Stop wearing Vision Pro goggles while driving your Tesla: U.S. transportation officials, Calif. police

L4sBot@lemmy.worldmod to Technology@lemmy.world – 330 points –
Stop Wearing Vision Pro Goggles While Driving Your Tesla, U.S. Says
nytimes.com

Stop wearing Vision Pro goggles while driving your Tesla: U.S. transportation officials, Calif. police::Videos, many of them stunts or jokes, of people wearing Apple’s new virtual reality headset while driving Teslas in Autopilot mode prompted officials to issue warnings.

80

You are viewing a single comment

It is ~slightly~ different, but in a way that's worse.

AR uses a transparent overlay over reality perceived through a translucent surface, or at most a small subset of your vision is replaced. Think sunglasses with a screen you can see through, or a small corner of your vision is blocked by a tiny screen.

In Apple's "spatial computing" cameras recreate and alter reality, nothing you see is with your own eyes because no part of the display is transparent.

Exactly, it's VR with passthrough.

I have to laugh at "spatial computing" though.

And VR with passthrough has been a thing at least in pro grade VR for like a decade.

apple never released any tech that wasn't already "mature" - mp3 players existed before the iPod, mobile phones before the iPhone,...

AFAIK there is no strict definition for AR how current reality has to be implemented, and both transparent and reprojected have their advantages and disadvantages. For example it's much harder to "pin" augmentation on transparent AR, on the other hand latency and FOV are big issues for reprojected AR.

You ever seen the myth busters episode where they try to drive a car through cameras and computer monitors?

It didn’t go well

While I completely agree that it is a very bad idea to drive with one, you have to give credit where credit is due. Apple really did an amazing job at reducing latency of the passthrough. That being said it's still added latency and it's a very very narrow FOV so please don't go driving/walking around with that thing.

Oh shit. That makes them less appealing, then.

I wish I could say this scenario is unlikely, but nowadays? Who knows! So, picture this:

  • John likes to use his Apple goggles from 11pm to 1am.
  • Hackers get into his googles and install some malware.
  • Now they can walk in front of John without being seen.

That wouldn't happen if the goggles were truly transparent.

AR uses a transparent overlay over reality perceived through a translucent surface

No. Apple even has an entire library called ARKit to do Augmented Reality on a screen. For them, it has never meant transparent.

Just because developers name libraries things doesn't make them accurate. Generally when something is misnamed it's because of backwards/intercomaptibility or just design decisions that differ from original implementations and it's no longer feasible/reasonable to refactor to a different name.

Examples: windows 7 was version 6.1, windows 8 was version 6.2, windows 8.1 was version 6.3 Java 5 was versioned as 1.5, continuing the convention from previous releases 1.2-1.4 Hell, where I work we use an automation workflow with functions called stuff like "create_and_assign_citrix_security_groups_to_static_containers" that has long since been adapted to work with vmware and other non-virtualization platforms like k8s. Refactoring those functions would mean refactoring any external automation that uses these libraries, just like refactoring versioning schemas would break compatibility with any external software that relies on an assumption that windows >xp would be 6.X.

I understand what you’re saying, but politely disagree. The OP of this thread asked “isn’t this just AR”. In the context of Apple - yes, it is.

No hate if you disagree, your reasoning is sound. I just think that naming, especially in the new tech space, goes beyond pedantry. We have words that are specific enough to describe two similar technologies, but we only retain shared understanding of those words if we collectively use them. It may be the case that AR evolves to be commonly understood as encompassing both technologies but they are fundamentally different in how they work, whatever we choose to call them.