HoloLens is currently a developer product not a consumer product. Developers aren't so vain and prissy that they care about it being "ugly".
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple CEO Tim Cook: Technology Doesn't Exist to do AR Smart Glasses 'In a Quality Way'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Fashion comes before innovation.
Angela the role-model - has been doing a field test for 5 years.
Apparently, it didn't provide anything.
[doublepost=1507706439][/doublepost]
That leadership translates into a pipeline.
Getting longer and longer by the day (and just dripping...)
[doublepost=1507706652][/doublepost]
What a drag. Former Apple would have taken the opportunity of the deceased Google Glass and showed the world a viable product - instead of milking iPhone bezels to the extreme.Didn't know he was engineering them?
Jokes aside, technology takes time, no matter who you are. They created the iPad back in 2002, but put it aside, because technology and the market wasn't ready. 8 years later, it was out - and that was under steve.
If they release something half arsed, people will bitch as well, you can never win
Last edited:
Apple has never been about being first. Heck we had tablets in 2000, and smart phones long before that.
I also think they will take their time when it comes to glasses, since that is a very personal thing, and we dont want to look like cyborgs. I actually dont think we'll ever see any glasses from them, until they look more or less like normal ones, and still fashionable. (not everyone wants to look like an über nerd).
But i agree the iPhone design has been long overdue like many of their other products.
It certainly has many more useful industrial and medical applications than those silly smartwatches that are basically good for absolutely nothing.
So Former Apple would have dwarfed Google Glass by now (after Angela successfully trendsetting the market with her 5 year field test)
Apple as a company as a whole is getting just a gimmick. 100.000+ people working for Apple. When you cut those from people working at the Apple stores 20.000 or so remain. Considering that at google 10.000+ people are working on google maps alone. Intel just hired 9500 people working on AI related things. It’s no wonder there is so little happening at Apple. They’ve run out of ideas for years and just following the trends with rushed out products lately, like the MacBook touchbar disaster Pro, the ancient iPhone 8 and uberpriced Apple TV (every smart tv sold already delivers what the Apple TV has to offer). Who wants to buy an iMac pro for 5000 when everything is soldered and glued together. The Apple of today is a joke of its past.
[doublepost=1507712804][/doublepost]And using the analogue that innovation at phones stalled because the market for tech has matured is the same as saying we don’t need to build new cars anymore because that market is matured. Apple lost this race because of lack of perfecting their designs and focusing on brandname from the past and profits.
[doublepost=1507712804][/doublepost]And using the analogue that innovation at phones stalled because the market for tech has matured is the same as saying we don’t need to build new cars anymore because that market is matured. Apple lost this race because of lack of perfecting their designs and focusing on brandname from the past and profits.
Then there’s people who wear prescription glasses on a daily basis who aren’t going to be arsed to pay a premium so they can see. They are expensive enough already.
There are other challenges, such as physical proportion of people’s head, stability, how to ensure it doesn’t fall off, making it durable (glasses are far more prone to dropping than watches and phones) as well as those who want to use it for sports, etc. it’s a much bigger challenge with a whole set of new problems to solve.
Finally atleast someone told the truth. But what is the timeline we are looking at for this new technology to be developed?
[doublepost=1507713440][/doublepost]
iMac Pro is coming Bro, you will be happy for yrs to come once you buy that, that kind of hardware may not get old before 6-7 yrs.
[doublepost=1507713440][/doublepost]
iMac Pro is coming Bro, you will be happy for yrs to come once you buy that, that kind of hardware may not get old before 6-7 yrs.
It is a process, first will come advanced screens, this technology will then be miniaturized and combined with curved screens and stronger glass. Combine the physical development with the software advancement of Siri over the coming years and eventually we will have the right time for such a product. Anything released now will be unpleasant, have chunky frames to fit 'large' processors in and be a mix and match of existing technology not suited to the end goal of enjoyable AR integration.
Because Apple doesn’t fabric anything. It’s all glued together tech from other companies and putting an Apple stamp on it. That’s why Apple gets leapfrogged all the time... no tech is theirs.
There’s proof on YouTube Apple is working on glasses since at least the nineties... but I cannot find it anymore, please help me.
The video was pretty much like the famous “knowledge navigator” proof of concept video (what we know today as the iPad), but was focused on potential uses of glasses.
There was this video of a Lady which was deaf, she was wearing big granny-looking glasses (which probably looked cool in the early nineties). She was speaking with her family and random people and she was able to understand what they were saying ‘cause the glasses were showing her sort of “subtitles”. So one use case they had in mind was lip reading and subtitle what one says (which implies the possibility of translation, by the way). We can see the seeds of it now (facial mapping with 3D camera on iPhone X anyone?), we can take for granted they are working on this kind of stuff in this very moment because of that video.
The video was pretty much like the famous “knowledge navigator” proof of concept video (what we know today as the iPad), but was focused on potential uses of glasses.
There was this video of a Lady which was deaf, she was wearing big granny-looking glasses (which probably looked cool in the early nineties). She was speaking with her family and random people and she was able to understand what they were saying ‘cause the glasses were showing her sort of “subtitles”. So one use case they had in mind was lip reading and subtitle what one says (which implies the possibility of translation, by the way). We can see the seeds of it now (facial mapping with 3D camera on iPhone X anyone?), we can take for granted they are working on this kind of stuff in this very moment because of that video.
Last edited:
AR with such glasses will take more time... and it will take even more time to not look like an idiot with such glasses. And that's the point. Apple releases stylish products, not products that make you look like a geek. Frankly, there's some technologies that are not a success; i.e. doomed to fail from the beginning... I'm not sure if AR glasses will be one of them, but if they have a built-in cam that's quite likely. They are a permanent distraction, need to be worn (rather than carried) and no matter how light they are, they'll be to heavy.
That to me is hyperbole. I am pretty happy with my first generation watch ever since it was shipped, and it seems that I am not the only one. But sure, typical over the top MR post as one expects it today.
So whenever somebody else fails with a technology it’s then Apple’s job to better them? My guess is they could not see a value at the time. People probably expect these glasses to be light, have a great display, have great battery life and a price not too far off from regular glasses. It will take time for the technology to shrink further to make this stuff happen.
Can you elaborate on this a little more? The only reason I ask is because I, and a lot of my colleagues who use the Apple Watch, do so mostly for notifications and the (very) occasional phone call. We still stick to our phones because most tasks require, as of now, a bigger screen than the Watch can provide. In the most realistic scenario, AR Glasses would likely work very similarly, providing heads-up, hopefully intelligent notifications, which would mirror the Watch's functionality, hence cannibalization.
I do think that in the distant future the glasses could be more likely to supplant the iPhone proper, as with HoloLens you can find yourself projecting whatever size screen you need to work on in augmented reality space. But the tech in MSFT's device is huge and bulky compared to likely whatever Apple's idea of a consumer-focused version would be.
Actually i think their main workforce is in the software. Steve's own words were that they are a mainly a software company:
https://mikecanex.wordpress.com/2012/12/08/steve-jobs-own-words-apple-is-a-software-company/
I would. Specially in the beach, gym...you name it!
Should come with a filter to hide/block fat people. They're not pleasing at all.
AR Glasses company founded in 2011 who are pre-revenue, haven't made their product public (unless NDA is signed) and yet are currently valued at $4.5 billion - soon to be $6 billion possibly. Investors include Google, Qualcomm and China's Alibaba.
I recommend you Google them, or subscribe to the sub reddit r/magicleap.
P.S. Rumor is that they reached this valuation based partly on their 'light field' screen tech which pushes back against Cook's belief that FOV isn't there yet. (It's not with conventional technology, of course.)
Smart glasses don't work as a consumer product. Even Google realized this. People who wanted it are either a tech youtuber/blogger (so they can make an article/video to get hits, and not actually using it), or those in niche industries where these things are available. Microsoft's implementation into the Holo lens is better imo since it squarely target those niche market instead of being a consumer product.
I believe Apple does have something in mind. The fact that they suddenly are pushing ARKit is a sign.
I believe Apple does have something in mind. The fact that they suddenly are pushing ARKit is a sign.