4000 headset isn't particularly even focused towards gaming, but from what I've seen there aren't even really any games available at the moment either.
The biggest flaw I see is that the input method of using your eyes to select UI items is fairly inconvenient. For example, sitting in front of a normal PC, you can look around and type and click on things as you wish, but to actually select anything you need to literally be looking directly at what you want to select. This is why every other sensible VR headset on the market ships with controllers. Or, as is the case on Oculus/Meta headsets, you can emulate controllers with your hands and either physically interact with windows by tapping, or by using a virtual pointer with hand gestures. The other thing I've noticed is that much less care has actually been given to using applications and organizing them within your view. On the Quest, for example, multitasking windows spawn connected to the main taskbar. From that taskbar you then also have the ability to launch other VR applications, or you can close windows by tapping the X in the corner. On the Apple headset, there's no equivalent taskbar, and windows can be placed anywhere. That naturally allows for much more freedom, but it's unstructured nature leads your immediate vicinity to end up looking cluttered with windows on top of windows with no real management to speak of. This is honestly the weirdest thing about the Apple Vision Pro to me. It seems a considerable amount of time went into the styling of the UI, but little effort seems to have been put into thinking about how people will actually use it. It feels like they expect users to only ever want to open a single window, and when they're done using that application, they close it and return to the app drawer. For example, you can look at the clear level of attention put in, by virtue of the realistic shadows that windows cast onto the real, physical environment that surrounds you. Shadows respect depth and are not just an overlay, and much attention was put into masking out the user's hands and arms so that they can interact with menus and the UI. But then you see other things, like for example, when in "immersive mode" objects that are in your immediate surroundings are not highlighted or masked out like the user's hands and arms. This has become a fairly standard feature on Quest headsets which highlights the contours of objects to prevent the user from bumping into furniture or from stepping on their cat, but it's nowhere to be found on the Apple Vision Pro, seemingly. At most, the Apple Vision Pro seems to decrease the opacity of your VR surroundings to show you the real world, but this looks frankly kind of amateurish. When the headset is capable of seamlessly scanning your surroundings such that the user never has to set up a placespace thanks to the LiDAR sensor mapping out the physical contours of the room, it seems like a massive oversight to then not do anything with that data other than tracking the user's hands and arms and allowing the creation of an AR persona by scanning the user's face out of the headset.
The more I think about the Apple Vision Pro, despite it's phenomenal specs that far surpass anything else on the market at the moment, the actual operating system itself seems almost embarrassing and unlike Apple. That may in part be due to the long development time of the Apple Vision Pro, and it's tenuous status during said long development time; I recall one anecdote from an article written about the headset before it was announced, describing how the project leads had to personally go before executive-level management to vouch for the project. On the other hand, perhaps it's not surprising. Over the last decade Apple has become much more focused on their mobile products, iPhone and iPad, their golden children, much to the languishing of their Mac products that increasingly feel like an afterthought. Although their initial ARM M1 processor was heralded as revolutionary, how much has actually been said about Macbooks and iMac, and Mac Minis since? According to some metrics I can find online, Apple by shipment numbers, made up as much as ~13% of all PC sales in Q3 2023, but this feels incredibly inflated. In the early 2010s, Apple's OS X devices felt far more prevalent than they do now. Furthermore, most people are not out buying a PC with any regularity. The Steam hardware survey seems far more grounded, and the story it tells is that Apple devices make up less than 1.5% of devices surveyed. That's even less than Linux which is near 2%! It's really no wonder then why there's iPad compatibility and not OS X application compatibility then, but at the same time, everything one would likely need or want to do productivity-wise is something that would need to be done on an OS X device, which is what makes this feel so short-sighted.