It’s a native feature of the device that allows its user to get enormous amounts of attention, in real life and subsequently online, by simply wearing it in public.
Sounds horrible. I guess I’m not someone who seeks attention at any cost like some people, it public is the last situation I’d use this thing in. I would feel like a complete dumbass wearing it at a coffee shop and waving my hands around.
It's the same problem google glass had. It can be the most information rich and user friendly device in the world but if you look like a dingus wearing it, it will never catch on.
That's what I thought about the elephant tusk looking AirPods yet here we are.
The Reality Distortion Field sometimes makes things hard to predict when it comes to Apple products.
People on here are wired.
Air pods just look like regular apple headphones just without wires.
They sure as shit look less goofy than my huge pixel buds that stuck an inch out of my ear.
You’re probably thinking of the current gen AirPods rather than the original (comparison).
Lol. So Gen 2 they were finally like "let's shape this thing more like someone's ear". Then Gen 3 "Fuck it, ears are apparently different shapes let's just go with the tried and true method that's been around on $5 earphones for a decade"
Only “pros” have human ears. Everyone else must be mutants.
I'm kind of surprised people felt that way about AirPods. I don't remember that at the time. They seem quite mild to me at this point - people didn't mind wearing regular earbuds around, why worry if there's a cord or not?
I thought they looked like uncooked long macaroni.
They look like puss leaking out of the ear to me.
What if I already look like a dingus?
Then if you wear it you'll be an even bigger dingus and make other dinguses look less dingusy. It would kinda be a public service of sorts I guess.
The lesser known brother of the Overton window - the Dingerton window.
Two dingi don’t make a right. Or something.
Dingi.
Pronounced ding eye?
Dingii? Ding gee eye?
My brain hurts now.
It rhymes with dinghy.
But thats just a single dinghy.
If you pluralize that its either dinghies or dingii?
Meh, my autistic brain gets stuck on weird stupid shit like this.
Its like... If you have a donut, then a second donut, you have two donuts.
You can say two donut to be cutesy i guess?
Very hard for me to tell when being cutesy is appropriate.
One dingus, two dingi.
If the root singular word is dingus, this makes sense.
If the root singular word is dinghy, as I guess I have always said, then it does not.
Well at least I partially understand my own confusion now, thanks!
Don't they cancel each other out?
Unfortunately they multiply instead of cancel
One times one is still one
i times i is -1, though. Imagine that!
That's too complex for me.
Hmm. They might. Hadn’t thought of that.
This requires more research. You must buy one - for science! And, I guess, for “science “.
No, if you touch two dingii together you still have two dingii.
Two sexy, sexy dingii
Now the singular is "dingius?"
Yeah, last thing I want is more attention while wearing those things and the chance that people will be able to hear the audio from the pr0n I'd be watching on it.
The masturbating in public might be a dead give away too
Oh shit... I wonder if they see me doing it now? This subway car seems pretty full, but no one's making eye contact... so I should be cool.
Actually, this makes me wonder if the Vision Pro would register your strokes as inputs while you were trying to do the deed?
Yes. And if you’re connected to the internet you’ll start summoning demons.
Public? No officer, i was masturbating on the moon!
Nono you can send out a signal to everyone else's Vision Pro to hide what you're doing with your hands. You'll be totally in private!
The porn thing is overblown - it’s only about VR porn. You can watch all the porn you want in a video player or web browser. However people who don’t like Apple eagerly ate up this news, as if Apple banned porn on the device somehow.
Where there's a will, there's porn. You can watch porn on any Apple device now. The issue I believe they're calling out is a formatting issue with some video formats that porn uses, but that can be fixed with some conversions and probably more depends on 3rd party apps, which will likely show up at some point if they're not already there.
Its a 3500 dollar computer you wear on your face, that can only perform basic computing tasks which can more cheaply be performed on a cell phone, draws enormous amounts of attention to the user when used in public spaces, and both the ability to use it in public spaces and the attention drawing nature of it are marketed as pros.
Ok, so its now exceedingly clear that anyone who would get this thing is a wealthy idiot who has 0 experience with an impoverished community, as if you walked through a poorer area, you would just get mugged and have this high value device stolen from you.
And frankly at this point I would morally support that happening.
Not that it likely will, as anyone both dumb amd rich enough to have this happen to them generally has no kind of on foot commute through any such impoverished area.
Yep, no chance I'm drawing that much attention to myself.
The creator of the Apollo app recently tooted about wearing his out in public, getting noticed, and then secreting away to his hotel because the attention made him uncomfortable.
I’m probably more of an Apple fan than I like, but I can’t imagine owning one of these, let alone wearing it out in public.
It seems like Apple kind of forgot that good tech should first be good tech. They’re leaning heavy on this being a lifestyle item, but like - there’s no lifestyle out there that hinges on looking like boring versions of the guy from ready player one.
Made the mistake of wearing the Vision Pro at a coworking space and some youths saw it through the window and started yelling “YOOOOO Vision Pro!! yoooooo” so now I’m going to my hotel
lmao, poor guy.
That makes sense... he's a fairly normal person. I could see using the Vision Pro at a co-working place anyway, especially for someone who's an iOS app developer.
It does seem like an oddly clunky device by Apple standards. I don't find the overall idea abhorrent and could picture owning one down the road - perhaps after they've had a few years to make the device smaller and less expensive. I have no idea what I'd use it for though. Maybe once there are more exciting games than repackaged mobile games like Super Mega Fruit Ninja.
Oh, yeah. More power to him. A later post by him said that the app he’s developing for it has already paid for the cost of the headset. I fully believe he’s just out there working.
I’m hoping in a few generations, when they’ve got the form factor worked out, and the price under control, that it’ll be more to my liking.
I don’t think I would ever want to interact with someone while wearing it, but it could be great for all the things VR is great for, but without the creepy Facebook privacy invasion. (I know - Apple is slipping down that slope, too. They’re just not as far down it yet.)
boring versions of the guy from ready player one.
Feels like there's some redundancy here.
And it'll get snatched from you faster than an iphone
Simple solution. Kensington lock attached to the gonads. The device can helpfully warn others against theft with an LED projection on the wearer saying Big Cojone Security is active.
I want it like crazy. No chance I'll wear it in public after I pull the trigger.
I probably would throw it in my backpack on hikes to do some captures of stuff like waterfalls and nice mountain views. They're really nice and not something you can do with my regular camera.
How does that work? Does it stitch together panoramas?
So I asked, and you can't do captures to use for the backgrounds with the headset (I'm guessing they use better equipment and maybe some processing), but it does do "spatial photos and video". That was part of the demo in the store and they're really impressive. The 15 pro can also capture a 3D video that still looks cool, but has noticeably less depth than the captures with the headset.
I'm not sure the exact technical details, but there are a whole bunch of cameras and other sensors. I'm assuming it uses all of them combined to capture the 3D photos. But there was a lot of depth in the version I saw in the demo.
That’s why I bought one. To record spatial videos. I already tried it and without the straps (which pop off easily) you just pick it up and hold it like a camera, record video with your hands on it like a camcorder, then put it back down. It’s very much like just putting an old school camcorder to your eye for a few seconds. And there is no way in hell I’m wearing it in public except on an airplane maybe
They bought themselves into a beta test/focus group. Apple still doesn’t know what this will be. It might be a Newton MessagePad. Or it might be the iPhone.
Apple is great at polishing and packaging things that already exist. The iPhone was a better Blackberry, the iPod a better MP3 player, the iMac a better all-in-one PC… I have a hard time thinking of stuff they truly pioneered. The Newton maybe? That did not end well for them.
If I had to bet, the Vision Pro will turn out to be a burnt pancake, but long term I have no doubt that something like it — something that augments reality one way or another — will become a thing. And in the meantime Apple has pockets more than deep enough to survive a failed Vision Pro.
The backlash against them trying to innovate is kind of dumb though. They aimed high for a change, and taking risks like this should be lauded not laughed at.
The problem is they didn't aim high enough. AR/VR lives or dies on software. And for what they launched, it barely has the OS, and apparently that thing, although very polished UX wise, on security it's a swiss cheese. And few people has the pockets to develop apps for it.
They are still failing, in 2024, to put touch capability into their computers. This isn't a company that does innovativion well, and it hasn't been for over 15 years. It's totally fine to scoff at this attempt.
I really don’t see touchscreens on laptops to be something to judge a company’s innovation on. I work in communications and I can really only think of two coworkers that personally own touchscreen laptops.
I have zero interest in touch screen on my laptop. It is not standard on Windows and has yet to show any really benefits.
There was quite a different reaction to the iPhone when it launched, so I'm pretty confident it's not the latter.
It's 100% not anything like the original iPhone. Say what you will, it will never be that.
I just meant as successful. They’ve had several. The original iPod. The iPad. They’ve also had duds. The newton. The HomePod. The Pippin. Ping
Do we really want to live in a world where people are walking around with these things on their face, gesturing around like they are insane?
It's bad enough to witness how awful public spaces have become since smartphones came out, but this is next level zombie.
It is inevitable to a degree. Obviously this is not the final form and I’m sure the goal is to make a more fashionable solution that fits into their phone/watch/airpods kind of edc strategy. But no doubt we’ll have a future where info is right there if we want it. This thing is the foray into developing that eventual product for Apple. To me it looks real dumb, but a sleeker version in the future that looks like glasses…well shit it might be nice to watch a show while washing dishes idk.
But no doubt we’ll have a future where info is right there if we want it.
But we're already there. It's called a smartphone.
The value add of replacing a pocket watch or a cellphone with a device about the same size that also fits in your pocket but also gives you access to all the world's information in seconds is immense. And that's why the smartphone revolutionized the world.
The value add of having that information strapped to your face at all times is... just not worth the physical discomfort of having said device strapped to your face.
I say this as a VR user. A device strapped over your face really sucks and you can't wait to take it off. The only reason to tolerate it is that that's the only way to trick your senses into thinking you are somewhere else.
I think they meant in the future when the form factor is the same as wearing glasses.
My glasses are on my face every minute of every day, except when showering and sleeping. I’m uncomfortable when they’re not there - and not just because I can’t see, but because I’m so used to it.
That’s probably the future - people being uncomfortable if a screen isn’t in their vision every waking moment, because it’s as physically comfortable and as “normal” as wearing glasses, and more comfortable than looking down at a phone.
It’d be an amazing feat for technology, but similarly as dystopian as having a social media-feeding PC in your pocket, or just any PC if you’re another generation older. Future people will eat it up though, just like we eat up the phones.
Now I’m imagining marketing where the old millennials are staring at their phones, and the young people are complaining about how grandpa never engages with other human beings or makes eye contact - but they’re still scrolling TikTok while talking to him.
It would be ar glasses I’d think, not a headset with a strap. At least that would be my guess as to the end state.
I was looking forward to the Google glass. Not because it was Google but because if a heavy hitter drops something more usually follow. To bad it flopped. I would love having something like that instead of my phone. Especially once there's prescription versions of them.
I just want smart glasses like a smart watch. Show me notifications, let me decline calls, etc. I don't want all the VR crap, just like 4 lines of text.
Given the ability to verbally ask a gpt something now, the goggles would have been a great thing to release in about a year from now.
That's why they released the pro now, so in a year when they release the $1000 "cheap" ones people will jump at the opportunity to be a part of the "in" crowd. 🤮
I like to Google for questions I have. I would like for at least that much. Im with you on the rest. I don't need for it to have video or anything like that. Just basic features and text googling.
Yea, while it's way out of my price range and looks a little goofy, this is exactly what I've been hoping for as the next step to VR. AR (or whatever Apple wants to call it) is super fascinating, and will be pretty much the main reason for me to get a headset in the first place.
While it may have issues, I'm really excited to see how the market reacts to it, hopefully occulus or another company will try and compete. Feels weird to say, but I'm hoping Apple finds success with it
there are rudimentary holo projectors, that are big and can only do a few flickering dots. they will probably become better. it will be less weird when other people see what you're gesturing at. i think that's where we're headed
If people can behave, I don't care what they wear or what they watch
About 200,000 years of history proves that we cannot lol
Did you not see the video of the guy wearing his new tim apple ski goggles, in his semi-self driving Tesla cyber truck?
What makes you think people can behave?
Those are fake, the apple vision pro bugs ten fuck out when it's I a moving car, so they couldn't have been using it. Its all for clout.
I want you to imagine a subway car, where 50% of the people have these on their face.
They are waving their hands around, sometimes accidentally hitting other passengers because of it.
They are too distracted to even catch their stop, so there's always extra chaos because of it.
Some are using apps that record what they are seeing and makes other passengers "naked" in their headset, which they share online. Privacy is a thing of the past because they can record what they see.
Imagine nobody being able to even have a conversation with other people, or make human connections with strangers, because the person across from them has a digital mask on, and you have no idea if they are even aware of what's going on around them.
Sure, you can have a great number of people "behaving" in this scenario, but is this something you want society to become? I don't. It deprives the human experience to an absurd extent.
I'm sorry, but do you just talk to strangers on the subway?
We already have smartphones that everyone is looking at anyway.
Before that we had newspapers.
You are making up an imaginary dystopia to peddle fear for no reason.
I’m sorry, but do you just talk to strangers on the subway?
I very often greet people, say polite things, perhaps engage in some light conversation with strangers. It's quite human to have these social interactions.
We already have smartphones that everyone is looking at anyway.
Yes, which is already bad enough. Why make it worse by having them on our faces?
Before that we had newspapers.
True, but newspapers didn't take people out of the environment they were in - it was simply an object within that environment in which people were still fully able to interact with the outside world uninhibited.
These headsets are designed to remove you from reality, while you are still in it. =
You are making up an imaginary dystopia to peddle fear for no reason.
Nah, I just see where corporate interests are trying to move society, and I'm concerned about the negative impacts it will have.
These headsets are designed to remove you from reality, while you are still in it.
How does AR/MR do that? Phones are more about that than AR/MR. Or even newspapers, which very rarely are about the thing you are actively doing and can be used as a physical barrier to separate you from other people. Unlike a pair of glasses...
These headsets are designed to remove you from reality, while you are still in it.
Does Apple not know that human beings are not capable of multitasking?
You are either in the real world or you are in interacting in the virtual one. Even the visual distraction isn't something that our brains handle all that well.
People kill enough people while driving simply because they can't change a radio station while driving. Who expects an augmented reality system to suddenly be easier than that?
Old people usually strike a conversation.
Do we really want to live in a world where people are walking around with these things on their face, gesturing around like they are insane?
You've seen someone talk on radio earbuds when the phone's in their pocket? It's the second most creepy thing I've ever seen with a phone conversation.
I've had people looking at me while they are talking to people on concealed earbuds. It's embarrassing if you respond to them as if they were actually talking to you. But how would you know who the hell they are talking to? 🤷♂️
Sliders on Peacock Season 4 Episode 4, “Virtual Slide”. Worth watching as this episode from 1998 realistically conveys the dystopian potential of VR/AR headsets. The headsets are centrally controlled and wirelessly networked. Topics covered include privacy violations, IP theft, manipulation of reality, social decay, virtual image and body autonomy, nested reality. It’s only taken 26 years to create a convincing reality that allows someone to wear the headset publicly with minimal problems. The fact that Apple hit the target on a 1.0 product is actually frightening. What will another 30 years of development bring?
I’m old enough to remember the advent of two of the most annoying pieces of electronics ever…
The Bluetooth earpiece - which made everyone having a conversation look like they were either talking to themselves or possibly schizophrenic.
Those god-awful push to talk walkie talkie type phones from mainly Nextel - which not only made you privy to the both parties conversation but had the freaking awfully loud and obnoxious beep in between switching parties talking. I wanted to strangle anyone using one in a restaurant.
I’m not sure that as a species we are capable of being present in the moment and not searching for that next hit of dopamine from a device with a screen. And Lord knows I’m as guilty as the next person.
I’ve had the Nextel beep as my SMS tone for almost 20 years now. Phone is usually on vibrate but the tone is there.
… I also have the “science is fun” song from Portal as my ringtone because it starts out with a noise that I can hear above the din and quickly gets really loud if I didn’t hear it. I had it as the Turret “hello?” sequence for a bit but that was super creepy.
Wh do you care?
It’s an AR iPad. It’s not that deep.
I would love to walk around with a video playing in a fixed hud while I go around doing chores. I'm constantly finding places to put my phone down every time I move to another station.
I'm not paying $3500 for that, though.
That was the idea of Google glasses but it was too early and tech wasn't ready. It was gonna give you just enough useful info and get out of the way.
Plus Google haters made "glass-holes" viral.
I'm not sure whether it would work better today.
What seems odd about the glasses is that they're essentially bodycams, but just unobtrusive enough not to be identified as such from a distance.
Someone walking around with an AR headset makes it very clear they're wearing a tech device, someone holding up a phone in front of them signals "I might be filming", but someone wearing slightly unusual glasses won't catch any attention. And that seems very weird to a lot of people.
I thought Google Glass was a really cool idea. I actually liked Google back then.
God, I still dream of a device that works like we saw in the OG Glass concept video as opposed to the glorified Google Plus browser we got
To be fair, that product was crazy expensive. It was basically exclusively for wealthy people. If it was cheaper, and easy to develop for, it would have been a huge success.
Look at what Apple has done here by comparison... This bullshit is even more expensive.
I'm working on an open source version of an AR OS that can run on any Android phone, so you (will be) in luck!
Post it on Lemmy when you get something running, very interested!
The windows don’t come with you, you’d have to look at the corner and pinch to carry it around, then when you let go it anchors wherever you left it
Get a pair of Viture glasses then, it's about $500
It's not even AR... Didn't they back down from that? Isn't it mixed reality or something?
How is augmented reality different from mixed reality? Genuine question. They sound like the same thing.
I believe AR overlays information about the real world where as mixed reality just shows you the real world with a few apps floating about
Yes, AR analyses your world and you and gives you more info about the reality, Mixed Reality just has your screens attend into the world without interacting with it. The only thing I saw that was really AR was the use with a MacBook as a screen.
You're describing the difference between "passthrough" AR, and "look through" (or "optical") AR.
AR and MR or more pretty much interchangeable.
I don't think so. For example with true AR you could look at something like a bus and have it tell you information like the schedule, route, if it's running on time etc. This is done automatically and without user interaction. What the Vison Pro does is give you floating apps you can interact with
There is nothing about the Vision Pro that prevents that from happening other than they haven't implemented it.
The ability feature to automatically give you information about arbitrary things you're looking at isn't a requirement for "true AR".
I'm not really defending vision pro, it seems pretty limited. But that doesn't make it "not true AR" and MR doesn't mean "crappy/inferior AR"
I didn't see anyone mention this, but while this headset depicts the outside world when you are wearing it, you are viewing a camera feed of that world. True AR would be like google glass where it is a piece of glass with data projected onto it. Apples thing recreates the world around you and then adds in the applications, you are viewing the world through a filter.
It could also just be marketing too because it seems like they are trying really hard to not make this look like some nerd shit.
They are the same thing. I think that they're confusing it with the difference between "passthrough" AR (you watch an opaque display showing video of the outside world) and "see through" AR (which uses a transparent display that you look through to see the outside world).
Eh. It's a bit more handwavey than that. It's whatever you want it to be.
Virtual reality was supposed to be simulated, but "actual still science fiction" levels of simulated. seamless 3d environment, intercepting nerve signals to look and intuitively control an avatar or ready player one had a haptic suit.
AR stems from that and was supposed to be "the real world, but cyber". Or "VR, but with real world elements". In the novel "virtual light", it's supposed to overlay that "datasturce of cyberspace" on the real world. Even then it was never really clear what purpose cyberspace as a 3d world would have, what data looks like or should look like, and what the advantage of that visualization would be. Or why would rather see that than what the world looks like.
Mixed reality is also that. Imo. It sounds the same to me too.
The whole thing is like hand gesture control. It looked great in minority report, but we had it since one of the 2010s xboxs and it went absolutely nowhere.
Virtual reality: everything you see is virtual.
Augmented reality: adds a HUD on top of what you see in reality.
Mixed reality: has virtual objects behind real objects, mixing both real and virtual
That's because it's just marketing bullshit.
The worst person you've ever met came up with it in a very upscale cube farm over a chai latte, don't think too hard about it.
I hate Hate HATE that I'm going to say this: the iPad was just a bigger iPhone, yet here we are. It's the perfect device for consumption and light work, yet people had no idea about what to do with it at first.
I'm more irked about that thing being gigantic and strapped to your face, thought. It's the next level of social isolation, in a level even higher that the one cause by smartphones, and I'm not ok with that. Companies actually want to hijack and sell your reality back to you.
I’m with you. AR and VR has potential, absolutely, but companies are not our friends and they’ll find ways to exploit these things to the detriment of us. They always do.
We all know that these companies aren’t above lying straight to our faces. They’re even undermining the concept of ownership so they can milk us even further.
It’s sad, but I don’t see a reality where this kind of tech being closed off and proprietary will ever end well.
I think part of the "what do I do with this" factor for the iPad was that Apple (and other companies still to this day) were so hell bent on making everything smaller and more compact that releasing a larger product was marketing whiplash. Not to mention that smartphones were being pitched as this "do everything device" so why would you need anything else?
After you get over that marketing sugarcoating, it becomes pretty obvious what you'd use an iPad for. Internet and media consumption at a larger scale than your phone, easier on your eyes than a phone, but retains at least some of the lightweight smaller form factor that separates it from a regular laptop. Sure you didn't have the stick it in your pocket advantage of a phone or the full keyboard and computational power of a laptop, but there was this in-between that for a modest fee, you could have the conveniences if you can live with/ignore the sacrifices.
They are people who paid $4000 to be
a voluntary QA team.
Is Apple heading down the road of Windows now? Release beta software and use the scream test to debug it?
Nah, it just has no apps, a poor battery life and like all new Apple product lines will be massively put to shame by its successors.
It doesn't have a poor battery life it has a poor battery design. If they put a decent battery on the damn thing it would be okay, it's not particularly power hungry but apple just give it a gnat's testicle of a battery.
The design makes perfect sense. You can trivially add an additional pack with capacity if that's your use case. The included pack does the power management and has enough for plenty of people without being in the way, and it's as simple as plugging in any source of USC-C power at appropriate specs to extend it.
That would be a fine argument if the device didn't cost more than my mortgage repayments. But for device that expensive, they absolutely need to put a decent battery on the thing.
A "decent battery" is bigger and more weight to carry around that plenty of use cases don't want or benefit from. It's not small for cost reasons. It's because it's a worse device if you force it to be huge.
The price is high, but only if you ignore how much tech is in it. A lesser but close dumb display from anyone else is thousands in its own.
There isn't a single use case that wouldn't improve with a longer lifespan of the device.
It is nothing but Apple marketing bullshit to claim people want a small battery, and nothing but Apple greed to increase the profit by using worse components.
When that lifespan is at the cost of meaningful extra bulk you have to carry around, there are plenty.
It's not saving them money. It's because being required to carry a giant battery no matter what you want to do is a significantly worse product.
Yes it's got lots of cool tech in it, none of which does anything. Excuse me while I go and watch Netflix on a display that costs 1/10 of the money yet has thousands of times the functionality.
Being overly complicated doesn't mean it's worth money.
Don't buy it if you don't want AR.
But it's beyond idiotic to trash the first device on the market actually capable of functional AR because you personally don't care about the tech people have been waiting decades for.
You mean selling unrepairable beta products of questionable usefulness at insane prices?
When iPhone was released App Store didn't even exist. A smartphone without apps is just a phone and VR glasses without apps are just a 360 degree monitor you wear on your face. I think Apple's reasoning here is to provide the hardware and see what people do with it.
When Apple released the first iPhone no one had an app store, originally Apple wasn't even going to have an app store it was all going to be web apps and then they realized that they could make more money with an app store. It wasn't a feature people expected, but people do expect apps now and they're not present.
We absolutely expected it when we realised no games or anything could be installed.
Can confirm, I had an Apple Newton. Hardware with no purpose is just hardware. So far, this seems like it's going where every VR headset goes. It's a solution looking for a problem.
I think Apple’s reasoning here is to provide the hardware and see what people do with it.
for sure, and in the rest of the tech world, we call these devkits, not finished products. Apple is trying to convince rando non-dev apple fanboys to pay $3500 for the privilege of playing with devkits. And in many ways, it's a dead end, especially on input. what a shit show.
I would be potentially interested in developing an app for it there are some things holding me back.
There's no documentation on how to develop for it, that's a big one.
I refuse to pay that much money for a dev kit
It's missing vital features like the ability to connect to a bluetooth keyboard without having to go via a MacBook
It's so expensive that only business users would buy it, and yet its battery is so small that it's no good for business use, so where the hell are my customers going to come from?
It's only available in the United States again limiting the number of customers that I may potentially have
It just doesn't seem like it's been properly released yet. It's a beta product with beta features and has been released as such except it has a non beta price. And also virtually no developers got early access so there's basically no apps.
Amen brother, same situation here.
you'll need an m1 or m2 dev box - so $800-3000+ for something with decent ram and storage. and you'll want an apple care subscription, $400 for two years (which won't actually pay for repairs, simply reduce the pain of them enough to justify); and you'll need to pay an apple dev id - $100 for indies, $250 for enterprise iirc; and you'll want to get some extra batteries to daisy-chain off the usb-c port on the existing battery because that shit only lasts 2.5 hrs at BEST. oh and spend another $100 on each devkit because they don't come with a fucking case.
it's like their dev chain is a fucking sadomasochistic loyalty test where the privilege to develop for the device's barren ecosystem costs more and more at each step. All for the honor of writing xcode apps that are running on ipad os++
fucking hell
Yeah the iPhone was successful at launch because it was a sleek blackberry and had iPod like capabilities. But it didn’t blow up until the App Store came out. I expect this product to do the same, and in the same way, companies to release competitive products with similar capabilities in a feature war until the newest releases are mostly talking about resolution and processor speed instead of new features
People who paid relatively a lot to feel that they are on with progress and have good taste. These are not things you can directly buy.
Of course, you can buy knowledge and powerful tooling, but I don't see such hype over digital libraries and good e-ink readers, or over learning programming among Apple fans.
On good taste specifically - Apple has always marketed itself as brand connected to that and has always been the opposite of good taste. I gave up trying to understand that long ago.
And exactly to prove your point I want to mention phone cases with a cutout so you can see the apple logo.
And the whole green / blue messages bullshit. Apple never misses an opportunity to remind it's users they're paying a premium and everyone else is a plebe.
Or just which messages are SMS and which are an encrypted protocol. It was the users that turned that into a measure of status.
Except Apple will the ones that refused to allow iMessage on Android so it's absolutely about status.
I don’t think it is good that they didn’t allow that but it seems non sequitur that means it is about status. I like to know if a message is sms or encrypted. Just like some jabber clients do for private messages. There should be some indication of the message status. And unless you can point to Apple indicating the intent of the colors is for social status and not an indication of protocol, I stand by that.
And I know it is hard to cut through the “fuck Apple” narrative. But to me, they are just another one of many scumbag corporations. I just don’t see any evidence that the intent is social status. That was driven by conspicuous consumers.
Additionally, Apple intentionally makes green bubbles harder to read than blue bubbles.
Apple fully admitted a few times that it was intentional. It was 100% an artificially created mechanism to polarize users, and bully them into Apple's "ecosystem".
I didn’t miss that; that just isn’t what it says. Well it is what you say, but that’s not what I’m disagreeing with. I agree with you.
iMessage on Android would simply serve to remove an obstacle to iPhone families giving their kids Android Phones.
I’m not saying it isn’t a dirty business trick design to lock consumers in. It is. I’m saying it isn’t clear to me that it is designed as a social status issue. That was driven by a large group the users. Even still what this article is talking about is not having iMessage on android, which is not at all what I was disputing. I’m saying the colors serve a functional purpose. Not saying “only a functional purpose” but useful nevertheless.
I won’t be surprised if android likewise distinguishes between sms and messages using the new protocol.
so you just defend everything apple does but you agree it's dirty bullshit.
nice! seems like you pick winners bud.
This is truly a dizzying exchange. What I said was three things. The bubbles are designed to, at least in part, distinguish message protocol, the zealous conspicuous consumers are responsible for making it a status symbol, and not porting the system to android for vendor lock-in is a scummy process. I am really struggling to see me defend Apple in this case.
the zealous conspicuous consumers are responsible
They are, and Apple consistently does things the way to let that work.
Don’t they all? I’ve never looked for a case showing the logo, but every case I’ve ever had show it
And besides the tech bros with the throw away money, many of the people who have bought this thing are “influencers” and now are having trouble figuring out how to make content with or about this thing, because it’s early adopter play tech and has very little actual use, so the influencers are the ones putting out videos like “what would I even do with this?”
It's a devkit, that apple is even selling these things to 'users' is idiotic.
Hilarious. It doesn't even look cool to wear it. It's slightly better than Google Glass, but what are you going to do with it?
I always thought Google Glass looked pretty sleek. Much better than having a full VR set on your face. You had a full field of vision, just a small HUD.
What people seem to be doing with it is driving around in Tesla's with it and looking like even larger burks than they usually do.
I mean, as I pointed out, before an App Store, not much. After an App Store and some competition there are crazy cool applications. Cooking? The device can show you how much of your food to chop, where to put it, visually measure a teaspoon or tablespoon or whatever for you, automatically start a timer when you get the chicken in the pan or whatever. Look up at the stars and see constellations, flights, weather, etc overlaid by your view. On-road gps directions where there is an arrow video game style showing you where to go. Apps that could assist in things like building legos by showing you which pieces to grab and where they go. Looking down over the earth while on a flight to see exactly what landmark/town/area/state you are looking at. There are awesome applications to the tech. Whether we will see them or not is a matter of speculation. Apple is advertising a 3500 dollar headset with cool hardware and boring ass software right now
That may be a more complex device, but I'd prefer something like a light Mandalorian helmet, with normal glass before your eyes (BTW, I think I've read about new kinds of glass which change degree of translucency depending on ionization or something) and picture being projected on it or with some display inside. I'm fine if that'd be 16x times fewer pixels.
Looking at the outside world via a computer display is just instinctively awful.
BTW, I think I've read about new kinds of glass which change degree of translucency depending on ionization or something
Yes it's called electrochromic glass, although it's actually more kind of glass laminate. But yeah it can be engineered in such a way as to change color depending on solar output or on the presents or absence of an electrical impulse. It's been around for about 20 years but it's only been practical for about 10.
People have even already integrated it with transparent displays so all of the technology is already there. It just needs commercializing.
Polestar apparently have a car with electrochromic glass in its windows so you can turn those into a computer display.
If I want to look at the world through a screen I'd stay home and watch a documentary.
The camera they use will never have the acuity, color perception and dynamic range that your eyes have. It probably doesn't work super well in dark environment and it's definitely completely useless for stargazing.
but people have been cooking, monitoring the sky and roamed the world for some ten thousand years now. what's the innovation here?
It has a logo of an apple on it now
But $3500 to tell me which LEGO to pick up is totally worth it.
I guess this is the new gold standard for douchebag detection. That used to be the gold apple watch, but this feels like a more glaring example.
What sucks is that at some point iPad marketing and Apple aesthetic etc felt for me a bit as if it's going in the direction of the
hype over digital libraries and good e-ink readers, or over learning programming among Apple fans
for real, and I think that's intentional, just like with M1 and adopting a Unix-like OS and what not, and some series on Apple TV not being that stupid, they always tease you in subtle ways, never ultimately delivering.
Its center of mass is definitely on the douchebag side, but until you clearly see their every move and retrospect over 20 years or so, you are never sure.
Its just a cash grab company that didnt yet collapse, because of its hype around it and its fanboiiiiis. And everybody supporting apple are just those who are deeply invested into that closed ecosystem. If apple dies out for any reason, they are screwed because their products are bricked without apple.
Give them credit for acting since the beginning the way all bigger tech companies do now.
Like big assholes? "With our products you feel like you are a better than others"? Yeah they started that shitty trend.
This is understated. They started it, and proved how incredibly successful misleading and exploiting consumers was. They (almost entirely) killed the replaceable batteries in phones, the headphone jack, and the persuit of genuine innovation.
Correct
Apple Vision Pro Owners Are Struggling to Figure Out What They Just Bought
Im struggling to figure out why Apple Vision Pro Owners threw out $3500 on a device without knowing what they can use it for
Apple puts out a product, Apple users buy the product. Nothing to figure out.
I just wonder how much Apple would make selling empty boxes and marketing them as such.
I'm sure that the iBox would turn out a fair profit.
The new Apple Log®
"I love log!"
They kinda do already; Apple sells a twisted piece of metal for $1k, and people buy it from them.
Apple does have really nice boxes
If Apple actually developed the technology in a sensible way, and that's a big if, it could actually be a really interesting product.
Right now it's a bit limited as essentially it is a very very expensive second display which only works with Apple devices.
If I had so much money that 3500 dollars didn't matter to me, I'd have one.
From what I've seen on it, I'd play with it for a day and forget about it.
Maybe an hour. Seems like it's pretty cool but there's nothing on the headset worth buying the headset for, even at half the cost. Even at a third.
They bought Tim Cook a new private jet. I thought they'd have figured by now.
People walking around with them on is basically just their wait of saying "look at my butthole!"
Wait, are they ONLY wearing these? Because otherwise how are you seeing their butthole?
You're going to tell me they sold 3500$ goggles without the xray specs the first Quest units had accidentally?
If I'm going to drop a rent payment on some bulky Overwatch Tracer goggles then they sure as hell will do x-ray specs.
Wait what? Xray specs?
It gets displayed on a screen on the front of the device
Yeah. It's like the emperors new clothes. Only other "acceptable" humans with the same ecosystem buy-in can see their virtual clothes.
Everyone else needs to look at their buttholes.
Remember the Google Glassholes?
For a second on my mind I Imagined a butt dildo with a night vision camera at the top... I am not going to check if that exists.
Huh. And here I am, like some poor person, with no AR headset and $3500 extra in my bank account. I feel like such an idiot.
In this economy, most people don't even have that in their account. I guess that's part of the status bit... If you have these, who can say your not doing well?
In reality, it just makes them look like the assholes
they very likely are.
You're definitely not like a poor person if you've got $3,500 lol
The people who buy something like this (hopefully) have enough money where $3,500 doesn't matter or are developers who want to get in early on something that might be big in a few versions.
Everyone else should avoid.
These are the early adopters phase. This always happens with high-end tech. I'm not sure how advanced this set is compared to the competition in order to justify that price.
A 4K USD electronic device that's what they bought....if they needed its features not sure but... that's what they bought.
A 4K USD electronic status device
FTFY
needed its* features
Thanks, its no tits
My phone autocorrects this wrong frequently, like it's life depends on it. One can assume GP typed the correct thing.
Yeah, but they have it, and in the end, isn't that what matters?? /s
Honestly, I think they might say the same thing without the /s.
They got a hololens, but like 8 years later, for the same price, and still just as useless.
try a thousand more than the horrorlens lol. Our hololens 1 and 2 devkits were $2400 iirc.
Wtf ever happened to hololens
I was so excited when they announced that and showed Minecraft just hanging out in the living room.
I wouldn’t have used it long.
The technology wasn't really there yet. The AR view was too small and the headset too big.
It was also just marketed to business, so other than it being the new fad it didn't really take off.
Seems like most people are saying “this is dope for media,” and outside of that, it’s a glorified dev kit.
Yes, "media". That's what I call porn too. That said, get a real VR headset.
Eh, I’m not buying the thing, but at least they’re doing some different stuff and have made some advancements for computing in AR / VR.
I don’t see how this is any less “real” than the other headsets. It’s better with productivity and some multimedia stuff because of the crazy high PPI displays, but it also lacks a good game library at the moment, and the price to entry is pretty nuts.
Well it's an AR headset. They have different design goals.
Its not AR, an AR headset is something like HoloLens, this is just a VR headset with your eyes on the front.
Oh, OK. I haven't been following it. I assumed it was AR because I saw something about someone walking around with it on. I don't get it if it's VR.
It’s being marketed as an AR headset, but it’s fully sealed and you can totally load up VR environments in it with no pass through.
IMHO, they’re not mentioning “VR” in the marketing because the pure VR software library is anemic, and the mixed reality / AR hardware and software is really good.
An overpriced VR headset.
Arnt they all.
I got the original vive which just my beatsaber player but due yo having a wife a job and chit to get done it lives in its protective case and when I do get a min yo use it both controler batteries are dead due to time living in a box
Jesus, reading this made me feel like I wrote this.
I haven't touched my headset in months
Reading it gave me a headache.
It's why I ended up selling mine
Made a pretty penny on it due to when I sold it
I ended up selling it for $750 with the deluxe audio strap right around the time Halflife Alex came out
I gave my Index to my son who has the time and physicality to use it. I'm just too old for action gaming now.
I would have loved it if I was 30 years younger. I can do more from a chair with my desktop PC than an Apple Vision Pro can. It's just another Apple Con.
Translation for those who haven't just had a stroke -
Aren't they all?
I've got the original Vive, which is just my 'Beatsaber player' but due to having a wife, a job, and shit to get done, it lives in its protective case. When i do get a minute to use it both controller batteries are dead due to time living in a box
If they are, then this vision pro is truly extortion.
VR requires a bit of setup, which is off putting. I dont have the space to have mine out all the time, theres also a shortage of high quality games. Waiting on Valve to push the envelope again.
They are. This said, $1,000 or less can buy you the best VR rig on the market right now. This thing is four times that.
Let's be honest the min you see a picture of a half eaten apple on a thing just add a 0 to the price tag
Vr with passthrough
Most modern headsets have passthrough, its not some new feature. It is the part that Apple focused on though.
Isn't it for people who have ridiculously too much money to dump some of it? :-P
Apple now is extracting maximum value from its most loyal customers.
I'd hope you'd know what you were spending this much money on if it wasn't just for online attention.
to live and die on the first generation of a device
I still have my old dev version of the Oculus. It came with fancy changeable lenses lol. I don't regret that one at all and now it kinda feels like a little piece of history
Never seen anyone wearing them or promoting/showing it off
I’ve seen a few people making fun of it, and that’s the only reason I know it exists
I know they look slick but, outside of clout chasers and brand fanatics, who spends $3500 on something without knowing why they're buying it?
Nobody does. This article is bullshit just to get clicks
We should start calling these the "new oculus" or something. The marketing has been insane and neither Meta or Apple would benefit. It would be like when people called every console a Nintendo.
I’m going to the store do you want a Coke?
Cornetto
“But I was still embarrassed this weekend when I had to stick a straw in my wine glass.” Soda cans are doable; coffee mugs are not. The first must-have Vision Pro accessory is a very long metal straw
Or this works too
This is America: you're either a duper or a dupee.
I'm a duper.
You guys are the dupees.
You guys all think I'm a hero and I'll accept that responsibility
Peak conspicuous consumerism. They just need to make an app for it that does nothing but costs $5k like the infamous “I am rich” app when the App Store just opened.
So they bought Expensive Apple Thing because Expensive Apple Thing? I’ve had a decent quality HMD for a couple years. It’s a lot of fun and pretty amazing initially, especially if you have a game or two that really takes advantage of it. However, as a utility, it leaves a lot to be desired. I was really hoping to do CAD with it, there were some modestly priced design programs that looked ok along with some free ones, because that’s a big hobby of mine. It really doesn’t work very well. The toolset for decent CAD is fairly large. A tiny wrist menu isn’t going to cut it, and the ability to precisely manipulate nodes or vertices isn’t there. Same goes for even basic functions like desktops and normal computer functions. Sure, they work, but now you have to constantly be manipulating windows instead of having an extra monitor and kicking back in an office chair.
The AR aspect could be fun, but again you’re either the one creating this content via design software with the aforementioned difficulties, or you’re the one popping the HMD on to view what your home designer says would be a nice new kitchen cabinet set in your home. A useful tool, but not a substitute for a computing and design environment.
Have you ever included the innovative tablets into you CAD work?
I am unfamiliar with that term, so I assume not.
I remember reading that it supports mouse and keyboard, but the main input control are hand motions
Not sure what that means. My current HMD supports mouse and keyboard… but seeing as Apples HMD is standalone, I guess you can hook up a keyboard/mouse via buetooth? Mine works through the pc it’s hooked up to. Nice feature, but I wouldn’t call it earth shattering. Both VR headsets I’ve used support hand gestures, but I’ll assume Apple has improved upon detection and depth of vocabulary.
The current model has it's problems, but I really think this is the start of a new major product line for Apple. This isn't going to be relegated to only the rich forever. There are a few problems to over come. It needs to be lighter, it needs to be cheaper, and it needs better battery life. All of those should be somewhat resolved in the next 10 years. When it does, I think the market will explode.
The big selling point? TV. I know over the last few years I have kind of fought with my mom because she is hurting her viewing experience for the sake of aesthetics. The TV is mounted, but has a cabinet in front of it. It is loaded with tons of seasonal decorations. The reason? She can't stand the site of a cord. So instead, she has figures tall enough to cover part of the screen blocking the view of the TV, all so the cords can be hidden behind the figures. So yes, she loses part of the viewing area, and the remote doesn't work unless you get up and go to the side of the TV so the IR sensor isn't blocked, but it LOOKS better!!
The thing is, she isn't alone. I bought a TV last year. During the time researching it, I would see similar opinions to my mom's. Peopel would post pictures of their TV setup, asking if the size was OK, or if it should be higher, and the responses would be similar, telling the person to run cables through the wall, or get smaller stands or other complaints. It made me realize that many people care about those kind of things, and it will drive their purchase decisions.
All the Apple Vision Pro has to do is show them that you can have a TV, with no bezel, make it any size and position you want, you get rid of glare from the sun, and it has no visible cables. That alone is enough for people to want to buy it. It isn't there today, but it will get there in the somewhat near future.
Given that most non-enthusiasts I know would consider 500 € to be way too expensive for a TV, prices will have to come down a lot for that use case. Especially for families where everyone would need one.
Apple is definitely no contender in that market; their prices would have to go down by 90-95 % to interest the mass market and they're not interested in that kind of thin margin market segment.
The Quest is already pretty cheap. iPhones are not. The standard Vision will be half the price and people will buy it in droves with the right software.
I dunno. People said the same about 3DTV and that never took off even when more affordable models became available.
I don't think VR/AR has a killer app so far. There are some neat things it can do but nothing that makes people chomp at the bit to get their hands hands on it.
VR gaming is nice but most gamers don't consider it sufficiently better to a regular monitor to buy a VR rig. For screen replacement it gets worse because the constraints are even harder - smaller budgets, weaker host hardware, lower expectations that are already exceeded by traditional screens.
Apple might pull it off but they have one hell of a battle ahead of them.
I can't argue with much of that, although I will dispute the 3DTV aspect, no one I knew gave a monkey's about that and didn't expect it to take off, mainly as we had experienced it in the cinema and saw little benefit. VR is a totally different kettle of fish in comparison, it reimagines interaction completely, and isn't sitting in front of a static screen as per '3D'. HDTVs took off, then encouraged upgrades with 1080 and now 4K/HDR. Phones went from £30 to £1,000+.
VR makes Beat Saber a console seller (if I regard the Quest as one). Lack of controllers and games makes the Vision concept a difficult sell as it stands.
I find it to be fairly similar. Most people I know either don't care about VR or bought/borrowed a rig and ended up not using it much. It's typically seen as kinda nice but not nice enough to really bother with.
In terms of interactivity, most see VR as little better than the Kinect – and that didn't exactly take the world by storm, robotics labs excluded.
I think most people are actually happy with their regular screens so it's hard to sell them on something that does more.
Wasn't Kinect the quickest selling item one Christmas?
It's definitely a huge step up and sales are strong in gaming circles, wider adoption is going to need something else though, perhaps glasses-size headsets and long usability. I think those who do use it are impressed, at least those I know.
Once there is enough demand, some Chinese or Thai OEM - maybe the same one that manufactures these for Apple or Samsung - will sell them for a couple hundred Euro.
The problem is that demand will have to be generated first – something HTC, Google, Microsoft, and Meta have failed at so far.
So far it seems that VR/AR is behaving somewhat similarly to 3DTV: Some enthusiasts are really into it and a market exists but most people aren't excited enough to spend any extra money on it. They'll have to find a way around that if they really want mass-market adoption.
I really don't see these $3500 VR goggles (or any other goggles) being widely—or hell, even narrowly—adopted as a TV replacement. There are frankly an exhausting number of reasons why not. For one, it would only make sense for those who exclusively use their TV alone. That rules out the vast majority of television owners right off the bat.
It's an uncomfortable way to watch porn.
It is quite comfortable actually. The masturbation in public part, not as much
What a shock 🙄
This article is idiotic. People know they are buying a first gen spatial computer. It’s not like you accidentally spend $3500
Many average consumers probably don't specifically know what 'spatial' means, or what defines a computer vs a phone or whatever. People with too much money do spend 3500 carelessly, I have known a few of the types, and for the latest Apple technology I could see plenty of people buying it without even knowing what it really is.
They know what spatial computer means because they watched Apple’s short video that explains the product and how it augments your environment. If people with too much money buy one, why do you care? You care about all the other dumb shit they waste their money on too?
They can buy whatever they want haha I didn't say I care, I was just saying the article title could be accurate, people spend money without knowing much about the purchase all the time.
Sounds horrible. I guess I’m not someone who seeks attention at any cost like some people, it public is the last situation I’d use this thing in. I would feel like a complete dumbass wearing it at a coffee shop and waving my hands around.
It's the same problem google glass had. It can be the most information rich and user friendly device in the world but if you look like a dingus wearing it, it will never catch on.
That's what I thought about the elephant tusk looking AirPods yet here we are.
The Reality Distortion Field sometimes makes things hard to predict when it comes to Apple products.
People on here are wired.
Air pods just look like regular apple headphones just without wires.
They sure as shit look less goofy than my huge pixel buds that stuck an inch out of my ear.
You’re probably thinking of the current gen AirPods rather than the original (comparison).
Lol. So Gen 2 they were finally like "let's shape this thing more like someone's ear". Then Gen 3 "Fuck it, ears are apparently different shapes let's just go with the tried and true method that's been around on $5 earphones for a decade"
Only “pros” have human ears. Everyone else must be mutants.
I'm kind of surprised people felt that way about AirPods. I don't remember that at the time. They seem quite mild to me at this point - people didn't mind wearing regular earbuds around, why worry if there's a cord or not?
I thought they looked like uncooked long macaroni.
They look like puss leaking out of the ear to me.
What if I already look like a dingus?
Then if you wear it you'll be an even bigger dingus and make other dinguses look less dingusy. It would kinda be a public service of sorts I guess.
The lesser known brother of the Overton window - the Dingerton window.
Two dingi don’t make a right. Or something.
Dingi.
Pronounced ding eye? Dingii? Ding gee eye?
My brain hurts now.
It rhymes with dinghy.
But thats just a single dinghy.
If you pluralize that its either dinghies or dingii?
Meh, my autistic brain gets stuck on weird stupid shit like this.
Its like... If you have a donut, then a second donut, you have two donuts.
You can say two donut to be cutesy i guess?
Very hard for me to tell when being cutesy is appropriate.
One dingus, two dingi.
If the root singular word is dingus, this makes sense.
If the root singular word is dinghy, as I guess I have always said, then it does not.
Well at least I partially understand my own confusion now, thanks!
Don't they cancel each other out?
Unfortunately they multiply instead of cancel
One times one is still one
i times i is -1, though. Imagine that!
That's too complex for me.
Hmm. They might. Hadn’t thought of that.
This requires more research. You must buy one - for science! And, I guess, for “science “.
No, if you touch two dingii together you still have two dingii.
Two sexy, sexy dingii
Now the singular is "dingius?"
Yeah, last thing I want is more attention while wearing those things and the chance that people will be able to hear the audio from the pr0n I'd be watching on it.
The masturbating in public might be a dead give away too
Oh shit... I wonder if they see me doing it now? This subway car seems pretty full, but no one's making eye contact... so I should be cool.
Actually, this makes me wonder if the Vision Pro would register your strokes as inputs while you were trying to do the deed?
Yes. And if you’re connected to the internet you’ll start summoning demons.
Public? No officer, i was masturbating on the moon!
Nono you can send out a signal to everyone else's Vision Pro to hide what you're doing with your hands. You'll be totally in private!
https://nypost.com/2024/02/05/tech/apple-vision-pro-blasted-as-3500-chastity-belt-for-blocking-porn/
NY post is awful. Deliberately misconstrued this Reddit thread for clickbait.
Web based vr pron works.
https://www.reddit.com/r/oculusnsfw/comments/1ahffm0/anyone_figured_out_porn_on_the_vision_pro/
Sideloading apps is also easy.
Ah, my bad. Thanks for the correction!
The porn thing is overblown - it’s only about VR porn. You can watch all the porn you want in a video player or web browser. However people who don’t like Apple eagerly ate up this news, as if Apple banned porn on the device somehow.
Where there's a will, there's porn. You can watch porn on any Apple device now. The issue I believe they're calling out is a formatting issue with some video formats that porn uses, but that can be fixed with some conversions and probably more depends on 3rd party apps, which will likely show up at some point if they're not already there.
Its a 3500 dollar computer you wear on your face, that can only perform basic computing tasks which can more cheaply be performed on a cell phone, draws enormous amounts of attention to the user when used in public spaces, and both the ability to use it in public spaces and the attention drawing nature of it are marketed as pros.
Ok, so its now exceedingly clear that anyone who would get this thing is a wealthy idiot who has 0 experience with an impoverished community, as if you walked through a poorer area, you would just get mugged and have this high value device stolen from you.
And frankly at this point I would morally support that happening.
Not that it likely will, as anyone both dumb amd rich enough to have this happen to them generally has no kind of on foot commute through any such impoverished area.
Yep, no chance I'm drawing that much attention to myself.
The creator of the Apollo app recently tooted about wearing his out in public, getting noticed, and then secreting away to his hotel because the attention made him uncomfortable.
I’m probably more of an Apple fan than I like, but I can’t imagine owning one of these, let alone wearing it out in public.
It seems like Apple kind of forgot that good tech should first be good tech. They’re leaning heavy on this being a lifestyle item, but like - there’s no lifestyle out there that hinges on looking like boring versions of the guy from ready player one.
lmao, poor guy.
That makes sense... he's a fairly normal person. I could see using the Vision Pro at a co-working place anyway, especially for someone who's an iOS app developer.
It does seem like an oddly clunky device by Apple standards. I don't find the overall idea abhorrent and could picture owning one down the road - perhaps after they've had a few years to make the device smaller and less expensive. I have no idea what I'd use it for though. Maybe once there are more exciting games than repackaged mobile games like Super Mega Fruit Ninja.
Oh, yeah. More power to him. A later post by him said that the app he’s developing for it has already paid for the cost of the headset. I fully believe he’s just out there working.
I’m hoping in a few generations, when they’ve got the form factor worked out, and the price under control, that it’ll be more to my liking.
I don’t think I would ever want to interact with someone while wearing it, but it could be great for all the things VR is great for, but without the creepy Facebook privacy invasion. (I know - Apple is slipping down that slope, too. They’re just not as far down it yet.)
Feels like there's some redundancy here.
And it'll get snatched from you faster than an iphone
Simple solution. Kensington lock attached to the gonads. The device can helpfully warn others against theft with an LED projection on the wearer saying Big Cojone Security is active.
I want it like crazy. No chance I'll wear it in public after I pull the trigger.
I probably would throw it in my backpack on hikes to do some captures of stuff like waterfalls and nice mountain views. They're really nice and not something you can do with my regular camera.
How does that work? Does it stitch together panoramas?
So I asked, and you can't do captures to use for the backgrounds with the headset (I'm guessing they use better equipment and maybe some processing), but it does do "spatial photos and video". That was part of the demo in the store and they're really impressive. The 15 pro can also capture a 3D video that still looks cool, but has noticeably less depth than the captures with the headset.
I'm not sure the exact technical details, but there are a whole bunch of cameras and other sensors. I'm assuming it uses all of them combined to capture the 3D photos. But there was a lot of depth in the version I saw in the demo.
That’s why I bought one. To record spatial videos. I already tried it and without the straps (which pop off easily) you just pick it up and hold it like a camera, record video with your hands on it like a camcorder, then put it back down. It’s very much like just putting an old school camcorder to your eye for a few seconds. And there is no way in hell I’m wearing it in public except on an airplane maybe
They bought themselves into a beta test/focus group. Apple still doesn’t know what this will be. It might be a Newton MessagePad. Or it might be the iPhone.
Apple is great at polishing and packaging things that already exist. The iPhone was a better Blackberry, the iPod a better MP3 player, the iMac a better all-in-one PC… I have a hard time thinking of stuff they truly pioneered. The Newton maybe? That did not end well for them.
If I had to bet, the Vision Pro will turn out to be a burnt pancake, but long term I have no doubt that something like it — something that augments reality one way or another — will become a thing. And in the meantime Apple has pockets more than deep enough to survive a failed Vision Pro.
The backlash against them trying to innovate is kind of dumb though. They aimed high for a change, and taking risks like this should be lauded not laughed at.
The problem is they didn't aim high enough. AR/VR lives or dies on software. And for what they launched, it barely has the OS, and apparently that thing, although very polished UX wise, on security it's a swiss cheese. And few people has the pockets to develop apps for it.
They are still failing, in 2024, to put touch capability into their computers. This isn't a company that does innovativion well, and it hasn't been for over 15 years. It's totally fine to scoff at this attempt.
I really don’t see touchscreens on laptops to be something to judge a company’s innovation on. I work in communications and I can really only think of two coworkers that personally own touchscreen laptops.
I have zero interest in touch screen on my laptop. It is not standard on Windows and has yet to show any really benefits.
There was quite a different reaction to the iPhone when it launched, so I'm pretty confident it's not the latter.
It's 100% not anything like the original iPhone. Say what you will, it will never be that.
I just meant as successful. They’ve had several. The original iPod. The iPad. They’ve also had duds. The newton. The HomePod. The Pippin. Ping
Do we really want to live in a world where people are walking around with these things on their face, gesturing around like they are insane?
It's bad enough to witness how awful public spaces have become since smartphones came out, but this is next level zombie.
It is inevitable to a degree. Obviously this is not the final form and I’m sure the goal is to make a more fashionable solution that fits into their phone/watch/airpods kind of edc strategy. But no doubt we’ll have a future where info is right there if we want it. This thing is the foray into developing that eventual product for Apple. To me it looks real dumb, but a sleeker version in the future that looks like glasses…well shit it might be nice to watch a show while washing dishes idk.
But we're already there. It's called a smartphone.
The value add of replacing a pocket watch or a cellphone with a device about the same size that also fits in your pocket but also gives you access to all the world's information in seconds is immense. And that's why the smartphone revolutionized the world.
The value add of having that information strapped to your face at all times is... just not worth the physical discomfort of having said device strapped to your face.
I say this as a VR user. A device strapped over your face really sucks and you can't wait to take it off. The only reason to tolerate it is that that's the only way to trick your senses into thinking you are somewhere else.
I think they meant in the future when the form factor is the same as wearing glasses.
My glasses are on my face every minute of every day, except when showering and sleeping. I’m uncomfortable when they’re not there - and not just because I can’t see, but because I’m so used to it.
That’s probably the future - people being uncomfortable if a screen isn’t in their vision every waking moment, because it’s as physically comfortable and as “normal” as wearing glasses, and more comfortable than looking down at a phone.
It’d be an amazing feat for technology, but similarly as dystopian as having a social media-feeding PC in your pocket, or just any PC if you’re another generation older. Future people will eat it up though, just like we eat up the phones.
Now I’m imagining marketing where the old millennials are staring at their phones, and the young people are complaining about how grandpa never engages with other human beings or makes eye contact - but they’re still scrolling TikTok while talking to him.
It would be ar glasses I’d think, not a headset with a strap. At least that would be my guess as to the end state.
I was looking forward to the Google glass. Not because it was Google but because if a heavy hitter drops something more usually follow. To bad it flopped. I would love having something like that instead of my phone. Especially once there's prescription versions of them.
I just want smart glasses like a smart watch. Show me notifications, let me decline calls, etc. I don't want all the VR crap, just like 4 lines of text.
Given the ability to verbally ask a gpt something now, the goggles would have been a great thing to release in about a year from now.
That's why they released the pro now, so in a year when they release the $1000 "cheap" ones people will jump at the opportunity to be a part of the "in" crowd. 🤮
I like to Google for questions I have. I would like for at least that much. Im with you on the rest. I don't need for it to have video or anything like that. Just basic features and text googling.
Yea, while it's way out of my price range and looks a little goofy, this is exactly what I've been hoping for as the next step to VR. AR (or whatever Apple wants to call it) is super fascinating, and will be pretty much the main reason for me to get a headset in the first place.
While it may have issues, I'm really excited to see how the market reacts to it, hopefully occulus or another company will try and compete. Feels weird to say, but I'm hoping Apple finds success with it
there are rudimentary holo projectors, that are big and can only do a few flickering dots. they will probably become better. it will be less weird when other people see what you're gesturing at. i think that's where we're headed
If people can behave, I don't care what they wear or what they watch
About 200,000 years of history proves that we cannot lol
Did you not see the video of the guy wearing his new tim apple ski goggles, in his semi-self driving Tesla cyber truck?
What makes you think people can behave?
Those are fake, the apple vision pro bugs ten fuck out when it's I a moving car, so they couldn't have been using it. Its all for clout.
I want you to imagine a subway car, where 50% of the people have these on their face.
They are waving their hands around, sometimes accidentally hitting other passengers because of it.
They are too distracted to even catch their stop, so there's always extra chaos because of it.
Some are using apps that record what they are seeing and makes other passengers "naked" in their headset, which they share online. Privacy is a thing of the past because they can record what they see.
Imagine nobody being able to even have a conversation with other people, or make human connections with strangers, because the person across from them has a digital mask on, and you have no idea if they are even aware of what's going on around them.
Sure, you can have a great number of people "behaving" in this scenario, but is this something you want society to become? I don't. It deprives the human experience to an absurd extent.
I'm sorry, but do you just talk to strangers on the subway?
We already have smartphones that everyone is looking at anyway.
Before that we had newspapers.
You are making up an imaginary dystopia to peddle fear for no reason.
I very often greet people, say polite things, perhaps engage in some light conversation with strangers. It's quite human to have these social interactions.
Yes, which is already bad enough. Why make it worse by having them on our faces?
True, but newspapers didn't take people out of the environment they were in - it was simply an object within that environment in which people were still fully able to interact with the outside world uninhibited.
These headsets are designed to remove you from reality, while you are still in it. =
Nah, I just see where corporate interests are trying to move society, and I'm concerned about the negative impacts it will have.
Does Apple not know that human beings are not capable of multitasking?
You are either in the real world or you are in interacting in the virtual one. Even the visual distraction isn't something that our brains handle all that well.
People kill enough people while driving simply because they can't change a radio station while driving. Who expects an augmented reality system to suddenly be easier than that?
Old people usually strike a conversation.
You've seen someone talk on radio earbuds when the phone's in their pocket? It's the second most creepy thing I've ever seen with a phone conversation.
I've had people looking at me while they are talking to people on concealed earbuds. It's embarrassing if you respond to them as if they were actually talking to you. But how would you know who the hell they are talking to? 🤷♂️
Sliders on Peacock Season 4 Episode 4, “Virtual Slide”. Worth watching as this episode from 1998 realistically conveys the dystopian potential of VR/AR headsets. The headsets are centrally controlled and wirelessly networked. Topics covered include privacy violations, IP theft, manipulation of reality, social decay, virtual image and body autonomy, nested reality. It’s only taken 26 years to create a convincing reality that allows someone to wear the headset publicly with minimal problems. The fact that Apple hit the target on a 1.0 product is actually frightening. What will another 30 years of development bring?
I’m old enough to remember the advent of two of the most annoying pieces of electronics ever…
The Bluetooth earpiece - which made everyone having a conversation look like they were either talking to themselves or possibly schizophrenic.
Those god-awful push to talk walkie talkie type phones from mainly Nextel - which not only made you privy to the both parties conversation but had the freaking awfully loud and obnoxious beep in between switching parties talking. I wanted to strangle anyone using one in a restaurant.
I’m not sure that as a species we are capable of being present in the moment and not searching for that next hit of dopamine from a device with a screen. And Lord knows I’m as guilty as the next person.
I’ve had the Nextel beep as my SMS tone for almost 20 years now. Phone is usually on vibrate but the tone is there.
… I also have the “science is fun” song from Portal as my ringtone because it starts out with a noise that I can hear above the din and quickly gets really loud if I didn’t hear it. I had it as the Turret “hello?” sequence for a bit but that was super creepy.
Wh do you care?
It’s an AR iPad. It’s not that deep.
I would love to walk around with a video playing in a fixed hud while I go around doing chores. I'm constantly finding places to put my phone down every time I move to another station.
I'm not paying $3500 for that, though.
That was the idea of Google glasses but it was too early and tech wasn't ready. It was gonna give you just enough useful info and get out of the way.
Plus Google haters made "glass-holes" viral.
I'm not sure whether it would work better today.
What seems odd about the glasses is that they're essentially bodycams, but just unobtrusive enough not to be identified as such from a distance.
Someone walking around with an AR headset makes it very clear they're wearing a tech device, someone holding up a phone in front of them signals "I might be filming", but someone wearing slightly unusual glasses won't catch any attention. And that seems very weird to a lot of people.
I thought Google Glass was a really cool idea. I actually liked Google back then.
God, I still dream of a device that works like we saw in the OG Glass concept video as opposed to the glorified Google Plus browser we got
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
OG Glass concept video
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
To be fair, that product was crazy expensive. It was basically exclusively for wealthy people. If it was cheaper, and easy to develop for, it would have been a huge success.
Look at what Apple has done here by comparison... This bullshit is even more expensive.
I'm working on an open source version of an AR OS that can run on any Android phone, so you (will be) in luck!
Post it on Lemmy when you get something running, very interested!
This is like 20€
If you weren't aware https://youtube.com/shorts/zhXLC7n62YQ?si=TSu1p-WixFcbSxb2
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/shorts/zhXLC7n62YQ?si=TSu1p-WixFcbSxb2
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
The windows don’t come with you, you’d have to look at the corner and pinch to carry it around, then when you let go it anchors wherever you left it
Get a pair of Viture glasses then, it's about $500
It's not even AR... Didn't they back down from that? Isn't it mixed reality or something?
How is augmented reality different from mixed reality? Genuine question. They sound like the same thing.
I believe AR overlays information about the real world where as mixed reality just shows you the real world with a few apps floating about
Yes, AR analyses your world and you and gives you more info about the reality, Mixed Reality just has your screens attend into the world without interacting with it. The only thing I saw that was really AR was the use with a MacBook as a screen.
You're describing the difference between "passthrough" AR, and "look through" (or "optical") AR.
AR and MR or more pretty much interchangeable.
I don't think so. For example with true AR you could look at something like a bus and have it tell you information like the schedule, route, if it's running on time etc. This is done automatically and without user interaction. What the Vison Pro does is give you floating apps you can interact with
There is nothing about the Vision Pro that prevents that from happening other than they haven't implemented it.
The
abilityfeature to automatically give you information about arbitrary things you're looking at isn't a requirement for "true AR".I'm not really defending vision pro, it seems pretty limited. But that doesn't make it "not true AR" and MR doesn't mean "crappy/inferior AR"
I didn't see anyone mention this, but while this headset depicts the outside world when you are wearing it, you are viewing a camera feed of that world. True AR would be like google glass where it is a piece of glass with data projected onto it. Apples thing recreates the world around you and then adds in the applications, you are viewing the world through a filter.
It could also just be marketing too because it seems like they are trying really hard to not make this look like some nerd shit.
They are the same thing. I think that they're confusing it with the difference between "passthrough" AR (you watch an opaque display showing video of the outside world) and "see through" AR (which uses a transparent display that you look through to see the outside world).
Eh. It's a bit more handwavey than that. It's whatever you want it to be.
Virtual reality was supposed to be simulated, but "actual still science fiction" levels of simulated. seamless 3d environment, intercepting nerve signals to look and intuitively control an avatar or ready player one had a haptic suit.
AR stems from that and was supposed to be "the real world, but cyber". Or "VR, but with real world elements". In the novel "virtual light", it's supposed to overlay that "datasturce of cyberspace" on the real world. Even then it was never really clear what purpose cyberspace as a 3d world would have, what data looks like or should look like, and what the advantage of that visualization would be. Or why would rather see that than what the world looks like.
Mixed reality is also that. Imo. It sounds the same to me too.
The whole thing is like hand gesture control. It looked great in minority report, but we had it since one of the 2010s xboxs and it went absolutely nowhere.
Virtual reality: everything you see is virtual.
Augmented reality: adds a HUD on top of what you see in reality.
Mixed reality: has virtual objects behind real objects, mixing both real and virtual
That's because it's just marketing bullshit.
The worst person you've ever met came up with it in a very upscale cube farm over a chai latte, don't think too hard about it.
I hate Hate HATE that I'm going to say this: the iPad was just a bigger iPhone, yet here we are. It's the perfect device for consumption and light work, yet people had no idea about what to do with it at first.
I'm more irked about that thing being gigantic and strapped to your face, thought. It's the next level of social isolation, in a level even higher that the one cause by smartphones, and I'm not ok with that. Companies actually want to hijack and sell your reality back to you.
I’m with you. AR and VR has potential, absolutely, but companies are not our friends and they’ll find ways to exploit these things to the detriment of us. They always do.
We all know that these companies aren’t above lying straight to our faces. They’re even undermining the concept of ownership so they can milk us even further.
It’s sad, but I don’t see a reality where this kind of tech being closed off and proprietary will ever end well.
I think part of the "what do I do with this" factor for the iPad was that Apple (and other companies still to this day) were so hell bent on making everything smaller and more compact that releasing a larger product was marketing whiplash. Not to mention that smartphones were being pitched as this "do everything device" so why would you need anything else?
After you get over that marketing sugarcoating, it becomes pretty obvious what you'd use an iPad for. Internet and media consumption at a larger scale than your phone, easier on your eyes than a phone, but retains at least some of the lightweight smaller form factor that separates it from a regular laptop. Sure you didn't have the stick it in your pocket advantage of a phone or the full keyboard and computational power of a laptop, but there was this in-between that for a modest fee, you could have the conveniences if you can live with/ignore the sacrifices.
They are people who paid $4000 to be a voluntary QA team.
Is Apple heading down the road of Windows now? Release beta software and use the scream test to debug it?
Nah, it just has no apps, a poor battery life and like all new Apple product lines will be massively put to shame by its successors.
It doesn't have a poor battery life it has a poor battery design. If they put a decent battery on the damn thing it would be okay, it's not particularly power hungry but apple just give it a gnat's testicle of a battery.
The design makes perfect sense. You can trivially add an additional pack with capacity if that's your use case. The included pack does the power management and has enough for plenty of people without being in the way, and it's as simple as plugging in any source of USC-C power at appropriate specs to extend it.
That would be a fine argument if the device didn't cost more than my mortgage repayments. But for device that expensive, they absolutely need to put a decent battery on the thing.
A "decent battery" is bigger and more weight to carry around that plenty of use cases don't want or benefit from. It's not small for cost reasons. It's because it's a worse device if you force it to be huge.
The price is high, but only if you ignore how much tech is in it. A lesser but close dumb display from anyone else is thousands in its own.
There isn't a single use case that wouldn't improve with a longer lifespan of the device.
It is nothing but Apple marketing bullshit to claim people want a small battery, and nothing but Apple greed to increase the profit by using worse components.
When that lifespan is at the cost of meaningful extra bulk you have to carry around, there are plenty.
It's not saving them money. It's because being required to carry a giant battery no matter what you want to do is a significantly worse product.
Yes it's got lots of cool tech in it, none of which does anything. Excuse me while I go and watch Netflix on a display that costs 1/10 of the money yet has thousands of times the functionality.
Being overly complicated doesn't mean it's worth money.
Don't buy it if you don't want AR.
But it's beyond idiotic to trash the first device on the market actually capable of functional AR because you personally don't care about the tech people have been waiting decades for.
You mean selling unrepairable beta products of questionable usefulness at insane prices?
When iPhone was released App Store didn't even exist. A smartphone without apps is just a phone and VR glasses without apps are just a 360 degree monitor you wear on your face. I think Apple's reasoning here is to provide the hardware and see what people do with it.
When Apple released the first iPhone no one had an app store, originally Apple wasn't even going to have an app store it was all going to be web apps and then they realized that they could make more money with an app store. It wasn't a feature people expected, but people do expect apps now and they're not present.
We absolutely expected it when we realised no games or anything could be installed.
Can confirm, I had an Apple Newton. Hardware with no purpose is just hardware. So far, this seems like it's going where every VR headset goes. It's a solution looking for a problem.
for sure, and in the rest of the tech world, we call these devkits, not finished products. Apple is trying to convince rando non-dev apple fanboys to pay $3500 for the privilege of playing with devkits. And in many ways, it's a dead end, especially on input. what a shit show.
I would be potentially interested in developing an app for it there are some things holding me back.
It just doesn't seem like it's been properly released yet. It's a beta product with beta features and has been released as such except it has a non beta price. And also virtually no developers got early access so there's basically no apps.
Amen brother, same situation here.
you'll need an m1 or m2 dev box - so $800-3000+ for something with decent ram and storage. and you'll want an apple care subscription, $400 for two years (which won't actually pay for repairs, simply reduce the pain of them enough to justify); and you'll need to pay an apple dev id - $100 for indies, $250 for enterprise iirc; and you'll want to get some extra batteries to daisy-chain off the usb-c port on the existing battery because that shit only lasts 2.5 hrs at BEST. oh and spend another $100 on each devkit because they don't come with a fucking case.
it's like their dev chain is a fucking sadomasochistic loyalty test where the privilege to develop for the device's barren ecosystem costs more and more at each step. All for the honor of writing xcode apps that are running on ipad os++
fucking hell
Yeah the iPhone was successful at launch because it was a sleek blackberry and had iPod like capabilities. But it didn’t blow up until the App Store came out. I expect this product to do the same, and in the same way, companies to release competitive products with similar capabilities in a feature war until the newest releases are mostly talking about resolution and processor speed instead of new features
Now?
People who paid relatively a lot to feel that they are on with progress and have good taste. These are not things you can directly buy.
Of course, you can buy knowledge and powerful tooling, but I don't see such hype over digital libraries and good e-ink readers, or over learning programming among Apple fans.
On good taste specifically - Apple has always marketed itself as brand connected to that and has always been the opposite of good taste. I gave up trying to understand that long ago.
And exactly to prove your point I want to mention phone cases with a cutout so you can see the apple logo.
And the whole green / blue messages bullshit. Apple never misses an opportunity to remind it's users they're paying a premium and everyone else is a plebe.
Or just which messages are SMS and which are an encrypted protocol. It was the users that turned that into a measure of status.
Except Apple will the ones that refused to allow iMessage on Android so it's absolutely about status.
I don’t think it is good that they didn’t allow that but it seems non sequitur that means it is about status. I like to know if a message is sms or encrypted. Just like some jabber clients do for private messages. There should be some indication of the message status. And unless you can point to Apple indicating the intent of the colors is for social status and not an indication of protocol, I stand by that.
And I know it is hard to cut through the “fuck Apple” narrative. But to me, they are just another one of many scumbag corporations. I just don’t see any evidence that the intent is social status. That was driven by conspicuous consumers.
Additionally, Apple intentionally makes green bubbles harder to read than blue bubbles.
https://medium.com/@krvoller/how-iphone-violates-apples-accessibility-guidelines-6785172eb343
You missed the news, I guess.
Apple fully admitted a few times that it was intentional. It was 100% an artificially created mechanism to polarize users, and bully them into Apple's "ecosystem".
I didn’t miss that; that just isn’t what it says. Well it is what you say, but that’s not what I’m disagreeing with. I agree with you.
I’m not saying it isn’t a dirty business trick design to lock consumers in. It is. I’m saying it isn’t clear to me that it is designed as a social status issue. That was driven by a large group the users. Even still what this article is talking about is not having iMessage on android, which is not at all what I was disputing. I’m saying the colors serve a functional purpose. Not saying “only a functional purpose” but useful nevertheless.
I won’t be surprised if android likewise distinguishes between sms and messages using the new protocol.
so you just defend everything apple does but you agree it's dirty bullshit.
nice! seems like you pick winners bud.
This is truly a dizzying exchange. What I said was three things. The bubbles are designed to, at least in part, distinguish message protocol, the zealous conspicuous consumers are responsible for making it a status symbol, and not porting the system to android for vendor lock-in is a scummy process. I am really struggling to see me defend Apple in this case.
They are, and Apple consistently does things the way to let that work.
Don’t they all? I’ve never looked for a case showing the logo, but every case I’ve ever had show it
And besides the tech bros with the throw away money, many of the people who have bought this thing are “influencers” and now are having trouble figuring out how to make content with or about this thing, because it’s early adopter play tech and has very little actual use, so the influencers are the ones putting out videos like “what would I even do with this?”
It's a devkit, that apple is even selling these things to 'users' is idiotic.
Hilarious. It doesn't even look cool to wear it. It's slightly better than Google Glass, but what are you going to do with it?
I always thought Google Glass looked pretty sleek. Much better than having a full VR set on your face. You had a full field of vision, just a small HUD.
What people seem to be doing with it is driving around in Tesla's with it and looking like even larger burks than they usually do.
I mean, as I pointed out, before an App Store, not much. After an App Store and some competition there are crazy cool applications. Cooking? The device can show you how much of your food to chop, where to put it, visually measure a teaspoon or tablespoon or whatever for you, automatically start a timer when you get the chicken in the pan or whatever. Look up at the stars and see constellations, flights, weather, etc overlaid by your view. On-road gps directions where there is an arrow video game style showing you where to go. Apps that could assist in things like building legos by showing you which pieces to grab and where they go. Looking down over the earth while on a flight to see exactly what landmark/town/area/state you are looking at. There are awesome applications to the tech. Whether we will see them or not is a matter of speculation. Apple is advertising a 3500 dollar headset with cool hardware and boring ass software right now
That may be a more complex device, but I'd prefer something like a light Mandalorian helmet, with normal glass before your eyes (BTW, I think I've read about new kinds of glass which change degree of translucency depending on ionization or something) and picture being projected on it or with some display inside. I'm fine if that'd be 16x times fewer pixels.
Looking at the outside world via a computer display is just instinctively awful.
Yes it's called electrochromic glass, although it's actually more kind of glass laminate. But yeah it can be engineered in such a way as to change color depending on solar output or on the presents or absence of an electrical impulse. It's been around for about 20 years but it's only been practical for about 10.
People have even already integrated it with transparent displays so all of the technology is already there. It just needs commercializing.
Polestar apparently have a car with electrochromic glass in its windows so you can turn those into a computer display.
If I want to look at the world through a screen I'd stay home and watch a documentary.
The camera they use will never have the acuity, color perception and dynamic range that your eyes have. It probably doesn't work super well in dark environment and it's definitely completely useless for stargazing.
but people have been cooking, monitoring the sky and roamed the world for some ten thousand years now. what's the innovation here?
It has a logo of an apple on it now
But $3500 to tell me which LEGO to pick up is totally worth it.
I guess this is the new gold standard for douchebag detection. That used to be the gold apple watch, but this feels like a more glaring example.
What sucks is that at some point iPad marketing and Apple aesthetic etc felt for me a bit as if it's going in the direction of the
for real, and I think that's intentional, just like with M1 and adopting a Unix-like OS and what not, and some series on Apple TV not being that stupid, they always tease you in subtle ways, never ultimately delivering.
Its center of mass is definitely on the douchebag side, but until you clearly see their every move and retrospect over 20 years or so, you are never sure.
Its just a cash grab company that didnt yet collapse, because of its hype around it and its fanboiiiiis. And everybody supporting apple are just those who are deeply invested into that closed ecosystem. If apple dies out for any reason, they are screwed because their products are bricked without apple.
Give them credit for acting since the beginning the way all bigger tech companies do now.
Like big assholes? "With our products you feel like you are a better than others"? Yeah they started that shitty trend.
This is understated. They started it, and proved how incredibly successful misleading and exploiting consumers was. They (almost entirely) killed the replaceable batteries in phones, the headphone jack, and the persuit of genuine innovation.
Correct
Im struggling to figure out why Apple Vision Pro Owners threw out $3500 on a device without knowing what they can use it for
Apple puts out a product, Apple users buy the product. Nothing to figure out.
I just wonder how much Apple would make selling empty boxes and marketing them as such.
I'm sure that the iBox would turn out a fair profit.
The new Apple Log®
"I love log!"
They kinda do already; Apple sells a twisted piece of metal for $1k, and people buy it from them.
Apple does have really nice boxes
If Apple actually developed the technology in a sensible way, and that's a big if, it could actually be a really interesting product.
Right now it's a bit limited as essentially it is a very very expensive second display which only works with Apple devices.
If I had so much money that 3500 dollars didn't matter to me, I'd have one.
From what I've seen on it, I'd play with it for a day and forget about it.
Maybe an hour. Seems like it's pretty cool but there's nothing on the headset worth buying the headset for, even at half the cost. Even at a third.
They bought Tim Cook a new private jet. I thought they'd have figured by now.
"Just park it next to the others."
People walking around with them on is basically just their wait of saying "look at my butthole!"
Wait, are they ONLY wearing these? Because otherwise how are you seeing their butthole?
You're going to tell me they sold 3500$ goggles without the xray specs the first Quest units had accidentally?
If I'm going to drop a rent payment on some bulky Overwatch Tracer goggles then they sure as hell will do x-ray specs.
Wait what? Xray specs?
It gets displayed on a screen on the front of the device
Yeah. It's like the emperors new clothes. Only other "acceptable" humans with the same ecosystem buy-in can see their virtual clothes.
Everyone else needs to look at their buttholes.
Remember the Google Glassholes?
For a second on my mind I Imagined a butt dildo with a night vision camera at the top... I am not going to check if that exists.
Huh. And here I am, like some poor person, with no AR headset and $3500 extra in my bank account. I feel like such an idiot.
In this economy, most people don't even have that in their account. I guess that's part of the status bit... If you have these, who can say your not doing well?
In reality, it just makes them look like the assholes they very likely are.
You're definitely not like a poor person if you've got $3,500 lol
The people who buy something like this (hopefully) have enough money where $3,500 doesn't matter or are developers who want to get in early on something that might be big in a few versions.
Everyone else should avoid.
These are the early adopters phase. This always happens with high-end tech. I'm not sure how advanced this set is compared to the competition in order to justify that price.
A 4K USD electronic device that's what they bought....if they needed its features not sure but... that's what they bought.
FTFY
Thanks, its no tits
My phone autocorrects this wrong frequently, like it's life depends on it. One can assume GP typed the correct thing.
Yeah, but they have it, and in the end, isn't that what matters?? /s
Honestly, I think they might say the same thing without the /s.
They got a hololens, but like 8 years later, for the same price, and still just as useless.
try a thousand more than the horrorlens lol. Our hololens 1 and 2 devkits were $2400 iirc.
Wtf ever happened to hololens
I was so excited when they announced that and showed Minecraft just hanging out in the living room.
I wouldn’t have used it long.
The technology wasn't really there yet. The AR view was too small and the headset too big.
It was also just marketed to business, so other than it being the new fad it didn't really take off.
Seems like most people are saying “this is dope for media,” and outside of that, it’s a glorified dev kit.
Yes, "media". That's what I call porn too. That said, get a real VR headset.
Eh, I’m not buying the thing, but at least they’re doing some different stuff and have made some advancements for computing in AR / VR.
I don’t see how this is any less “real” than the other headsets. It’s better with productivity and some multimedia stuff because of the crazy high PPI displays, but it also lacks a good game library at the moment, and the price to entry is pretty nuts.
Well it's an AR headset. They have different design goals.
Its not AR, an AR headset is something like HoloLens, this is just a VR headset with your eyes on the front.
Oh, OK. I haven't been following it. I assumed it was AR because I saw something about someone walking around with it on. I don't get it if it's VR.
It’s being marketed as an AR headset, but it’s fully sealed and you can totally load up VR environments in it with no pass through.
IMHO, they’re not mentioning “VR” in the marketing because the pure VR software library is anemic, and the mixed reality / AR hardware and software is really good.
An overpriced VR headset.
Arnt they all.
I got the original vive which just my beatsaber player but due yo having a wife a job and chit to get done it lives in its protective case and when I do get a min yo use it both controler batteries are dead due to time living in a box
Jesus, reading this made me feel like I wrote this.
I haven't touched my headset in months
Reading it gave me a headache.
It's why I ended up selling mine
Made a pretty penny on it due to when I sold it
I ended up selling it for $750 with the deluxe audio strap right around the time Halflife Alex came out
I gave my Index to my son who has the time and physicality to use it. I'm just too old for action gaming now.
I would have loved it if I was 30 years younger. I can do more from a chair with my desktop PC than an Apple Vision Pro can. It's just another Apple Con.
Translation for those who haven't just had a stroke -
If they are, then this vision pro is truly extortion.
VR requires a bit of setup, which is off putting. I dont have the space to have mine out all the time, theres also a shortage of high quality games. Waiting on Valve to push the envelope again.
They are. This said, $1,000 or less can buy you the best VR rig on the market right now. This thing is four times that.
Let's be honest the min you see a picture of a half eaten apple on a thing just add a 0 to the price tag
Vr with passthrough
Most modern headsets have passthrough, its not some new feature. It is the part that Apple focused on though.
Isn't it for people who have ridiculously too much money to dump some of it? :-P
Apple now is extracting maximum value from its most loyal customers.
I'd hope you'd know what you were spending this much money on if it wasn't just for online attention.
to live and die on the first generation of a device
I still have my old dev version of the Oculus. It came with fancy changeable lenses lol. I don't regret that one at all and now it kinda feels like a little piece of history
Never seen anyone wearing them or promoting/showing it off
I’ve seen a few people making fun of it, and that’s the only reason I know it exists
I know they look slick but, outside of clout chasers and brand fanatics, who spends $3500 on something without knowing why they're buying it?
Nobody does. This article is bullshit just to get clicks
We should start calling these the "new oculus" or something. The marketing has been insane and neither Meta or Apple would benefit. It would be like when people called every console a Nintendo.
I’m going to the store do you want a Coke?
Cornetto
Or this works too
This is America: you're either a duper or a dupee.
I'm a duper.
You guys are the dupees.
You guys all think I'm a hero and I'll accept that responsibility
Peak conspicuous consumerism. They just need to make an app for it that does nothing but costs $5k like the infamous “I am rich” app when the App Store just opened.
So they bought Expensive Apple Thing because Expensive Apple Thing? I’ve had a decent quality HMD for a couple years. It’s a lot of fun and pretty amazing initially, especially if you have a game or two that really takes advantage of it. However, as a utility, it leaves a lot to be desired. I was really hoping to do CAD with it, there were some modestly priced design programs that looked ok along with some free ones, because that’s a big hobby of mine. It really doesn’t work very well. The toolset for decent CAD is fairly large. A tiny wrist menu isn’t going to cut it, and the ability to precisely manipulate nodes or vertices isn’t there. Same goes for even basic functions like desktops and normal computer functions. Sure, they work, but now you have to constantly be manipulating windows instead of having an extra monitor and kicking back in an office chair.
The AR aspect could be fun, but again you’re either the one creating this content via design software with the aforementioned difficulties, or you’re the one popping the HMD on to view what your home designer says would be a nice new kitchen cabinet set in your home. A useful tool, but not a substitute for a computing and design environment.
Have you ever included the innovative tablets into you CAD work?
I am unfamiliar with that term, so I assume not.
I remember reading that it supports mouse and keyboard, but the main input control are hand motions
Not sure what that means. My current HMD supports mouse and keyboard… but seeing as Apples HMD is standalone, I guess you can hook up a keyboard/mouse via buetooth? Mine works through the pc it’s hooked up to. Nice feature, but I wouldn’t call it earth shattering. Both VR headsets I’ve used support hand gestures, but I’ll assume Apple has improved upon detection and depth of vocabulary.
The current model has it's problems, but I really think this is the start of a new major product line for Apple. This isn't going to be relegated to only the rich forever. There are a few problems to over come. It needs to be lighter, it needs to be cheaper, and it needs better battery life. All of those should be somewhat resolved in the next 10 years. When it does, I think the market will explode.
The big selling point? TV. I know over the last few years I have kind of fought with my mom because she is hurting her viewing experience for the sake of aesthetics. The TV is mounted, but has a cabinet in front of it. It is loaded with tons of seasonal decorations. The reason? She can't stand the site of a cord. So instead, she has figures tall enough to cover part of the screen blocking the view of the TV, all so the cords can be hidden behind the figures. So yes, she loses part of the viewing area, and the remote doesn't work unless you get up and go to the side of the TV so the IR sensor isn't blocked, but it LOOKS better!!
The thing is, she isn't alone. I bought a TV last year. During the time researching it, I would see similar opinions to my mom's. Peopel would post pictures of their TV setup, asking if the size was OK, or if it should be higher, and the responses would be similar, telling the person to run cables through the wall, or get smaller stands or other complaints. It made me realize that many people care about those kind of things, and it will drive their purchase decisions.
All the Apple Vision Pro has to do is show them that you can have a TV, with no bezel, make it any size and position you want, you get rid of glare from the sun, and it has no visible cables. That alone is enough for people to want to buy it. It isn't there today, but it will get there in the somewhat near future.
Given that most non-enthusiasts I know would consider 500 € to be way too expensive for a TV, prices will have to come down a lot for that use case. Especially for families where everyone would need one.
Apple is definitely no contender in that market; their prices would have to go down by 90-95 % to interest the mass market and they're not interested in that kind of thin margin market segment.
The Quest is already pretty cheap. iPhones are not. The standard Vision will be half the price and people will buy it in droves with the right software.
I dunno. People said the same about 3DTV and that never took off even when more affordable models became available.
I don't think VR/AR has a killer app so far. There are some neat things it can do but nothing that makes people chomp at the bit to get their hands hands on it.
VR gaming is nice but most gamers don't consider it sufficiently better to a regular monitor to buy a VR rig. For screen replacement it gets worse because the constraints are even harder - smaller budgets, weaker host hardware, lower expectations that are already exceeded by traditional screens.
Apple might pull it off but they have one hell of a battle ahead of them.
I can't argue with much of that, although I will dispute the 3DTV aspect, no one I knew gave a monkey's about that and didn't expect it to take off, mainly as we had experienced it in the cinema and saw little benefit. VR is a totally different kettle of fish in comparison, it reimagines interaction completely, and isn't sitting in front of a static screen as per '3D'. HDTVs took off, then encouraged upgrades with 1080 and now 4K/HDR. Phones went from £30 to £1,000+.
VR makes Beat Saber a console seller (if I regard the Quest as one). Lack of controllers and games makes the Vision concept a difficult sell as it stands.
I find it to be fairly similar. Most people I know either don't care about VR or bought/borrowed a rig and ended up not using it much. It's typically seen as kinda nice but not nice enough to really bother with.
In terms of interactivity, most see VR as little better than the Kinect – and that didn't exactly take the world by storm, robotics labs excluded.
I think most people are actually happy with their regular screens so it's hard to sell them on something that does more.
Wasn't Kinect the quickest selling item one Christmas?
It's definitely a huge step up and sales are strong in gaming circles, wider adoption is going to need something else though, perhaps glasses-size headsets and long usability. I think those who do use it are impressed, at least those I know.
Once there is enough demand, some Chinese or Thai OEM - maybe the same one that manufactures these for Apple or Samsung - will sell them for a couple hundred Euro.
The problem is that demand will have to be generated first – something HTC, Google, Microsoft, and Meta have failed at so far.
So far it seems that VR/AR is behaving somewhat similarly to 3DTV: Some enthusiasts are really into it and a market exists but most people aren't excited enough to spend any extra money on it. They'll have to find a way around that if they really want mass-market adoption.
I really don't see these $3500 VR goggles (or any other goggles) being widely—or hell, even narrowly—adopted as a TV replacement. There are frankly an exhausting number of reasons why not. For one, it would only make sense for those who exclusively use their TV alone. That rules out the vast majority of television owners right off the bat.
It's an uncomfortable way to watch porn.
It is quite comfortable actually. The masturbation in public part, not as much
What a shock 🙄
This article is idiotic. People know they are buying a first gen spatial computer. It’s not like you accidentally spend $3500
Many average consumers probably don't specifically know what 'spatial' means, or what defines a computer vs a phone or whatever. People with too much money do spend 3500 carelessly, I have known a few of the types, and for the latest Apple technology I could see plenty of people buying it without even knowing what it really is.
They know what spatial computer means because they watched Apple’s short video that explains the product and how it augments your environment. If people with too much money buy one, why do you care? You care about all the other dumb shit they waste their money on too?
They can buy whatever they want haha I didn't say I care, I was just saying the article title could be accurate, people spend money without knowing much about the purchase all the time.