Apple Claims Vision Pro SDK Downloads Exceeded Expectations Amid Developer Lab Attendance Concerns

[Surf Monkey]

If the purpose was just to let me know you haven’t changed your mind, then you could have just said something much shorter and to the point like “I remain unconvinced” or even “you failed to rebut it”, rather than typing out a longer statement that you’ve already typed out and that people following this thread have already read.

It’s pretty standard debate practice to restate one’s position in that context.

But I do want to try to clarify something about your previous answer to my question.
You said that it was a huge assumption that technology could do what I posited which was to eventually make a pair of screens (and we forgot to include the camera system) so good that the light from them hitting our eyes would be indistinguishable from the light hitting our eyes through a pair of glasses, making them functionally (not conceptually/actually) equivalent.
Did you mean it’s an assumption for our technology in the foreseeable future, or did you mean it’s scientifically impossible forever?

I doubt it’s possible. Light reaching your eyes originates from many different sources and directions. A screen can’t replicate that. Not now and not for the foreseeable future.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Not sure if I’m reading this comment out of context, but I’m pretty sure the VP’s high price is the thing people point out about it the most. Maybe it depends what people you’re referring to, but for me going by comments on MR and YouTube.

Price is about the last problem with the VP. Perhaps you might want to read some of the various threads about it.

 

[Surf Monkey]

The facts are here on MR and easy to find.


"What you’re doing is using a fallacious set of statements to deflect away from valid criticism."

Yeah... all the criticisms of iPod, iPhone, iPad, AirPods, etc were just as "valid" as well in the eyes of those (and possibly even yours) that made the predictions they'd flop.

Nothing new here.

So you refuse to back up your supposed facts and double down on a blatant fallacy? Okay then.

 

[citysnaps]

So you refuse to back up your supposed facts and double down on a blatant fallacy? Okay then.

What facts do you need backed up? There's plenty of MR history available. Straight from the people who actually made the claims going. And it's free.

 

[Surf Monkey]

What facts do you need backed up? There's plenty of MR history available. Straight from the people who actually made the claims going. And it's free.

Yeah. I’ve seen it. You’re cherry picking. Not every Apple product is a success. Not every prediction of failure is wrong.

But again, you’re simply deflecting from valid criticism.

 

[citysnaps]

Yeah. I’ve seen it. You’re cherry picking. Not every Apple product is a success. Not every prediction of failure is wrong.

But again, you’re simply deflecting from valid criticism.

Hardly cherry picking. Truly unsuccessful Apple products are relatively rare.

"But again, you’re simply deflecting from valid criticism."

Not deflecting at all. I'm simply reporting what's been said over the years here (check the MR history, if you care to) about new Apple product introductions that have turned out to be successes despite opinions posted here at introduction (that's not a deflection). And have lead to Apple being one of the most successful (and valuable) tech companies in the world.

 

[subjonas]

Price is about the last problem with the VP. Perhaps you might want to read some of the various threads about it.

I’ve seen them. People have lots of criticisms of the VP and certain groups of people get into long conversations in the threads, but in the wide scope of all people commenting on the internet, price is many times and probably most times mentioned first. Your statement that it is mentioned last is just wrong, even if it’s an exaggeration. Whether price is actually the first or last problem with the VP is a totally different conversation.

 

[subjonas]

It’s pretty standard debate practice to restate one’s position in that context.

A lot of people repeat themselves without adding anything new, but I don’t agree that it’s good practice. I believe a good debate should always make some forward progress, or stop, but never do an exact loop.

I doubt it’s possible. Light reaching your eyes originates from many different sources and directions. A screen can’t replicate that. Not now and not for the foreseeable future.

Ok, thanks for clarifying.

 

[Surf Monkey]

In regard to VP and Taylor Swift:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/07/business/taylor-swift-eras-tour-movie-theaters/index.html

Exactly like I said.

 

[Agathon]

Lol. Hardly. People aren't going to wear computers and have information shoved at them 24/7. That's the stuff of dystopian nightmares. As a big sci-fi fan, I find it interesting that there are no positive visions of a future with AR/VR. In optimistic visions of the future, ie: Star Trek, AR/VR is rarely seen.

Sci-fi isn't a reliable guide to the future. For example, almost all the sci-fi I grew up with completely failed to anticipate the internet. AR shows another way in which they'll probably be wrong – most sci fi cities have screens everywhere, but screens will be of no use when portable AR exists – any shared screen will be created virtually, as and where needed.

People already wear computers and have information shoved at them 24/7. The iPhone and Apple Watch do just this. At just moves the primary screen to match the visual field – thus you don't have the current situation where you have two visual fields: your own and the screen's, which are controlled separately. The utility is obvious – I would happily dump my monitors for a virtual screen. The only question is whether it can eventually be made cheap enough and light enough for most users. Whoever cracks that will make a fortune.

Just because you can't see it does not mean others can't.

 

[JamesHolden]

Sci-fi isn't a reliable guide to the future. For example, almost all the sci-fi I grew up with completely failed to anticipate the internet. AR shows another way in which they'll probably be wrong – most sci fi cities have screens everywhere, but screens will be of no use when portable AR exists – any shared screen will be created virtually, as and where needed.

People already wear computers and have information shoved at them 24/7. The iPhone and Apple Watch do just this. At just moves the primary screen to match the visual field – thus you don't have the current situation where you have two visual fields: your own and the screen's, which are controlled separately. The utility is obvious – I would happily dump my monitors for a virtual screen. The only question is whether it can eventually be made cheap enough and light enough for most users. Whoever cracks that will make a fortune.

Just because you can't see it does not mean others can't.

Sci-fi does get a lot wrong and I never said it was a reliable guide to the future. What I said is that positive sci-fi visions of the future never really include VR. VR is consistently seen in negative/dystopian futures like the one seen in Minority Report, the Matrix, Raise By Wolves, throughout Gibson's work, and on and on. Show me a positive future vision that includes VR.

The way the world is going, I fully expect some cocktail of these dystopian sci-fi visions to come true. It's already happening, whether it's climate collapse, the surveillance state, extreme wealth disparity, the growing willingness to mortgage more and more of our humanity as we chase our tech addiction...it's all happening. So you might very well be right that the masses will strap something to their faces and let the machine pump them full of outrage, nonsense, and misinformation 24/7. As you said, they're already doing that now with their smart phones.

And I'm sure you'll be excited when you can just implant something in your head too. Or replace your eyes altogether. No doubt you see the increased utility in that as well. It's obvious, right?

 

[Surf Monkey]

Sci-fi isn't a reliable guide to the future. For example, almost all the sci-fi I grew up with completely failed to anticipate the internet. AR shows another way in which they'll probably be wrong – most sci fi cities have screens everywhere, but screens will be of no use when portable AR exists – any shared screen will be created virtually, as and where needed.

People already wear computers and have information shoved at them 24/7. The iPhone and Apple Watch do just this. At just moves the primary screen to match the visual field – thus you don't have the current situation where you have two visual fields: your own and the screen's, which are controlled separately. The utility is obvious – I would happily dump my monitors for a virtual screen. The only question is whether it can eventually be made cheap enough and light enough for most users. Whoever cracks that will make a fortune.

Just because you can't see it does not mean others can't.

Isolated in an iPhone helmet, slave to even more subscriptions for content, trapped in Apple’s walled software garden, advertising literally in your face, alienating people around you, having to use some lame virtual avatar when conferencing with other users…

What could be wrong with that?

 

[Jensend]

Sci-fi does get a lot wrong and I never said it was a reliable guide to the future. What I said is that positive sci-fi visions of the future never really include VR. VR is consistently seen in negative/dystopian futures like the one seen in Minority Report, the Matrix, Raise By Wolves, throughout Gibson's work, and on and on. Show me a positive future vision that includes VR.

Star Trek, with the Holodeck.
Not that they don't sometimes portray it in a negative light. At least one character becomes addicted to it.
And in one episode, everyone becomes addicted to a game on a head-mounted device.

There was an episode of Black Mirror that had a quite positive portrayal of a VR world, even though the show usually focuses on the negative/dystopian.

There are plenty of examples in media of 3D holograms used as a tool, in a way that is functionally equivalent to VR/AR, even if it doesn't use HMDs.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Star Trek, with the Holodeck.
Not that they don't sometimes portray it in a negative light. At least one character becomes addicted to it.
And in one episode, everyone becomes addicted to a game on a head-mounted device.

There was an episode of Black Mirror that had a quite positive portrayal of a VR world, even though the show usually focuses on the negative/dystopian.

There are plenty of examples in media of 3D holograms used as a tool, in a way that is functionally equivalent to VR/AR, even if it doesn't use HMDs.

The Holodeck doesn't require a HELMET.

 

[JamesHolden]

The Holodeck doesn't require a HELMET.

The Holodeck is true virtual reality. You step inside and experience a simulated reality (sights, sounds, smells, etc), not just watch something with a dorky helmet on.

HUGE difference.

 

[Jensend]

The Holodeck is true virtual reality. You step inside and experience a simulated reality (sights, sounds, smells, etc), not just watch something with a dorky helmet on.

HUGE difference.

You used The Matrix as an example of negative portrayal of VR, yet Holodeck doesn't count as a positive portrayal of VR, despite sharing these same attributes?

 

[Surf Monkey]

You used The Matrix as an example of negative portrayal of VR, yet Holodeck doesn't count as a positive portrayal of VR, despite sharing these same attributes?

A holodeck type system could become a negative thing very easily, which you’ve probably noticed if you’ve ever actually watched Star Trek the Next Generation.

 

[Agathon]

Sci-fi does get a lot wrong and I never said it was a reliable guide to the future. What I said is that positive sci-fi visions of the future never really include VR. VR is consistently seen in negative/dystopian futures like the one seen in Minority Report, the Matrix, Raise By Wolves, throughout Gibson's work, and on and on. Show me a positive future vision that includes VR.

Why would anyone take seriously predictions made in a genre of junk fiction? You can't base serious predictions on products designed for entertainment. Read proper books.

Sci-fi dystopias are generally silly and usually are more about creating an oppressive environment where a countercultural rebel ethos makes sense, because it doesn't make sense in the actual world (which doesn't stop people from trying). Once you realise that theydystopias aren't functioning as plausible representations of the future, but to satisfy present day political delusions and psychological needs, there just isn't much point to them. It's never explained why people will put up with living in such terrible societies. This is because there is no reasonable explanation.

As I said before, sci-fi is no reliable guide to the future, so it's perfectly possible that VR and AR will be be part of it.

The idea is that lightweight AR glasses, along with the future equivalent of AirPods Pro, replace your existing phone, watch, television, and computer by combining the functions of all in a cheaper, more convenient package. Like any existing device you will be able to turn them off or turn off individual functions. It's no more wildly dystopian than the present day – you'll be doing the same things you are now but for a cheaper price and more efficiently. That's it. That's all there really is to it.

Of course, there will be people who say that this will end up in thought control or dystopia, but they offer no explanation of why people would put up with that.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Why would anyone take seriously predictions made in a genre of junk fiction? You can't base serious predictions on products designed for entertainment. Read proper books.

Sci-fi dystopias are generally silly and usually are more about creating an oppressive environment where a countercultural rebel ethos makes sense, because it doesn't make sense in the actual world (which doesn't stop people from trying). Once you realise that theydystopias aren't functioning as plausible representations of the future, but to satisfy present day political delusions and psychological needs, there just isn't much point to them. It's never explained why people will put up with living in such terrible societies. This is because there is no reasonable explanation.

As I said before, sci-fi is no reliable guide to the future, so it's perfectly possible that VR and AR will be be part of it.

The idea is that lightweight AR glasses, along with the future equivalent of AirPods Pro, replace your existing phone, watch, television, and computer by combining the functions of all in a cheaper, more convenient package. Like any existing device you will be able to turn them off or turn off individual functions. It's no more wildly dystopian than the present day – you'll be doing the same things you are now but for a cheaper price and more efficiently. That's it. That's all there really is to it.

Of course, there will be people who say that this will end up in thought control or dystopia, but they offer no explanation of why people would put up with that.

Well, science fiction is far from “junk.” Dismissing an entire genre out of hand is kinda silly.

Regardless, you’re correct overall. Science Fiction is not intended to be future predictive so using it as a guide is not a solid stance to take.

As to your prediction of “glasses size AR” it isn’t going to happen. Computing power takes up space. Screens, cameras and microphones take up space. There’s a hard lower limit on how small things can be miniaturized. Ultimately the Vision system will remain (at the very least) goggles and likely quite bulky ones.

Wearing an iPhone helmet is not a social behavior. That’s the problem. It isolates you from reality.