I very much do not want AR. There will be ads everywhere. What happened to the anger people had toward Google Glass and the feeling that people wearing them would be recording everything around them basically all the time?
this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2024
245 points (91.0% liked)
Technology
59358 readers
6811 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The biggest problem I see from these kind of devices is: you're isolating yourself. For example, it looks very cool that you can see a movie with a similar experience to a theatre, but you're completely isolated using it. I don't see a family, each with one of these devices on, watching a movie on the couch at the same time. It's complicated enough when people have their smartphones out while eating with others...
That doesn't mean that it hasn't its uses, but it's more limited than what the try to sell to you. You're by yourself when you're using this device, even if you can see others.
Yeah that’s crazy isolating yourself. Now excuse me while I go sit at my desktop ignoring everyone else with my headphones in.
Fun fact, over a hundred years ago people used to complain about others reading the newspaper at breakfast because it was destroying family’s time together. I don’t know how family social dynamics will survive this newspaper craze.
I’m not claiming that this is the end of western civilization or anything like that. What I mean is: the ads sell it like “you will be able to interact with those around you without problems”, and I think that’s not entirely true.
I’m not judging people wanting to isolate themselves, but in my opinion taking this thing off or putting it on is not as easy as putting your smartphone aside, or a newspaper aside.
My thinking is that this will be way more an individual experience than Apple sells. So people should take that into consideration.
load more comments
(10 replies)
Yes and no. I’ve used a Quest to watch movies in a theater with different people from around the world and it was a very social experience. I’ve also attended a few support group meetings for dealing with loss in VR and that was honestly a really positive experience.
That’s interesting. It’s a bit funny that new technology can take us closer to those far, and at the same time take us far from those close. :P
Agreed on that, it's a weird dichotomy. I think in a way the internet as a whole has had that effect on people.
Connections in real life don't feel a deep as I remember them being in the past and its so often you see a group of people out to dinner or drinks together staring at their phones. Meanwhile I have a lot of pretty decent connections online with people I've never met in person or maybe only once or twice.
load more comments
(3 replies)
One thing I give Apple credit for is keeping ads out of the primary operating system. I've got an Apple TV and a Google TV (I refuse to use it's full name). Apple TV is just a grid of Apps whereas the Google homescreen immediately hits you with an ad for a show on a streaming service you might not even have. Even the Google remote has dedicated buttons for Netflix and YouTube and I'm not a Netflix subscriber.
I guess it's the difference between Apple being a hardware/software company and Google being an advertising company.
Apple TV is just a grid of Apps whereas the Google homescreen immediately hits you with an ad for a show on a streaming service you might not even have.
Apple TV+, the streaming service, does show ads for content. It's one of the worst, in my opinion, at pre-roll ads for other shows you didn't click on.
Then, in the interface, you'll get banner-like ads for other stuff, mostly Apple TV+ exclusives. Also, the interface also does push casual browsing (or search) into the paid buy/rent options also.
Apple's days of focusing on user experience above all else has shifted towards getting you to pay for stuff. Just because it mainly steers towards stores they own (app store, music/movies/TV, services subscriptions) doesn't make it any less intrusive of advertising.
Apple TV+ is an app though (which I never use). I'm talking about the operating system and the extended area above the apps is only applicable to the apps you put there (all of which for me just show the stuff you're currently watching).
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
I'm always reminded of this video when I think about just how bad AR could be. But then again, it could be pretty cool if we can only keep control over our tech.
load more comments
(2 replies)
What happened to the anger people had toward Google Glass and the feeling that people wearing them would be recording everything around them basically all the time?
People feel that way all the time now, so AR glasses no longer seem as intrusive to most people.
load more comments
(1 replies)
There will be ads everywhere.
Too late.
I don't think these glasses are intended for general public use right now. I know big businesses that want them for manufacturing quality control but outside that what is the point of AR?
As an industrial engineer I can think of plenty of uses of it has a halfway decent pathway overlay. Part picking with highlighted parts can be amazing and it could revolutionize assembly.
Outside factories, I’d love a gps hud on my car, and on walks. Not enough to sacrifice the little privacy I have in my own eyes though.
Edit: sorry was thinking AR glasses in general not these specifically. I wouldn’t even let my QC team use these. If the battery connection breaks you’re blind in a manufacturing environment and that’s dangerous
I don't want something that's an electrical failure from me being unable to see strapped over my head while driving.
At least Google Glass was transparent.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
The review was great, and the fact that Apple went it's way to try and do something to be seen as an innovator is awesome, for one reason only: they failed horribly.
Granted, this is the best VR handset that could be done with today's tech, and even then it's bad. There's no use outside niche applications, and too much constraints and trade offs for it to be reliable. We need a huge advance in tech for AR be feasible and socially acceptable.
And you can't even play proper games with this thing.
It's not even that it's not feasible. The entire idea is stupid. VR makes a lot of sense in entertainment and AR will one day be really great for small things like showing map directions and notifications but the concept of a virtual computer controlled by waving your hands around is just silly. It will never make sense.
The main use case I think right now, really is the expanded monitors view. For people that travel a lot it might be a real use case
To carry the whole VisionPro bag, keyboard and mouse instead of simply taking your laptop? The review makes it clear it's not usable without peripherals, you will still need some desk. It's solving a problem that doesn't exist.
I work on 3 monitors during the day, with multiple virtual desktops. It solves for that, and that alone. That being said, I wouldn't pay $3500 for the privilege, especially when it ONLY operates in the Apple ecosystem, which I don't care for. Other VR desktops exist, but they're all kinda "meh". I'll invest when a device can be used neutrally as just a VR monitor tool.
The stuff I've seen is saying it can only do one extra display from a mac. Is there another way? The high resolution capabilities also suggest one full quality display would max out wireless bandwidth.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
Pro: Video passthrough is a leap forward, hand and eye tracking are awesome.
Con: video passthrough is fuzzy, hand and eye tracking are kinda shit.
WHICH ONE IS IT!?!
I think you’re missing the point. Both are true. It is both leaps forward, but still bad.
Just because something is “best in class” doesn’t mean it’s not a piece of shit.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The Vision Pro is the best example of video passthrough and hand/eye tracking that has ever been produced, but they're also insufficient for it to be a seamless experience.
This isn't really the problem, I think. MKBHD touched on this but this system doesn't seem to have a killer app. There's a bunch of stuff you can do with it, but which of those things can be done better than just using a computer?
Gaming is the big one but apple doesn't care about that so what else is there? It would be good for virtual walkthroughs of a home you're considering buying. Or at an architects office to show off the experience of a new building. But...cheaper VR headsets can already do all of that.
So what actually task can this do better than anything else?
Is was really irritated when he presented the presentation app as the most killer app for the device. On traditional VR headsets this would be a really mediocre app compared to what games do in VR...
load more comments
(3 replies)
They're not contradictory. All other headsets' passthrough is just so bad that even though the Apple headset isn't good it's still way ahead of them.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
"Magic until it's not" basically sums up the whole Apple user experience.
This is a first generation modern Apple product: expensive, flawed, lacking in features. I've been a long time Apple user, and if I had the money to buy something like this (I don't), I would definitely avoid it, and wait for iteration 2 or 3 of it. The review is good, and highlight all the reasons why you should avoid buying this device, unless you wan to develop something for it. Guess we'll only see YouTubers using it.
I think the biggest difference compared to all previous endeavors is that VR/AR devices are still this thing that collects dust in the corner even among the biggest enthusiasts.
Most people had some form of portable music player (like Walkman) long before iPod was a thing.
Every household had been equipped with phones long before Apple made iPhone. Cellphones were also a huge deal before iPhone.
Watches are old as time (pun intended). Fitness trackers was also a big thing before Apple Watch.
VR/AR? Most people don’t really care - despite multiple efforts from all the biggest tech companies. Is a more premium Oculus from Apple the solution? I guess time will tell, but I have doubts.
I also think they’re too big and bulky and haven’t found the right way to use them yet. When they can be integrated with glasses and can truly “augment” the world around you, that’s when they’ll pick up. Think of a party where you can automatically display the names of people and key bio info with them. Or a sporting game where you can pull up stats on players. Or navigation where it overlays arrows on the street. For now you just get “toss our window up in your field of view with these clunky goggles”
Isn’t that how google glass did it? It all sounds good in theory until you realize there is a looong road until it’s sleek and most people are not willing to use it in the awkward stage.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I turned the video off immediately when he said it's 34 99 spaced out rather than three thousand four hundred ninty nine dollars so it sounds as fucking terrible as it actually is price wise. Fuck apple and fuck this reviewer
What a weird thing to get hung up on.
load more comments
(3 replies)
One of the weirdest things about it that I'm sure Apple put a whole lot of time, effort, and money into is the EyeSight feature (the see-through eyes), and yet every image or video I've seen of it so far looks horrible in real life. I get the idea behind it, but that they prioritized that over actual content just seems assbackwards, there still doesn't seem like there's a whole lot to do in this thing. It's a feature that really should've been left on the cutting room floor in an effort to bring the cost down. And they're trying to pitch this as AR (which it's not, or "spatial computing") when really this thing would probably benefit more if they pitched/leaned into it being a VR device.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
In Apple’s photos, it looks like a big, bright screen that shows a video of your eyes to people around you so they feel comfortable talking to you while you’re wearing the headset — a feature adorably called EyeSight.
On the top edge, you’ll find what feel like larger versions of some familiar Apple Watch controls: a digital crown that adjusts both the volume and the level of virtual reality immersion on the right as you look through the headset and a button on the left that lets you take 3D photos and videos.
You can also see Apple’s incredible video processing chops right in front of your eyes: I sat around scrolling on my phone while wearing the Vision Pro, with no blown-out screens or weird frame rate issues.
A lot of work has gone into making it feel like the multitouch screen on an iPhone directly controls the phone, and when it goes sideways, like when autocorrect fails or an app doesn’t register your taps, it’s not pleasant.
I asked about this, and Apple told me that it is actively contributing to WebXR and wants to “work with the community to help deliver great spatial computing experiences via the web.” So let’s give that one a minute and see how it goes.
There’s a part of me that says the Vision Pro only exists because Apple is so incredibly capable, stocked with talent, and loaded with resources that the company simply went out and engineered the hell out of the hardest problems it could think of in order to find a challenge.
The original article contains 8,148 words, the summary contains 264 words. Saved 97%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
view more: next ›