The Apple Vision Pro is supposed to be the start of a new spatial computing revolution. After several days of testing, it’s clear that it’s the best headset ever made — which is the problem.
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?
Glass arrived on the scene in 2013. Since then recording in public has become much more normalised… smartphone camera use, cars with dashcams and CCTV/face recognition have all increased in popularity. YouTubers, live streamers, creators etc. If it were released again today, I’m not sure it would achieve the same hatred it did back then, at least on the “creepy camera in public” point.
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.
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?
Spoken like someone who lacks vision.
How about going to a foreign country and being able to navigate the streets like a local thanks to the overly guiding you to your destination like Waze? How about being able to read signs and communicate with locals thanks to the instant translation services built in? How about a virtual assistant that can walk you through an oil change specifically for your car? How about a cooking assistant that can warn you if your pot is about to boil over or if you forgot to add the butter? How about taking my shitty dystopian studio apartment and giving me a balcony view of a tropical beach?
There are countless applications for AR ranging from the mundane to the extremely helpful. The tech needs to be developed more before it will be adopted by the masses, but it’s far from useless.
By 2030 we’ll have AR in a sunglasses form factor with integrated AI that will be able to digitally remove the clothing of everyone you see with a good degree of accuracy for what’s underneath.
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
What kind of people that travel a lot you think may benefit? Genuinely curious. All the guys who do travel can mostly do everything with their phone because they have other guys working for them in the office doing the actual multiple screens stuff. Or maybe these are the only ones I saw in my life on the road )
Software engineers that work remotely? My uncle has to spend at least 8 hours travelling a month often by plane to attend meetings he still has to do despite being most of the time at home
I’m a systems engineer who spends most of my time coding, and I have a quest 2. Unless apple has somehow fixed the big issue of VR headsets having no peripheral vision (you have to move your head to see things not in the cone in front of you, can’t just shift your eyes) and relatively shit resolution, using a VR headset as a large screen/screens for text content would still be headache inducing.
The amount you’d have to zoom the text in order to be readable for long periods of time would make it unreasonable to try and code in.
I would love for VR to actually work as the movie idea of an infinite desktop, but in my experience it really falls short in that use case. I’ll admit, a quest 2 is a real budget headset, so maybe higher end ones work better for it, but the one high end headset I’ve used had the same limitations.
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.
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.
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.
Psvr2 passthrough is pretty damn good
It’s low resolution and monochrome. It works to help reposition in the centre of your play area or just have a quick look to see if you should take the headset off to deal with something, but it’s not really good for AR. Unless they’ve improved it since I last fired it up, but those cameras are more meant for motion tracking than passthrough.
I skimmed some article in which the author said the vision pro is for work, but I would argue it’s the public alpha version of what will eventually be a sleek, relatively inexpensive product for all the people who grew up with iPads and iPhones in their hands since they were in diapers.
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.
What you don’t like people talking to you like you’re a retard ? But 3499,99 is not the same as 3500,00. It would be bad information, the verge « journalist » sure can’t allow it.
I would quote it as $3500 or thirty-five hundred dollars. It’s a common practice for radio since $3499.99 is read as thirty-four ninety-nine ninety-nine which is heard as $349,999
This value is too much for any VR/AR goggles in my budget. I’d read this as a thing for very specialized industrial purposes (say CAD/CAM) or a toy for rich people.
And if it’s just a toy for rich people, it’s not going to be well supported. If it’s a CAD/CAM tool or a tool for disabled accessibility then all the software will be proprietary and overpriced as well.
Roch people pay for apps, so perhaps even if it is just for the rich, it can be successful. The thing about technology, though, is selling those same apps for less to mass market later is still profitable as it costs no more to produce them.
