Limitless: An AI Podcast - DEBATE: iOS 26 Is Not Just An Update. Apple is Conditioning You.

Episode Date: September 24, 2025

David joins Limitless to debate iOS 26's liquid glass design, claiming that it’s “terrible” and “childish.” The discussion explores Apple’s potential move towards augmented reality, especially with Vision Pro, and ponders the implications of current design trends for future tech like smart glasses.------🌌 LIMITLESS HQ: LISTEN & FOLLOW HERE ⬇️https://limitless.bankless.com/https://x.com/LimitlessFT------TIMESTAMPS0:00 iOS Design Debate1:03 Animation Overload4:00 User Experience Perspectives5:39 Aesthetic History Lesson8:29 AR and Future Design13:00 Apple's Slow Evolution19:53 Competing Technologies27:19 Final Thoughts on Tech28:18 Closing Remarks------RESOURCESJosh: https://x.com/Josh_KaleEjaaz: https://x.com/cryptopunk7213------Not financial or tax advice. See our investment disclosures here:https://www.bankless.com/disclosures⁠

Josh, I think the new iOS design aesthetic on iPhone is terrible. I think it's childish. This is such a crazy take. This is an insane take. You come to our show as a guest on our show, and you just come and destroy the one thing that I love, which is iOS 26 and Liquid Glass. David, please explain to myself and all of the people with question marks in their head. Why do you hate iOS 26 and Liquid Glass?

So I downloaded and installed iOS, the new update, which you're supposed to do. And usually the aesthetic upgrades are like, you know, marginal. You get some new things. This one I download and everything is rounded. There's not a straight edge to be found at all in Apple anymore. There's just bubbles everywhere. Everything is a bubble. Everything is a bubble.

The animations around the bubbles, I think, are what really bug me. That's what caused me to text you being like, yo, iOS 26 sucks. So, like, the animation, which I've got one, we recorded this one of the notification bar animation. I had you text me this animation so we could record it and put on the screen. There's like three different phases of the animation. There's it like warping out onto the screen and then the bubble animation, it over extends where its final resting place would be.

And then it was like, oops, too far. Let me backtrack. And then as it backtracks, it also like fattenes out as well. And then it finally finds an equilibrium in like the final resting place. And then if you tap it, it like expands again. And it's just like, it's really cutesy. It goes too far. It gets too big.

It retracts a little bit. And the combination of just like, there's no rounded edges. The animations are all over the place. And then we get into the liquid glass contrasting, which like it got way better from when we saw it in the demos. But like, it still got this like childish disorderliness that I think is pervasive across the entire design. element. Like everything's a little too cutesy. It's a little bit too flowery. Uh, it's not simple.

And overall, I kind of think like iOS design should be just a means to an end to enable apps to become their best selves. And it feels like to me, some designer at Apple was like, you know what? I'm the main show today. This is my show. And iOS is just this one's designers opinions about how it should look. And it's just too much. I think it's too much. Like I get dizzy looking at it. I don't know. I'll stop ranting. But that was what caused me to text you.

Be like, yo, what are we doing here? Well, Apple developers, what? If I could synthesize this into like, to summarize what you just said, it's Apple developers are kind of taking the head of the show. They want to be the star of the show. They want the animations to shine. It is too much animation, too cute, too animated. You just want to get out of the way.

You want access to your apps. It's just not simple. It's not simple. It's like flowery and too much. Before I tell you why I really disagree with your opinion. I do want to ask EJS first what he thinks. That way we can just kind of have a litmus test on where everyone stands. So EJ does you feel similarly do hate the new design?

Here's why I can empathize with David, and here's why I think he might be wrong. I think I can empathize with David because he came in hating this thing before he even kind of like started to use it. And I share that. I share that. But I forged ahead and I got one of the new iPhones. And I have to say, since I started using it, it's actually pretty cool. It's actually very intuitive. The phone or the design?

The design. The liquid glass that you're referring to. And I don't really know if I can do a really good job at explaining why, but it's very intuitive and it makes the apps way more engageable. And I don't know whether that's to do with the light refraction or whether the buttons are popping up. Sometimes, David, I agree. It kind of feels like an overly engineered PowerPoint presentation.

from like the 2000s, but overall, I think it's pretty cool. Okay, before Josh defends us, defends Apple, excuse me, can we go into this way? Also, here's just a great example. The animation on like the little toggle apps

where you're like, you have to toggle something on or off. This is like a good example of it's Apple just doing a little bit too much more than it needs to. Here's an example of a guy who's just toggling, he's toggling airplane mode on or off. The classic toggle.

And again, there's three phases. It could just switch on and off, but first this little bubbly thing rises up from the actual screen, and it goes up, and then it goes over, and then it goes down. And I just wanted to turn a toggle to the other side, and it had to do this, like, three-part animation to do that. And, like, this design choice is pervasive across all iOS. It's just like, you added so much flourishness into your design. I don't know why did you have to do that. Why did you have to make it 3D? Just toggle on and off for me, please.

I think it's delightful. Do you not think it's delightful? Also, another thing is for speed and optimization. Iowa 17 actually loads apps quicker. It gets out of the way quicker. It does the animations a little bit faster. So I guess it's really just the aesthetic. That's the problem, right?

I guess so. I'm not going to complain about the snappiness. It is snappy. But I'm just, when I load up my apps and I open up my phone, like from the log screen, all the apps kind of like bounce in. and then they go too far, they go too far away from you, and then they bounce back after going too far.

And like, this could have been snappy. You're like, you're making me watch these animations before I can use my phone. Okay. It is fast, though. It does it fast. It just does too much fast. Too much.

Okay, so you don't like the aesthetic. That's fine. I think the aesthetic is probably subjective, but there's a reason why. I think we, to dismantle this argument, I do want to do a bit of a history lesson because we've been here before, David. People have been just as upset,

if not more upset it like you are. They've been waving their pitchforks in the air. They're like, this is terrible. Give us the old thing back. This is Iowa 7 on screen right now that we're seeing. That came out in 2013, I believe. So 12 years ago is when we first got iOS 7. And it was a similar redesign.

We have a left and right comparison here. iOS 7 is on the right. And iOS 6, I guess, was on the left. Yes. And prior to iOS 7, every operating system that Apple released looked pretty much the same. They updated the app icons a little bit. It was a little bit better. iOS 7 was a total redesign, and it looks like it.

I mean, some of the same words, David, that you're using to describe iOS 26, they were using for this. It was very fruity. It was very saturated. It was very animated. I'm now very worried because I'm looking at these two, and I'm like, iOS 7 is better. But everybody hated it. It was this horrible thing. Like, I cannot believe Johnny I've did this to us.

But the reality was it was the sign of a shift in terms of where technology was going. because the thing about iOS 26 is prior to iOS 7, which uses this thing called flat design, iOS 6, and before used this thing called skeuomorphism. And this was how basically all of the internet was designed in the early days. And skemorphism for people who are not familiar during the early days of the internet, there wasn't really a standard design practice for how to design software. So they just kind of copied what the real world looked like. So if we're looking at an example on screen of the early iOS, the books app on your phone looked just like a bookshelf in real life. and the compass app on your phone, well, it looks like a compass that you hold in your hand.

And even the microphone app just has a picture of a microphone with a record button. So you can speak into the microphone. Yes, and I think this is really hard for people to understand, but there really weren't these design practices in place on how to represent things in the digital world. You just took the physical representation of it and manifested it in this digital world, and that's why we have a calculator that looks like this.

The camera shutter was actually a digital shutter that actually opened and closed. It was totally useless. You did not need to do it, but it was comfortable for humans to use. Yes, exactly. And it was an easy way to transition people into this new thing, which was technology. It felt familiar. iOS 7 was the first time straying from that.

And it defined a new world order in which we actually just didn't use skemorphism at all. And we created new representations for these physical objects in the digital world. What we're seeing now with iOS 26 and liquid glass is another pivot away from that. Granted, this took 12 years, so people got very, very used to fly design. But David, I promise you it was for a good reason because a few years ago, two years ago now, maybe Apple released their Vision Pro and Vision OS, which is their...

Wow, those two years ago? Wow. I think it's moving quick, man. Yeah. So they released it, and basically what it is, is it's these VR goggles. And if you haven't seen it, highly recommend going to the Apple Store and getting a demo. It's incredible. And what we're seeing on screen here

is how you interact with it. And what you'll notice is a lot of the design elements that were featured in version 1 of Vision OS, which came out prior to iOS 26 is a lot of this three-dimensional liquid glass looking thing. It's meant for you to. So you might be seeing where I'm coming here.

We're trying to bend the design elements into the fabric of our environment because we are going into this AR world. Exactly. Yes. So if you'll remember just last week, Meta had this really cool announcement of their AR glasses,

or not AR glasses, but, you know, spatial glasses that are eventually going to become AR. Google is, working on glasses. Apple has the Vision Pro, and we'll talk about the iPhone Air a little bit sooner, but the iPhone Air is very much a practice run. I'm making smaller components to fit into glasses. So it's directionally heading towards a trend of spatial computing. And I think that's the new trend that we are shifting from as we approach the final form of what an iPhone looks like

and start to think about what the next form of computing and personal devices look like. That is going to be this liquid glass, this ambient computing. So what we're seeing here is okay, maybe it's a little animated, it's a little bit fruity, but, but this is getting people comfortable for what the future of computing is going to look like over the next few years, which is this augmented reality, virtual reality, interacting with these 3D worlds inside of our 3D reality. And that's why a lot of it's transparent. That's why a lot of it has different depth is because that same structure that you're looking at on 2D phone applies really, really well to a 3D world. Okay, so I appreciate this argument. We'll trace it over one more

time because I still have a little bit of pushback that I've shoehorned myself into this side of the argument. So I still have a little bit of pushback. But what you're saying is like the world of AR is upon us. The writing's on the wall. Apple has a product here. They have the Vision Pro. Meta just release a bunch of their products. They have their new Rayban glasses with a screen in it. Like we know that this future is here. And so what do we need to do? We need to start elevating our notification bubbles, our app windows to really have a three-dimensional capacity, even when they are on the old device being our phones. And so in our phones, we need to have the phones adapt to what's coming, which is we need

to put these windows, these bubble animated windows that have a dimensionality component to them. And we need them to make them look like how they will look like in the future to future proof the design aesthetic of iOS 24 or 26 so that when everyone's wearing glasses, they are already primed. They've already been working with these windows. And so it's not a big leap for them. Is that more or less what your argument?

You want to add anything to that? Yeah, no, that sounds great. I think what we're seeing this year, especially with the iPhone Air and with iOS 26, is a conditioning to the next type of computing. Yes. Were you being conditioned on mass? Slowly but surely, yes.

You're being trained like, hey, this is actually like cute and fun, and this is how you're going to interact with your phone going forward. Okay. And that's what's happening here. With the difference between what you're saying, which I believe in the coherence of that logic, I'm with you on that. But the difference between iOS 6.

and seven, the examples that we were going through is we eliminated skeuomorphism and we brought it into the nativeness of the device. And so that we are updating and bringing things forward into the future to match the device that is being paired with. What's happening here with this like, you know, liquid glass trying to prime our condition our people, are the consumers, into a future version is future's not here yet. and we're actually doing it on the old hardware, on the old form factor. And I think Apple is just getting ahead of themselves. Yes, they have the Vision Pro for like $3,000. They don't have anything close to what Meta just released. And so they are conditioning people for a future that they haven't built yet.

And actually, other people are in the lead. Meta's in the lead on this. And so unless Apple comes out with Apple like normal glasses, not a Vision Pro VR device, but just normal glasses, then they don't have anywhere to drop us off to with all of these design element upgrades on our phone if they don't have a glasses device to sell us. So what's up with that? Is putting the cart before the horse? Yeah, well, I mean, one thing to understand about Apple that I think we're all aware of, it is, it is like a four trillion ton behemoth that moves at the speed that you would assume. They move very slowly. These products roll out over many, many years of

time. So when they do these things, I mean, one of the forcing functions, I'm sure, was just they needed something to sell this year. And more than anything, this was just something interesting that they could sell in order to boost sales. I think it complements the iPhone air very nicely. The air feels like this light new cutting edge device. Having the glassy interface on top of it is nice. But it just, Apple moves slow. So you're absolutely right in the fact that they are not first, and it most definitely will not be first to market, in having a mass-producing. and like mass adopted version of an AR or VR headset. But when they do, they will have all of the design in place, battle tested with all the bugs

taken care of. I mean, you'll remember just the beta versions of iOS 26 were pretty horrible. Like you really couldn't read anything. You couldn't see anything. The animations were clunky. It was overheating. So also the bugs and the design takes time to kind of work itself out and to work through all the kings, finalize it.

And by the time it is finalized, by the time people like it, hopefully they will have some sort of vision, spatial experience that we could use. And I mean, if anything, I think it's pretty. I think a lot of people just enjoy using it. And I know you kind of hate the overly rambunctious animations, but a lot of people think it's just like, oh, it's just like a pretty nice OS update. So at the worst case, it's something pretty. Best case, it is conditioning people for a product that will hopefully come in the next

two, three, four years. I think that's the punchline of this is, are you a glass half full perspective or a glass half empty perspective? I think the glass half empty perspective is. They already tried to put the cart in front of the horse with Apple Intelligence. They've already extended themselves and lost that bet, made a bet on extending themselves into Apple Intelligence and lost. And now what I'm seeing is like, oh, they are putting the cart in front of the horse

by leading us, conditioning us for a future that they haven't built yet. And it's the same pattern as Apple Intelligence. Granted, I kind of think that a casual consumer Raybans-esque Apple Glass is product is actually much less of a risk to them than AI because they are fundamentally a hardware company and that's hardware, not software. But nonetheless, I'm seeing the same pattern of they already made one mistake with Apple Intelligence. And now they're doing the same thing again where they are building a future that they are

assuming exists and they are not the ones actually creating or in control of. So that's the glass half empty perspective. The glass half full perspective is that, oh, they actually do figure this out. Apple Intelligence does come. and they also have these really sick pair of glasses that they can put their screens and designs into. David, how long have you been using Apple products for, out of curiosity? I had a black and white Macintosh in my room growing up when I was two feet tall. Yeah.

So, and this isn't a question to trigger any sort of reaction, but why so bearish Apple? Is it because you see all this amazing AI stuff going on with other companies and you're like, Apple do something or did something else kind of like happen before? No, to be clear, I like, I don't want to be the Apple Bear. I just woke up one day and decided to text Josh about my annoyance of these animations. I love my AirPods. I wouldn't ever think of not buying an iPhone. I'm going to buy a MacBook every two to three years for my life.

It's just this one iOS update. I'm like, wait a second. I'm just worried that Apple is being too ambitious for what they can actually deliver on. Josh, it sounds like. Like you think the opposite or like the grass is greener that Apple will basically either, I don't know, buy their way into the hardware game, which creates some kind of like superior AR, VR type device that's cheap and accessible to everyone. Is that right? Yeah, I think you could look at Apple in two ways, which is the hardware company and the software company. And I think they have like three fourths of this pie taking care of where the hardware half is great. They create the best hardware in the world.

It's unbelievable. They have all the cutting edge tech. The software stack is great. The operating system is amazing. It is unified across all the devices. It works really well. The one quarter that they are missing is AI, which is going to continue to grow in size, but they kind of are really great at everything else. So in the case that they could solve this AI problem, well, then they just, they wind up as the full stack dominant player again. And to David's point about meta being the leader, while meta is the leader now in the sense that they're the only ones to even have a product public, I don't think it's particularly good. In fact, I have no interest in getting it.

I have no interest in trying it. I don't use the ecosystem. It's very clunky. It's big. It's bulky. It's not ready for prime time necessarily, and it's still very expensive. And Apple did the same thing. But I think they attacked it from the different angle, which is like, we're going to start

with a really expensive one first, create the badass tech, and then over time it will trickle down. So the Vision Pro by all intents of purposes, I mean, from my perspective at least, is the most impressive consumer technology device ever created. And if you have a demo, you will... Other than the sales. Not that impressive. The sales are horrible. And it's because who wants to wear this like clunky $3,500 headset on your face? It's like just, it's just not feasible. And the software ecosystem sucks. There's nothing to do once you have it besides watch movies and content. But the technology in that headset is unbelievable. If for anyone who hasn't tried, you could go to the Apple store.

They'll give you a free demo. The quality of it is unbelievable. The latency is ridiculous. The way that you engage with like 3D space and you use your hands without any additional sensors, like meta having their wristrap, you don't even need a wristrap with the Vision Pro. They just do it based on where your hands are in space. So I think Apple has the hardware. Their problem is shrinking it down, making a cost effective, creating that Vision Pro experience for the masses, whereas Meta still needs to build the actual technology. They have like these glasses that are like kind of okay, kind of mid. They're still a little expensive at $800 for mass production. They don't actually have AR capabilities. They just put a little display in one of the lenses.

So they're both trying from different sides. The Apple approach feels more exciting because one, they have, they've just manufactured a ton of stuff before. No one has a supply chain like Apple. They are going to be most likely to get costs down. And they have the technology proven. So the Vision Pro, you can buy it. It works great. There's just no ecosystem available for it, so it's like not that fun to use.

But there will be one day. And I trust that Apple can get that price down versus meta increasing the quality, if that makes sense. Just to kind of maybe fight back. a bit. Doesn't the meta-oculus lens count for anything? Like, that's their own headset, right? Yeah, it just kind of like stinks relative to the Vision Pro. The quality isn't good, the latency is much worse. It requires like hand controllers to use. It's also a third of the cost. So it's in a different consumer rank. Yeah. And it goes to show, again, I mean, the different approaches they're taking where the third of the cost is the meta. It's the Quest, I believe, the MetaQuest 3, which is not as good,

but it's more cost-effective. And they haven't proven they have all the technology, but they're much closer to the cost goal than Apple. So they're just kind of coming at it from like apples from expensive, meta's from the very cheap side. And it's kind of a fight to see who can get to, like we mentioned on the show yesterday, the parade of frontier, the tradeoffs between cost, efficiency, power, and actual user experience. I do like what you said, Josh, about the iPhone air being the test bed for Apple to really compress a lot of hardware into a very small design space. And so maybe they're using the Apple Air to do exactly that, like make a very small form factor, put a ton of technology, high power technology in there and really optimize the space.

And then on the other side of things, you have the Vision Pro, which is, well, they didn't really save on weight or battery size or they didn't really hold anything back. And so it's a heavy, clunky thing with not a lot of things to do. But it is the truly the best possible technology you could ever put into that form factor. And so they're doing high power tech on one side and then constrained size tech on the other. And maybe we look back in five, 10 years, be like, oh, both of these things were Apple just testing in production exactly how to get to the final form factor,

which is just a normal looking pair of glasses that we figured out how to really compress some high-powered hardware into so that we have the combination of AR, VR, VR, in a relatively normal looking pair of sunglasses. Yeah, I think that's absolutely right. I would view the Vision Pro as kind of like a dev kit. developers release dev kits for people to start building experiences on just to start seating the ecosystem and showing what they can do, knowing that it's not going to sell very well. And then EJS, you have the iPhone Air, right? You have it on you right now? We can see how impressive this thing? Yeah. Tiny, tiny.

Look at this thing. So one thing to know about this phone that's really impressive is all of the compute in that phone. It fits on the little plateau. That is where that camera bump is. And everything beneath that is battery. The brain is only in the plateau. So the brain, the computer, the camera, the speaker, the sensors, like the gyroscopes, it's all stored up in that little plateau. And the remainder of the phone is battery. And battery and screen, right? Battery and screen. In fact, there's not even a bottom-facing speaker. So the only speaker is actually in the top earpiece because the whole bottom section of it is just battery.

So like you mentioned, David, I mean, this is, they are just hyper-compressing technology into this small, space and the rest of it's just for battery just to power the damn thing. So if you do merge the compute power of the iPhone Air, which is already like an order of magnitude better than the Vision Pro, and you can shrink that into the size of Glass with the functionality of a Vision Pro, that is like the sickest product ever. And that is where Liquid Glass will be like really freaking cool. Well, Josh, I'm going to reserve my judgment about Liquid Glass that it does suck. Okay. All right. Until the glasses come, which will make. the design elements unsuck.

I hope you have a lot of patience. So with the glasses come, it unsucks iOS 26. But until then, iOS 26 sucks. Are we all in agreement that it's probably going to be glasses that Apple release? You seem pretty confident about this, Josh. I'm kind of surprised. You think it's going to be glasses? Yeah, I think so.

I think it makes sense. What exact form the glasses take is unknown, but shrinking the Vision Pro seems like the logical next step. And I'm sure it will be a Vision Pro mini and then something a step smaller. and then eventually the glasses. Vision Air. Yeah, Vision Air. Whatever it may be.

Again, these things take a long time. They're incremental steps. But I think the Vision Pro is a signal that they're going all in on this type of form factor. And they've put a lot of resources into the developing the operating system and the experiences that you have with it. And there will be some sort of spatial computing element to Apple that will have to complement the iPhone. And I very much think glasses will be that thing. In addition to a suite of other things. I mean, we talk about ambient computing a lot.

There's rumors that they're going to build a tabletop device with a little tablet on it that can actually rotate and follow you with the camera and it'll have this like ambient noise capture with the microphones to presumably train a model or allow you to engage with a model. So they're probably going to wind up at the same conclusion that Open AI did, which is the next frontier of iPhone level devices isn't actually an iPhone. It's just a suite of devices that all complement each other through a singular AI experience. I imagine glasses is a part of it. the iPhone will be a part of it. We'll probably get more in-home devices that will complement that when you're on the go. And that's probably it.

But I feel very confident in saying Apple is going to absolutely make some kick-ass glasses. When they come, I don't know. Will it be this decade? I don't know. But eventually they will, and I presume it will be very good. It would be pretty cool if Apple ended up disrupting itself with a tabletop device that you leave at home.

So you take your glasses off at the door. You take your AirPods off at the door. But you still have. like access to a smartphone because it's in your home monitoring you so you can ask a question and it knows everything about you. And then when you leave, you put on your AirPods, you put on your glasses and that's your new smartphone out and about. And you never actually have a smartphone anymore. You just have like a suite of devices that all kind of compose together to give you the experience that you want. And Apple just unbundled its own iPhone to sell you three different

products for three different contexts that all do get out of your way so we never have to pull open our phone out of our pockets and look at a screen anymore. Yeah, that sounds right. And also they demo this with the Vision Pro where I actually don't think you'll take your glasses off when you come home. They'll get most interesting when you come home because a lot of the examples that they show with the Vision Pro is you could put widgets of things

up on your walls. You could customize your space. So your home can be your home. You want to watch TV you put on glasses? Yes, but then you put on your glasses and your home becomes a virtually enhanced home where you have a hundred inch screen on one wall and you have pictures of your friends on the other wall and your computer is just

Boys can buy an apartment and a bed, and we don't need any other furniture. Yep, I think. No furniture in the home. I don't know how that's the first place that David goes. Well, it works for me because I really don't decorate my apartments. I will be user number one. In fact, I'll have a second pair of glasses to hand to whatever guest comes over, so it looks like I have some furniture in my place.

Josh already has the AR background on his camera. This is real. Apple's already priming him. We didn't even realize that. I'm ready. I'm conditioned. I need them to drive. the device immediately. So I hope we do. I hope we get something soon. Um, but unlikely.

All right. All right. I'll reserve further judgment until I get my hand on Apple glasses. In the meantime, I ordered my meta Oakley's for all my adventures. So until, until Apple can sell me a product, I'm on team meta. Okay. Well, I'm excited to hear the review, because I have this very strongly held conviction that after about two, maybe four weeks, they'll sit on the shelf and never be used again. Uh, just because It's a glorified action camera. It's like a GoPro. David, how many Gopros do you have?

Two. Okay. And when I put them on my helmet when I'm climbing, I look like a goddamn dork because I have this like six-inch camera sticking out the top of my helmet. So yes, I have the first person view of me climbing. But whenever somebody takes a photo of me, I look like a fucking square. And so that's why I bought the meta-Oakle's. It's like, oh, just put them in the sunglasses.

So you may actually be a prime user for that. I think EJAS may be. You don't do too many action sports, do you? Like crazy climbing or anything where you would use that? So maybe EJ's glasses will start collecting dust after the first month. We'll see. That's the thesis out. I'm still going to buy. I'm going to be the first one to put in an order on the set, yes?

Comes out seven days, boys. All right, fam, I consider this topic sufficiently sussed out. Thanks for inviting me on the show today. Appreciate it. You guys are kicking ass. Thank you for joining. Very much appreciated. I look forward to having you back on again to prove you wrong.

Or maybe just talk about your glasses when they come. I think the next episode maybe, when you and EJazz both get your glasses, You can play the reverse Uno card, and you could tell me why they're so good and why I'm missing out on the best new tech ever. That could be a fun episode. It's going to be POV from our perspective. David and I are going to come on looking like total dorks. Be with the Rayvans. Yeah, you could sit there and record each other as you're filming.

So you just look at each other and we'll just stream your video feed straight from the glasses. It's perfect. Okay. Thank you for joining. Thank you everyone for watching. Very much appreciated. Don't forget to share this with a friend who also feels. the way David does so you can be like,

huh, I told you so. Prove them wrong. Liquid glass rocks. We're a big fan here on the show. Yeah, thank you for watching. Please don't forget to like, share, subscribe all of the good things. David, do you want to sign us off?

Can you be like the guest sign off? I don't know how you guys sign things off. We don't really have a set one, so you could just kind of make up your own. The future is weird. It's getting unpredictable, but it's also going to be really interesting and worthwhile of robust discussions.

So that's what we do here, Unlimatless. Josh and Jaws are our guides into the frontier. there's going to be a lot more technology to talk about, especially as the pace of technology is ever accelerating into the limitless future. So, cheers.