Somehow, heartbreak feels good on a headset like this pic.twitter.com/fbOM5TyKbB
— Tom Zohar (@TomZohar) June 5, 2023
Apple Vision Pro
34,978 Views |
392 Replies |
Last: 1 mo ago by TCTTS
I'm getting "Ready Player One" vibes from this…
That’s a good point. I’ll never go back to single monitor editing unless I absolutely have to
— Jim Scroggs, smiling politely (@JimScroggs) June 6, 2023
TCTTS said:agdoc2001 said:
90% of the experience for 10% of the price. I guess the point is that even with that option available on current VR headsets, hardly anyone uses it. Completely isolating yourself from the entire world is not a viable option for most people, especially with a hot/heavy headset on your face and a battery pack in your pocket (in Apple's case). Even if they cut the price to $2000 or $1500, I just don't get who this is for.
Again, Apple had to start somewhere. This product isn't the endgame, it's just the beginning. The eventual goal is glasses, and then, way, way down the line, contacts. The only people who this iteration is "for" is anyone with enough extra $$$ willing to take the plunge and essentially act as test cases. Think of this iteration as a glorified beta prototype, except released to the public, that will continue to be refined time and again over the next decade plus.
Yeah, but AR has been in that realm before. This kind of thing isn't exactly new, and without some kind of added functionality it's still just a novelty item like Google Glass.
ABATTBQ11 said:
AR as a concept has some really awesome real world applications, but I see some serious drawbacks with this particular device.
For one, this limits you to one viewer: you. You can't watch on this with other people, so it is purely a personal device. You're still going to watch on a TV the vast majority of the time.
Yes, the video calling and ability to watch on a plane is potentially useful, but it's not something that can't be done with a phone and maybe a headset adapter like the old Samsung Gear VR. It's A LOT of money for something that doesn't have a huge differentiator.
The interface is far too burdensome for actual use as a computer/monitor. No one is going to do hand motions like minority report as a primary interface because it is ****ing tiresome. This is why LEAP motion controllers never really took off. People figured out that resting your hands on a desk and using a keyboard and mouse was actually much easier than holding your arms up to work.
What AR is waiting on is actually augmenting reality, not just replacing a monitor or TV with a headset. AR requires computer vision and object recognition to marry what is around us to its useful background information in order to deliver value. Think automatically overlaying maps while you're driving/walking and acting as a HUD, giving menus and reviews for restaurants you're passing by, or giving online buying options for products you're looking at in a store. Another potential use would be tutorials on assembly or disassembly of objects with overlaid directions as you go. It needs to be a real assistant, not just a display. That's when it is DOING something for you instead of just being a bulky appliance on your face and giving you access to what's in your pocket for the 95% of the time you don't even need or want it.
Depends on the application. Just create a virtual lobby with avatars and input them in whatever environment you'd like. Could be as simple as a movie theater or as they allude with the mandalorian, on an alien planet. Theoretically it could be any environment you'd want to create.
Apple just released a video tour with the vision pro. Lead by none other than Michael Douglas!
May be a dumb question since I haven't done more than watch that one short video, but I can't wrap my mind around using this for video calls. Would the other person just see your eyes?
It scans your face and then basically makes a 'deepfake' of your whole face
It's like some of y'all don't realize the Oculus/Meta Quest exists. Most of the functionality shown already exists in other VR devices. Even if the resolution is better, and the speakers are better, etc., I still think it's pretty far from being all that useful. When I got my Quest 2, I really thought I'd like to the ability to have a 100 foot TV screen, but honestly, I don't like it. The quality is great, but it's just a weird experience I don't like. I much prefer watching on a TV.
Also, I feel like the FaceTime is going to be a very weird experience for the person on the other end. The video they showed had the person on the other end essentially talking to an avatar. I think that takes a lot away from the purpose of FaceTime/Video calling, and will likely head into the uncanny valley very quickly.
I think the person who commented that this is really a personal device is spot on. Even though you can see through the glasses, I bet most people end up taking them off when someone else comes into the room. Also, I wonder if there will be an indicator on the outside of the screen when you are recording. Because someone just being able to record you when you're not aware is creepy as f.
I do like that Apple is entering this realm, though. I feel like AR/VR is the future, and having a major player like Apple enter the market gives it a huge boost of credibility. In a way, this should help Meta a lot because their huge investment doesn't look as silly. Apple should do a better job at this than Meta, and I'm really interested to see what the developer community will do with it all.
Also, I feel like the FaceTime is going to be a very weird experience for the person on the other end. The video they showed had the person on the other end essentially talking to an avatar. I think that takes a lot away from the purpose of FaceTime/Video calling, and will likely head into the uncanny valley very quickly.
I think the person who commented that this is really a personal device is spot on. Even though you can see through the glasses, I bet most people end up taking them off when someone else comes into the room. Also, I wonder if there will be an indicator on the outside of the screen when you are recording. Because someone just being able to record you when you're not aware is creepy as f.
I do like that Apple is entering this realm, though. I feel like AR/VR is the future, and having a major player like Apple enter the market gives it a huge boost of credibility. In a way, this should help Meta a lot because their huge investment doesn't look as silly. Apple should do a better job at this than Meta, and I'm really interested to see what the developer community will do with it all.
That's a good point, it's just a beefier more expensive oculus. The applications are neat but I highly doubt they will be exclusive. What really would be a game changer is kind of what Google glass was doing. Something you can incorporate in day to day life that's not confined to full immersion. Augmented reality has a host more real world application.
They showed it in the presentation. It was fairly obvious that it's an animation, and I could see a future where there is some sort of backlash against people using the glasses in FaceTime... Of course, I can also see a future where people with the AR glasses only talk to other people with glasses. Sort of like the green text vs blue text in iMessage.The Dog Lord said:
May be a dumb question since I haven't done more than watch that one short video, but I can't wrap my mind around using this for video calls. Would the other person just see your eyes?
AustinAg2K said:
It's like some of y'all don't realize the Oculus/Meta Quest exists. Most of the functionality shown already exists in other VR devices. Even if the resolution is better, and the speakers are better, etc., I still think it's pretty far from being all that useful. When I got my Quest 2, I really thought I'd like to the ability to have a 100 foot TV screen, but honestly, I don't like it. The quality is great, but it's just a weird experience I don't like. I much prefer watching on a TV.
Also, I feel like the FaceTime is going to be a very weird experience for the person on the other end. The video they showed had the person on the other end essentially talking to an avatar. I think that takes a lot away from the purpose of FaceTime/Video calling, and will likely head into the uncanny valley very quickly.
I think the person who commented that this is really a personal device is spot on. Even though you can see through the glasses, I bet most people end up taking them off when someone else comes into the room. Also, I wonder if there will be an indicator on the outside of the screen when you are recording. Because someone just being able to record you when you're not aware is creepy as f.
I do like that Apple is entering this realm, though. I feel like AR/VR is the future, and having a major player like Apple enter the market gives it a huge boost of credibility. In a way, this should help Meta a lot because their huge investment doesn't look as silly. Apple should do a better job at this than Meta, and I'm really interested to see what the developer community will do with it all.
"It's like some of y'all don't realize the [X] exists. Most of the functionality shown already exists in other devices..."
Can't you say this about nearly every Apple product ever? They just take what everyone else is doing and do it better. Then they either keep improving at a pace that the competition can't keep up with, or they dominate the market so much that everyone else ends up feeling like Pepsi to their Coke.
They may make AR devices better, but that doesn't necessarily improve the utility of the category to the average consumer. Personal computers, smart phones, and tablets had almost limitless utility.
jeffk said:
They may make AR devices better, but that doesn't necessarily improve the utility of the category to the average consumer. Personal computers, smart phones, and tablets had almost limitless utility.
I totally agree. But again, this is a means to an end. It's the very first iteration in a long line of iterations that will ultimately culminate in glasses/contacts, which *will* have almost limitless utility.
That's been done with VR headsets. Didn't really take. The experience just isn't the same because it lacks the physicality. Think Teams meeting versus in person.
It will be interesting to see how Apple takes this. They seem to be focusing on the AR side more than the VR side, which is where Meta and Sony seem to be focusing.
This.
The eyes creep me out. Just use some other animation to show that the headset is still in use, because the uncanny valley thing ain't working…
The eyes creep me out. Just use some other animation to show that the headset is still in use, because the uncanny valley thing ain't working…
This is easily the most dystopian part of the Vision Pro site. Just take the fuckin goggles off. pic.twitter.com/KMZIZZCRpt
— Ethan Embry (@EmbryEthan) June 6, 2023
Cool. So when the glasses let me know that she's fully immersed, I can start going through her purse and taking stuff.TCTTS said:
This.
The eyes creep me out. Just use some other animation to show that the headset is still in use, because the uncanny valley thing ain't working…This is easily the most dystopian part of the Vision Pro site. Just take the fuckin goggles off. pic.twitter.com/KMZIZZCRpt
— Ethan Embry (@EmbryEthan) June 6, 2023
NC2001 said:
I'm getting "Ready Player One" vibes from this…
More "Ready player two". With nuerolink passing FDA and this...just wait!
TCTTS said:Ever wanted to watch #TheMandalorian from Tatooine? https://t.co/DIaiBMXW4o
— /Film (@slashfilm) June 5, 2023
Well, I hate sand… so, naw.
Tibbers said:ABATTBQ11 said:
AR as a concept has some really awesome real world applications, but I see some serious drawbacks with this particular device.
For one, this limits you to one viewer: you. You can't watch on this with other people, so it is purely a personal device. You're still going to watch on a TV the vast majority of the time.
Yes, the video calling and ability to watch on a plane is potentially useful, but it's not something that can't be done with a phone and maybe a headset adapter like the old Samsung Gear VR. It's A LOT of money for something that doesn't have a huge differentiator.
The interface is far too burdensome for actual use as a computer/monitor. No one is going to do hand motions like minority report as a primary interface because it is ****ing tiresome. This is why LEAP motion controllers never really took off. People figured out that resting your hands on a desk and using a keyboard and mouse was actually much easier than holding your arms up to work.
What AR is waiting on is actually augmenting reality, not just replacing a monitor or TV with a headset. AR requires computer vision and object recognition to marry what is around us to its useful background information in order to deliver value. Think automatically overlaying maps while you're driving/walking and acting as a HUD, giving menus and reviews for restaurants you're passing by, or giving online buying options for products you're looking at in a store. Another potential use would be tutorials on assembly or disassembly of objects with overlaid directions as you go. It needs to be a real assistant, not just a display. That's when it is DOING something for you instead of just being a bulky appliance on your face and giving you access to what's in your pocket for the 95% of the time you don't even need or want it.
Depends on the application. Just create a virtual lobby with avatars and input them in whatever environment you'd like. Could be as simple as a movie theater or as they allude with the mandalorian, on an alien planet. Theoretically it could be any environment you'd want to create.
Seriously sounds like meta quest that my son bought for $300. I thought it was cool at first and the first games were cool. Not a gamer, but had a zombie game that was scary as hell. Call of duty style games were fun…but had to set up unfettered parameter to play.
Had Netflix…had the packed movie theater setting with others watching a movie. Didn't bother with it twice. Watching a movie in it was cool for 20 minutes, then I started to feel the massive goggles on my face even when laying down. Never got through a full movie.
Don't see this as much better from raw functionality point of view. I get that it better quality. That wasn't the problem with the quest. The problem is this massive thing on your face. This one may be lighter but it's big and your face will sweat with that on. Was happy to blow $300…won't come close for $3500.
TCTTS said:jeffk said:
They may make AR devices better, but that doesn't necessarily improve the utility of the category to the average consumer. Personal computers, smart phones, and tablets had almost limitless utility.
I totally agree. But again, this is a means to an end. It's the very first iteration in a long line of iterations that will ultimately culminate in glasses/contacts, which *will* have almost limitless utility.
I think you've missed the point. It's not about size or style, it's about what it actually does. The iPod, iPhone, and iPad all did things that previous competitors did not. The iPod solved the storage and size tradeoff faced by earlier MP3 players. The iPhone had a multitouch screen and app store that exponentially increased its functionality compared with its contemporaries. The iPad offered nearly equal functionality with far higher mobility than laptops. They all addressed the systemic issues of their earlier competitors.
But I don't see anything new here that is going to solve the systemic issues faced by AR and wearables in general. Even if the form factor shrinks, what it does, or does not do, is the challenge, not how it does it.
Exactly what is it going to do to justify not only its price tag, which will eventually come down, but the space it is supposed to occupy between me and the rest of the world? THAT is what I don't see here and the question that all other similar wearables have failed to answer. It isn't about the screen resolution or cameras or audio, it is about justifying its insertion between the wearer and the world and effectively severing the shared physical experience with other people. Without wearables and AR, we see and experience the same things together. With them, that experience becomes singular because it is constructed for us as individuals only through the AR.
A movie is the perfect example. This can give me a 100' screen or let me watch in a virtual theater, but it cannot give me the shared experience of snuggling on the couch with my kids and watching a movie together. We could watch the same movie, but we wouldn't be watching the same movie. This would serve as something physically between us instead of being the physical focal point that a screen creates.
TCTTS said:
This.
The eyes creep me out. Just use some other animation to show that the headset is still in use, because the uncanny valley thing ain't working…This is easily the most dystopian part of the Vision Pro site. Just take the fuckin goggles off. pic.twitter.com/KMZIZZCRpt
— Ethan Embry (@EmbryEthan) June 6, 2023
The most dystopian thing about the site is that literally everyone pictured is physically alone.
ABATTBQ11 said:TCTTS said:jeffk said:
They may make AR devices better, but that doesn't necessarily improve the utility of the category to the average consumer. Personal computers, smart phones, and tablets had almost limitless utility.
I totally agree. But again, this is a means to an end. It's the very first iteration in a long line of iterations that will ultimately culminate in glasses/contacts, which *will* have almost limitless utility.
I think you've missed the point. It's not about size or style, it's about what it actually does. The iPod, iPhone, and iPad all did things that previous competitors did not. The iPod solved the storage and size tradeoff faced by earlier MP3 players. The iPhone had a multitouch screen and app store that exponentially increased its functionality compared with its contemporaries. The iPad offered nearly equal functionality with far higher mobility than laptops. They all addressed the systemic issues of their earlier competitors.
But I don't see anything new here that is going to solve the systemic issues faced by AR and wearables in general. Even if the form factor shrinks, what it does, or does not do, is the challenge, not how it does it.
Exactly what is it going to do to justify not only its price tag, which will eventually come down, but the space it is supposed to occupy between me and the rest of the world? THAT is what I don't see here and the question that all other similar wearables have failed to answer. It isn't about the screen resolution or cameras or audio, it is about justifying its insertion between the wearer and the world and effectively severing the shared physical experience with other people. Without wearables and AR, we see and experience the same things together. With them, that experience becomes singular because it is constructed for is as individuals only through the AR.
A movie is the perfect example. This can give me a 100' screen or let me watch in a virtual theater, but it cannot give me the shared experience of snuggling on the couch with my kids and watching a movie together. We could watch the same movie, but we wouldn't be watching the same movie. This would serve as something physically between us instead of being the physical focal point that a screen creates.
I haven't missed the point at all. I'm sorry, but if you can't understand how AR has the potential to change our everyday lives, once the the tech can finally fit in a lightweight pair of glasses or a contacts, I don't know what to tell you. It's like you're being purposefully contrarian at this point.
The iphone came out around 2007.
Not everybody was on board with the iphone in certain industries.
A lot of people thought is was a gimmick and a fad.
This technological leap is a lot like that.
There will be early adopters.
And there will be people playing catch-up.
Theres no way this isn''t the next iPhone. It's a solid bet you are looking at the cultural the equivalent of the release of iPhone 1.
Not everybody was on board with the iphone in certain industries.
A lot of people thought is was a gimmick and a fad.
This technological leap is a lot like that.
There will be early adopters.
And there will be people playing catch-up.
Theres no way this isn''t the next iPhone. It's a solid bet you are looking at the cultural the equivalent of the release of iPhone 1.
I get how AR can add to perception and change lives, but I don't see that here. This is a glorified VR headset with pass through. Even if the form factor comes down, it does nothing to actually augment reality. It's effectively putting an iPad on your face, and to justify that it needs to do something well beyond being an iPad and it needs to do it now. "Just wait," doesn't make it an iPhone or an iPod. Those things changed electronics as we know them because they immediately offered something new, different, and incredibly useful. This does not. Even as a first iteration of iterations, it doesn't address the fundamental issues surrounding AR adoption, which are centered around people needing a really good reason to wear something on their face.
The possibilities of AR and the justifications for inserting it into our lives are centered around environmental interaction and giving us more about what we see, and that is completely missing here. The point of AR wearables is to bring relevant information to the forefront when and where we need it and to merge virtual things with the real world. This just puts things on top of it.
Now if Apple was showcasing developer tools that allowed fast, easy object tracking and recognition, digital twin creation, and AI integration then I'd be excited. Even if Apple shrinks the size and increases the battery life, is it going to be able to recognize a menu and give me recommendations? Translate a sign in a foreign language? Look at a piece of equipment and point to what bolts to take out to take it apart? Probably not anytime soon because that level of content generation is the hard part, and it is going to require a lot of tools to effect that kind of creation, which is more than I see here. Drive that level of creation and make that environmental interaction cheap and easy and you have a winner for AR. Giving people a VR headset that can pass through your surroundings is nothing new. It may be better from a technical specs standpoint, but it's not the next App Store.
No one will bother with the novelty of a headset, even the size of glasses, for long unless there is some fundamental advantage to it that moves it from novelty to necessity. This just seems like it lacks the justification for that.
The possibilities of AR and the justifications for inserting it into our lives are centered around environmental interaction and giving us more about what we see, and that is completely missing here. The point of AR wearables is to bring relevant information to the forefront when and where we need it and to merge virtual things with the real world. This just puts things on top of it.
Now if Apple was showcasing developer tools that allowed fast, easy object tracking and recognition, digital twin creation, and AI integration then I'd be excited. Even if Apple shrinks the size and increases the battery life, is it going to be able to recognize a menu and give me recommendations? Translate a sign in a foreign language? Look at a piece of equipment and point to what bolts to take out to take it apart? Probably not anytime soon because that level of content generation is the hard part, and it is going to require a lot of tools to effect that kind of creation, which is more than I see here. Drive that level of creation and make that environmental interaction cheap and easy and you have a winner for AR. Giving people a VR headset that can pass through your surroundings is nothing new. It may be better from a technical specs standpoint, but it's not the next App Store.
No one will bother with the novelty of a headset, even the size of glasses, for long unless there is some fundamental advantage to it that moves it from novelty to necessity. This just seems like it lacks the justification for that.
Stat Monitor Repairman said:
The iphone came out around 2007.
Not everybody was on board with the iphone in certain industries.
A lot of people thought is was a gimmick and a fad.
This technological leap is a lot like that.
There will be early adopters.
And there will be people playing catch-up.
Theres no way this isn''t the next iPhone. It's a solid bet you are looking at the cultural the equivalent of the release of iPhone 1.
Exactly.
Right now, we have to pull our phones out of our pockets, open up the desired app, and then our head is pointed down, toward our phone, with tunnel vision on a single app.
This will eventually become a thing of the past.
No more crouching over our phones, no more looking down, no more tunnel vision. Instead, wherever you are, whatever you're looking at, with the flick of a finger you'll be able to instantly bring up any app - or apps - floating directly in front of you, or off to the side, as translucent as you need, as big or as small as you want them to be. And every appliance, every vehicle, every grocery store, every building will have what amounts to QR codes that give you all kinds of options for respective readouts, data, ingredients, historical information, etc. Your thermostat, your sprinkler settings - basically any home data that can be paired with WiFi - will have the ability to be "pinned" to any given wall, or float in the middle of a room. Instead of trying to find the model number with a flashlight on your broken kitchen faucet, then look up a video on YouTube on how to fix it, AR will be able to instantly identify your faucet model, then highlight exactly what part is broken, and guide you toward fixing it, after ordering whatever part it needs. You'll be able to watch a real TV, but then hovering off to on one side you can have TexAgs up in a browser during a game, and on the other side of the TV, floating next to it, all kinds of live stats. Same thing while being *at* a game. Or, the TV itself will be able to be virtual as well, with TV sizes becoming a thing of the past. Also, forget physical dashboards in cars... any dashboard info you want will be able to be arranged however you want (unless you want a physical dashboard, of course). Never mind what students, doctors, architects, designers, and other professions will use it for.
Basically, there will be an entire world of apps and stats layered over reality, that we can customize to our heart's desire... or not use at all.
And today was a big step toward that "reality," even if a rudimentary version through a bulky pair of Goggles that basically no one will use in public. Eventually, though... they'll be glasses, contacts, and finally, some kind of implant. And Apple finally entering the space today makes it all the more possible, that much sooner.
ABATTBQ11 said:
I get how AR can add to perception and change lives, but I don't see that here. This is a glorified VR headset with pass through. Even if the form factor comes down, it does nothing to actually augment reality. It's effectively putting an iPad on your face, and to justify that it needs to do something well beyond being an iPad and it needs to do it now. "Just wait," doesn't make it an iPhone or an iPod. Those things changed electronics as we know them because they immediately offered something new, different, and incredibly useful. This does not. Even as a first iteration of iterations, it doesn't address the fundamental issues surrounding AR adoption, which are centered around people needing a really good reason to wear something on their face.
The possibilities of AR and the justifications for inserting it into our lives are centered around environmental interaction and giving us more about what we see, and that is completely missing here. The point of AR wearables is to bring relevant information to the forefront when and where we need it and to merge virtual things with the real world. This just puts things on top of it.
Now if Apple was showcasing developer tools that allowed fast, easy object tracking and recognition, digital twin creation, and AI integration then I'd be excited. Even if Apple shrinks the size and increases the battery life, is it going to be able to recognize a menu and give me recommendations? Translate a sign in a foreign language? Look at a piece of equipment and point to what bolts to take out to take it apart? Probably not anytime soon because that level of content generation is the hard part, and it is going to require a lot of tools to effect that kind of creation, which is more than I see here. Drive that level of creation and make that environmental interaction cheap and easy and you have a winner for AR. Giving people a VR headset that can pass through your surroundings is nothing new. It may be better from a technical specs standpoint, but it's not the next App Store.
No one will bother with the novelty of a headset, even the size of glasses, for long unless there is some fundamental advantage to it that moves it from novelty to necessity. This just seems like it lacks the justification for that.
For the 400th time, literally no one is arguing that THIS iteration of the Vision Pro will change lives. It's what it signifies... which is Apple finally embracing the technology, inevitably taking it to levels other companies simply don't have the infrastructure, user-base, or sheer will power to reach.
Again... it's a FIRST. STEP.
That's what we're excited about.
(... along with, in the immediate future, being able to, say, watch 4K HDR movies on a 100 foot screen in bed, with a headset that can seamlessly integrate with all my other Apple products, libraries, etc.)
Apple was never going to enter the space ten years from now, when glasses are the norm. Instead, they want to be the ones to *make* them the norm, by building a foundation now, slowly but surely, right now with "professionals" who have cash to burn... then two years from now a lot more of us... and so on and so forth, as the tech continues to get smaller and cheaper.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Why do you keep forcing an argument that no one is having?
dude95 said:
The problem is this massive thing on your face. This one may be lighter but it's big and your face will sweat with that on.
Yep, and then to have to work with one? I have to use over ear headphones/mic for work and even that becomes a pain after an hour.
Middle aged man question, but if you need reading glasses, would you have to wear them to use this? Seems like mixing close and far could be an issue
TCTTS said:ABATTBQ11 said:
I get how AR can add to perception and change lives, but I don't see that here. This is a glorified VR headset with pass through. Even if the form factor comes down, it does nothing to actually augment reality. It's effectively putting an iPad on your face, and to justify that it needs to do something well beyond being an iPad and it needs to do it now. "Just wait," doesn't make it an iPhone or an iPod. Those things changed electronics as we know them because they immediately offered something new, different, and incredibly useful. This does not. Even as a first iteration of iterations, it doesn't address the fundamental issues surrounding AR adoption, which are centered around people needing a really good reason to wear something on their face.
The possibilities of AR and the justifications for inserting it into our lives are centered around environmental interaction and giving us more about what we see, and that is completely missing here. The point of AR wearables is to bring relevant information to the forefront when and where we need it and to merge virtual things with the real world. This just puts things on top of it.
Now if Apple was showcasing developer tools that allowed fast, easy object tracking and recognition, digital twin creation, and AI integration then I'd be excited. Even if Apple shrinks the size and increases the battery life, is it going to be able to recognize a menu and give me recommendations? Translate a sign in a foreign language? Look at a piece of equipment and point to what bolts to take out to take it apart? Probably not anytime soon because that level of content generation is the hard part, and it is going to require a lot of tools to effect that kind of creation, which is more than I see here. Drive that level of creation and make that environmental interaction cheap and easy and you have a winner for AR. Giving people a VR headset that can pass through your surroundings is nothing new. It may be better from a technical specs standpoint, but it's not the next App Store.
No one will bother with the novelty of a headset, even the size of glasses, for long unless there is some fundamental advantage to it that moves it from novelty to necessity. This just seems like it lacks the justification for that.
For the 400th time, literally no one is arguing that THIS iteration of the Vision Pro will change lives. It's what it signifies... which is Apple finally embracing the technology, inevitably taking it to levels other companies simply don't have the infrastructure, user-base, or sheer will power to reach.
Again... it's a FIRST. STEP.
That's what we're excited about.
(... along with, in the immediate future, being able to, say, watch 4K HDR movies on a 100 foot screen in bed, with a headset that can seamlessly integrate with all my other Apple products, libraries, etc.)
Apple was never going to enter the space ten years from now, when glasses are the norm. Instead, they want to be the ones to *make* them the norm, by building a foundation now, slowly but surely, right now with "professionals" who have cash to burn... then two years from now a lot more of us... and so on and so forth, as the tech continues to get smaller and cheaper.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Why do you keep forcing an argument that no one is having?
I think you guys are talking past each other. I'm sure he recognizes that this will have improved capabilities with each iteration. You'd have to be an idiot to think otherwise. I think his point is other Apple products were groundbreaking from the jump and I'd have to agree. The iPod was revolutionary from the get go. While there were plenty of other phones, the functionality of the iPhone was a big departure from everything else on the market. I remember the oohing and ahhing when Jobs scrolled through the screen while demoing the iPhone.
I haven't looked into this thing too much yet but the few times I've strapped on my kid's VR headsets (occulus and PlayStation vr), I've hated it. In addition to the awkwardness, I just didn't like the experience at all and made me slightly disoriented. Can't imagine wearing one of those things for long. But I'm not one to doubt Apple. If anyone can perfect a product, it's probably them. But I will say, it's a lot easier to get someone to put an ipod or iPhone in their pocket than it is to get them to strap a computer to their head.
Bingo. And lets not forget, the iPhone did not release with an app store. It took roughly a year after launch for them to implement an app store. The original iPhone was more of a proof of concept that was also a development tool to get to where we are today with mobile app stores. It's not at all a leap to think this similar cycle can play out with this AR headset. Although they definitely do need to get the price and size/weight of this thing down significantly if they want any sort of mass adoption.Stat Monitor Repairman said:
The iphone came out around 2007.
Not everybody was on board with the iphone in certain industries.
A lot of people thought is was a gimmick and a fad.
This technological leap is a lot like that.
There will be early adopters.
And there will be people playing catch-up.
Theres no way this isn''t the next iPhone. It's a solid bet you are looking at the cultural the equivalent of the release of iPhone 1.
Another major issue with this implementation is battery life. The dream of sitting back and watching a movie on a 100 ft screen isn't going to come to fruition when you've only got a 2 hour battery.
AustinAg2K said:
Another major issue with this implementation is battery life. The dream of sitting back and watching a movie on a 100 ft screen isn't going to come to fruition when you've only got a 2 hour battery.
I'm sure Logitec or Casetify will have a $300 magsafe battery pack you can slap on to it.
Featured Stories
See All
Elko closes curtains on 'circus' with major culture shift in Year 1
by Olin Buchanan
11:45
4h ago
5.4k
Presenting Texas Aggies United's Aggies in Vegas Sweepstakes!
by Texas Aggies United
Legalize-It-Ags
SIAP - Likely Changes coming to Playoff Structure - Josh Pate
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
67