Apple's week September 19: nerd Christmas

I'm writing this with my iPad mini tuned to the camera that can see my driveway, Relay Podcastathon on the iPad Pro, waiting for a delivery. It's a similar scene in nerd homes across the world, as the worst possible thing that can happen is the delivery driver deciding to skip your house while you weren't paying attention.

Yes, I have driven to catch up with a delivery driver before. No, I am not proud of it.

Of course, that means you'll just have to wait on my impressions of these fancy new devices just a little longer. I'll be discussing them and sharing tidbits on Bluesky, but I'm also writing a full review for the iPhone 17 Pro Max that'll go out in the next week or so.

Let's get into the news.

• Meta Ray-Ban Display isn't an Apple Vision competitor
• iPhone Air MagSafe Battery has better alternatives
• visionOS 26 is a preview of where this is all going
• Austin Mann's iPhone 17 Pro review in the Dolomite Mountains
• Tyler Stalman's iPhone 17 Pro camera review

iPhone photography

I've been thinking a lot about iPhone photography over the past week. I won't get too far into the weeds here because I need to save some for the iPhone review, but there is a lot to say.

I linked to Tyler Stalman's and Austin Mann's iPhone 17 Pro camera reviews this week because they both always do an excellent job discussing these cameras. They're both worth a watch because they have differing opinions on the iPhone camera system that I find fascinating.

Stalman loves that the iPhone camera can be configured in a way that can make it provide photos that don't have the usual smartphone look. Then there's Mann, who leans into the smartphone look with Photographic Styles.

I agree with both approaches and actually utilize either depending on the situation. I haven't tried the new lossy format Stalman discusses, generally leaning to ProRAW, but he's got me curious. 

Mann's approach is closer to my own – set a Photographic Style as a default then use them for edits. I only switch out of this mode when trying to capture a very specific shot in specific conditions.

I went in depth on Photographic Styles in my iPhone 16 Pro Max review and still use them constantly today. Making them reversible truly changed iPhone photography for the better.

If you're not using any of the Photographic Styles, I highly encourage everyone to go enable one as a default and try editing with them. They're not filters, but a deep access to the photography pipeline that lets you edit the photo as if you're taking it for the first time.

Anyway, as great as Photographic Styles are, they don't fully eliminate the smartphone look. There's a kind of sharpness and denoising that takes place in all smartphone photography that's unmistakable to most photographers. While I don't mind it, a lot of photographers go out of their way to eliminate this look and bring their photos closer to a DSLR style.

Halide is an excellent option for this, but I've also found ProRAW to be quite good. In some situations, you can get the iPhone photos to look quite close to DSLR, but pixel peeping usually still shows some signs of the smaller smartphone sensor at play.

With each passing year, I've relied on my Sony a7ii less and less. Sure, I could probably buy a new camera, this one is pushing a decade, but I'm not sure I need to. I pretty much only use it for product shots these days, but I've considered using the iPhone more.

I'm curious how the new cameras will play into my day-to-day. My review will likely focus on the new telephoto camera since there's little change to the others.

I understand people's desire for more DSLR-like photos from smartphones, but I'm not sure I'm offended by Apple's output like others are. Photography has more to do with how you take the photo than the equipment, and iPhone can get some stunning results.

An augmented reality future

I've already spent half of a podcast and an entire article on this topic, but I'll spill a little more ink as I continue to think about it. Meta's new Display glasses are getting some attention, and I continue to have thoughts.

I don't care how people want to categorize these glasses, but they're not AR, they don't compete with Apple's Vision platform, and their price and style are prohibitive. It is odd that I'm not really seeing these things discussed across tech media as they're hyping them up.

I'm excited for the AR future. I want glasses that display similar widgets and information available in Apple Vision Pro. Meta does have the Oculus, so it is conceivable that the Meta Display could eventually meet Oculus in the middle.

But I'm not buying it.

Meta is too fickle. The regular glasses aren't selling that great, and if this second generation doesn't do gangbusters, I expect Meta to pack up and move on. There is no world where the $800 Display version does well in the market.

However, Apple will stick to its guns. Apple Vision Pro is just the first step, and I expect we'll see a smaller, lighter headset in the next year. True AR glasses are far off, but there's a chance Apple could play in the Ray-Ban Meta space, sans display, in 2026.

It'll be interesting to see what Apple does there, if anything. Apple could call it a Vision product, even if it doesn't have a display to run visionOS.

There's also a good chance they won't come to market. If they do, it'll probably be a mix of AirPods tech, the Center Stage selfie camera, but facing out, and Siri integration via iPhone.

That said, Apple will emphasize its other product rather than replace them. This new category will be a new wearable like Apple Watch, not an alternative to iPhone.

I believe Meta's mistake with the Display is that it expects users will want to effectively replace their smartphone. It's not going to happen.