I very much do not want AR. There will be ads everywhere. What happened to the anger people had toward Google Glass and the feeling that people wearing them would be recording everything around them basically all the time?
One thing I give Apple credit for is keeping ads out of the primary operating system. I've got an Apple TV and a Google TV (I refuse to use it's full name). Apple TV is just a grid of Apps whereas the Google homescreen immediately hits you with an ad for a show on a streaming service you might not even have. Even the Google remote has dedicated buttons for Netflix and YouTube and I'm not a Netflix subscriber.
I guess it's the difference between Apple being a hardware/software company and Google being an advertising company.
Apple TV is just a grid of Apps whereas the Google homescreen immediately hits you with an ad for a show on a streaming service you might not even have.
Apple TV+, the streaming service, does show ads for content. It's one of the worst, in my opinion, at pre-roll ads for other shows you didn't click on.
Then, in the interface, you'll get banner-like ads for other stuff, mostly Apple TV+ exclusives. Also, the interface also does push casual browsing (or search) into the paid buy/rent options also.
Apple's days of focusing on user experience above all else has shifted towards getting you to pay for stuff. Just because it mainly steers towards stores they own (app store, music/movies/TV, services subscriptions) doesn't make it any less intrusive of advertising.
Apple TV+ is an app though (which I never use). I'm talking about the operating system and the extended area above the apps is only applicable to the apps you put there (all of which for me just show the stuff you're currently watching).
What happened to the anger people had toward Google Glass and the feeling that people wearing them would be recording everything around them basically all the time?
People feel that way all the time now, so AR glasses no longer seem as intrusive to most people.
I don't think these glasses are intended for general public use right now. I know big businesses that want them for manufacturing quality control but outside that what is the point of AR?
As an industrial engineer I can think of plenty of uses of it has a halfway decent pathway overlay. Part picking with highlighted parts can be amazing and it could revolutionize assembly.
Outside factories, I’d love a gps hud on my car, and on walks. Not enough to sacrifice the little privacy I have in my own eyes though.
Edit: sorry was thinking AR glasses in general not these specifically. I wouldn’t even let my QC team use these. If the battery connection breaks you’re blind in a manufacturing environment and that’s dangerous
I don't want something that's an electrical failure from me being unable to see strapped over my head while driving.
At least Google Glass was transparent.
Spoken like someone who lacks vision.
How about going to a foreign country and being able to navigate the streets like a local thanks to the overly guiding you to your destination like Waze? How about being able to read signs and communicate with locals thanks to the instant translation services built in? How about a virtual assistant that can walk you through an oil change specifically for your car? How about a cooking assistant that can warn you if your pot is about to boil over or if you forgot to add the butter? How about taking my shitty dystopian studio apartment and giving me a balcony view of a tropical beach?
There are countless applications for AR ranging from the mundane to the extremely helpful. The tech needs to be developed more before it will be adopted by the masses, but it's far from useless.
By 2030 we'll have AR in a sunglasses form factor with integrated AI that will be able to digitally remove the clothing of everyone you see with a good degree of accuracy for what's underneath.
Ok my bad, I wasn't talking about what the technology is 10 years from now. I was just saying in 2024, what technology exists for a general consumer that makes AR worth even talking about.
I'm always reminded of this video when I think about just how bad AR could be. But then again, it could be pretty cool if we can only keep control over our tech.
There will be ads everywhere.
Too late.
The review was great, and the fact that Apple went it's way to try and do something to be seen as an innovator is awesome, for one reason only: they failed horribly.
Granted, this is the best VR handset that could be done with today's tech, and even then it's bad. There's no use outside niche applications, and too much constraints and trade offs for it to be reliable. We need a huge advance in tech for AR be feasible and socially acceptable.
And you can't even play proper games with this thing.
It's not even that it's not feasible. The entire idea is stupid. VR makes a lot of sense in entertainment and AR will one day be really great for small things like showing map directions and notifications but the concept of a virtual computer controlled by waving your hands around is just silly. It will never make sense.
The main use case I think right now, really is the expanded monitors view. For people that travel a lot it might be a real use case
To carry the whole VisionPro bag, keyboard and mouse instead of simply taking your laptop? The review makes it clear it's not usable without peripherals, you will still need some desk. It's solving a problem that doesn't exist.
I work on 3 monitors during the day, with multiple virtual desktops. It solves for that, and that alone. That being said, I wouldn't pay $3500 for the privilege, especially when it ONLY operates in the Apple ecosystem, which I don't care for. Other VR desktops exist, but they're all kinda "meh". I'll invest when a device can be used neutrally as just a VR monitor tool.
Pro: Video passthrough is a leap forward, hand and eye tracking are awesome.
Con: video passthrough is fuzzy, hand and eye tracking are kinda shit.
WHICH ONE IS IT!?!
I think you’re missing the point. Both are true. It is both leaps forward, but still bad.
Just because something is “best in class” doesn’t mean it’s not a piece of shit.
The Vision Pro is the best example of video passthrough and hand/eye tracking that has ever been produced, but they're also insufficient for it to be a seamless experience.
This isn't really the problem, I think. MKBHD touched on this but this system doesn't seem to have a killer app. There's a bunch of stuff you can do with it, but which of those things can be done better than just using a computer?
Gaming is the big one but apple doesn't care about that so what else is there? It would be good for virtual walkthroughs of a home you're considering buying. Or at an architects office to show off the experience of a new building. But...cheaper VR headsets can already do all of that.
So what actually task can this do better than anything else?
Is was really irritated when he presented the presentation app as the most killer app for the device. On traditional VR headsets this would be a really mediocre app compared to what games do in VR...
They're not contradictory. All other headsets' passthrough is just so bad that even though the Apple headset isn't good it's still way ahead of them.
"Magic until it's not" basically sums up the whole Apple user experience.
I turned the video off immediately when he said it's 34 99 spaced out rather than three thousand four hundred ninty nine dollars so it sounds as fucking terrible as it actually is price wise. Fuck apple and fuck this reviewer
What a weird thing to get hung up on.
What you don’t like people talking to you like you’re a retard ? But 3499,99 is not the same as 3500,00. It would be bad information, the verge « journalist » sure can’t allow it.
I would quote it as $3500 or thirty-five hundred dollars. It's a common practice for radio since $3499.99 is read as thirty-four ninety-nine ninety-nine which is heard as $349,999
This value is too much for any VR/AR goggles in my budget. I'd read this as a thing for very specialized industrial purposes (say CAD/CAM) or a toy for rich people.
And if it's just a toy for rich people, it's not going to be well supported. If it's a CAD/CAM tool or a tool for disabled accessibility then all the software will be proprietary and overpriced as well.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
In Apple’s photos, it looks like a big, bright screen that shows a video of your eyes to people around you so they feel comfortable talking to you while you’re wearing the headset — a feature adorably called EyeSight.
On the top edge, you’ll find what feel like larger versions of some familiar Apple Watch controls: a digital crown that adjusts both the volume and the level of virtual reality immersion on the right as you look through the headset and a button on the left that lets you take 3D photos and videos.
You can also see Apple’s incredible video processing chops right in front of your eyes: I sat around scrolling on my phone while wearing the Vision Pro, with no blown-out screens or weird frame rate issues.
A lot of work has gone into making it feel like the multitouch screen on an iPhone directly controls the phone, and when it goes sideways, like when autocorrect fails or an app doesn’t register your taps, it’s not pleasant.
I asked about this, and Apple told me that it is actively contributing to WebXR and wants to “work with the community to help deliver great spatial computing experiences via the web.” So let’s give that one a minute and see how it goes.
There’s a part of me that says the Vision Pro only exists because Apple is so incredibly capable, stocked with talent, and loaded with resources that the company simply went out and engineered the hell out of the hardest problems it could think of in order to find a challenge.
The original article contains 8,148 words, the summary contains 264 words. Saved 97%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
This might be a bad take but it seems like a worse version of HoloLense. Just glancing at the pros/cons list seems like HoloLense already covered this ground at a similar price point
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
