'Apple Glass' Rumored to Start at $499, Support Prescription Lenses, and More

[Marlon DLTH :)]

I don’t see them having much more functionality than google glass to begin with.

Have you used them? I mean, Apple has not officially launched them, it is only a leak. We still don't know how they will work or what value they will add to our lives. You can't say that if we haven't seen the product yet

 

[triton100]

Yeah my guess is that they’re not going to spend god knows how many millions developing a novelty pair of tech glasses so people can see their notifications one second earlier. My educated guess (and hope) is that they’ve cracked some really innovative and unexpected ways that these glasses could add a lot of value to people’s lives. And my bet is that the “obvious“ guesses about what this thing will do will miss the mark considerably.

Basically look at every AR app that is already out on the iPhone and now instead of holding an iPad up to your face to see AR imagine it being transferred to your frontal vision via the glasses. So You’ll be able to see how furniture will look in your room. YoIll have instant translation of foreign language text on signs and in books. Virtual work out partners from exercise apps. Pokemon games. Etc

 

[roxics]

I’ll pass. No thanks. Do t want or need to be online 24/7.
There is no way the first generation of these is going to be anything like that. It be more like the alarm clock and that’s probably it. Why would I want to touch my eyeglasses lens? Fingerprints and smudges?

I never said you had to touch the lenses.
I would also assume you're not always online. That there would be a way to disconnect just like there is with everything else right now.
I also agree this won't be first generation. Likely it will take many generations, but I think that's where we're going and if we are, it will change everything. But it's not just Apple that will go there. The entire industry will, and soon smartphones will be this weird phase humanity went through. But for a while they will be the computer towers in our pockets. And of course our cameras.

 

[Wolfpup]

That'd be the Apple Macintosh given current naming conventions!🙄🤣

well it ISAn Apple Macintosh, specifically an iMac 😁

 

[Nimoy]

...and soon smartphones will be this weird phase humanity went through. But for a while they will be the computer towers in our pockets. And of course our cameras.

Yes! I totally agree that the smartphone is not here to stay and that maybe the glasses will be a bridge to what's next. Anyone who thinks they'll one day be using the iPhone 30 is badly mistaken in my opinion!

 

[dammyonline]

...and people said exactly the same thing about the iPod, iPhone, iPad, Watch, etc.

You really have no idea what Apple does do you.

I’m think you’re unable to differentiate between innovation and just having a successful product if you’re listing all those as such...which is typical if you are a brand fan.

Yes the iPhone was innovative for sure. It changed the way we interacted our mobile devices ....and perhaps the iPad (reaching a bit but I’ll accept) ... that’s about it...

the others were just good products in well established fields and to call them innovative is just silly

 

[Abazigal]

The Apple Watch is still cumbersome to this day when connected to current iPhones running the latest processors. At least with the watch you have a screen to touch and interact with if an issue arises. The glasses will be purely voice and some basic touch controls similar to the AirPods.

I suspect the Apple glasses will use the Kinect sensors found in Face ID, to allow you to control your glasses via gestures without having to actually touch your lenses and end up smudging them.

 

[dammyonline]

Just because Google tried something and failed miserably doesn't mean Apple developing the first successful mainstream product in this medium isn't innovative.

As has been repeated a million times: There were MP3 players before iPod, smartphones before iPhone, tablets before iPad, and smartwatches before Apple Watch. Yet these were all innovative products.

I think our definition of innovative is different as the only item you’ve listed above that I consider truly innovative was the iPhone. it was an original concept, unique in its design and most importantly changed the way we interacted with our mobile phones.

The iPod or iPad are both a close second. They had a few unique ideas (scroll on the iPod etc) but if we are being perfectly honest... these were more solids well made products that were successful...having a successful product doesn’t necessarily mean it was innovative....

 

[UK-MacAddict]

Have you used them? I mean, Apple has not officially launched them, it is only a leak. We still don't know how they will work or what value they will add to our lives. You can't say that if we haven't seen the product yet

The nature of the product is to overlay information onto the lens for the user. So they will work the same as Google glass.

The only mystery is can Apple do it better. Can they refine the user experience and make it worthwhile.
[automerge]1590025351[/automerge]

I suspect the Apple glasses will use the Kinect sensors found in Face ID, to allow you to control your glasses via gestures without having to actually touch your lenses and end up smudging them.

When I said touch controls similar to the AirPods I meant they will probably have some touch sensitive area on the arms not the lenses themselves.

Good in theory but the Kinect wasn’t very good at picking up movements in my experience. They need to improve it immensely if that’s their plan regarding hand gestures.

 

[Tech198]

You pay for the techy stuff..

I don't even take my iPhone with me sometimes, so that is already gonna be a problem.
I guess its less costly when you bring out that product that must be paired to do certain tasks, but that's not what people really want

It's the reason why people cheered after an Apple watch could do 4G, and the feeling of "Thank god i don' need to carry this all the time" With any luck, this should go the 'unpaired' way

 

[rui no onna]

Wonder if you can buy prescription using FSA.

 

[citysnaps]

The Apple Watch is still cumbersome to this day when connected to current iPhones running the latest processors. At least with the watch you have a screen to touch and interact with if an issue arises. The glasses will be purely voice and some basic touch controls similar to the AirPods.

If it doesn't respond to my command first time using natural language in less than 2 seconds its not going to be a worthwhile product. I don't want to have to repeat myself constantly like I have to currently using Google, Alexa and Siri. All three are still have issues understanding speech and are slow to react.

Very high probability that Siri will be the interface and its currently not up to standard for such a product. The will have to do some major improvements between now and then.

Im not saying there aren't lots of cool uses of AR already out there but none of them are at an acceptable level to make the experience enjoyable and natural extension of yourself.

Well ok... With your expertise, experience, and insight, you should write a letter to the appropriate Apple executive expressing your concerns, before they spend even more hundreds of millions of $, with the result being an awful product.

 

[TimCookandCo]

Wearable displays for the masses are coming whether people like it or not. Just a matter of time until someone does it right and looks like Apple got the chops for it. Hopefully it's the beginning of a new era like original Iphone was, when Apple redefined what was possible and changed the way we interact with computers.

Apple's gonna change the world again

 

[ingambe]

Maybe too cheap to be true

 

[Puppuccino]

You said "It makes the real announcement kind of boring."

So why are you on a rumor website where you can get spoiled about the announcement?

I was saying it makes the announcement kind of boring when nearly full details of something is released nearly half a year prior to the actual announcement.

Not that I’m upset or angry, I said it made the real announcement kind of boring. Just an observation.

In the past it may have been like, there’s a new colour but that’s all we know. Nowadays if the full specs aren't leaked ahead of time it’s weird.

Its really not a huge deal though.

 

[twinlight]

Can´t wait to wear glasses again..

I did lasik surgery some years ago and it was the best thing ever. If the Apple Glasses can switch sunglass behavior on and off it could be interesting. I don´t think I will be using them as much as my Watch.

Time will tell..

 

[name99]

The nature of the product is to overlay information onto the lens for the user. So they will work the same as Google glass.

The only mystery is can Apple do it better. Can they refine the user experience and make it worthwhile.

That's a somewhat limited analysis.
You can present information on the screen in two ways
- either as "context-free" information, essentially floating text (Google Glass) OR
- information that's tied to the surrounding world in some way (ie the AUGMENTED part of AR).

We obviously have no idea what Apple has planned.
On the one hand, they have talked up AR for three years now...
On the other hand, it's hard to see how you can do any sort of interesting AR without a camera.

I square the circle by assuming that
- Apple understands that AR is what makes this a party, not just a repeat of Google Glasses
- meaning there is a camera in there
- AND SO the people claiming there is no camera are misunderstanding something. For example they may be interpreting "you cannot record with the glasses" as being the same thing as "there is no camera".

In other words the conceptual differences from Google Glass are
- use of camera as an input mechanism. Google was mainly "camera as a way to take photos".
- overlaying relevant data on top of what the camera sees. ie the sort of extreme AR that's only become possible in the past two years or so via custom NPU closely tied into the ISP and GPU.

 

[ChromeAce]

Will there be a flashing red halo around the pandemically infected or just sex offenders convicted of peeing in public during Mardis Gras?

 

[Darth Tulhu]

I think our definition of innovative is different as the only item you’ve listed above that I consider truly innovative was the iPhone. it was an original concept, unique in its design and most importantly changed the way we interacted with our mobile phones.

The iPod or iPad are both a close second. They had a few unique ideas (scroll on the iPod etc) but if we are being perfectly honest... these were more solids well made products that were successful...having a successful product doesn’t necessarily mean it was innovative....

The iPhone gets all the credit, but the truth is that Steve Jobs was working on the iPad first as the next "stage" in computing.

The iPhone,or more importantly, iOS, is the result of that work, and where the revolution truly takes place ( I believe the much smaller screen forced the team to focus on the essentials).

The hardware is secondary to the brilliance of an OS built for fingertip touch from the ground up. iOS is actually a touch version of OS X, according to Steve.

 

[krazzix]

For anyone who is doubting the usefulness of AR glasses, this is what I came up with how they could be useful to me:

• Having a recipe floating in front of you while cooking, leaving your hands free
• Having your grocery shopping list in front of you, leaving your hands free
• Navigation instructions like you're in a video game
• Project a screen anywhere and watch a movie
• Project a screen anywhere and play a video game (with a controller probably)
• Project a screen anywhere and do cloud computing (Full MacOS experience) if you bring your mouse and keyboard
• Browse and listen to music (i.c.w. AirPods, doubt glasses will have speakers)
• Enhanced family board games, D&D, we've seen this stuff before with AR kit, but way more convenient and cool with glasses instead holding an iPad/iPhone
• Browsing the web anywhere, anytime, handsfree, no need to pull out your phone
• Reading books handsfree

 

[UK-MacAddict]

Well ok... With your expertise, experience, and insight, you should write a letter to the appropriate Apple executive expressing your concerns, before they spend even more hundreds of millions of $, with the result being an awful product.

They will burn through money regardless of what anyone says. They are trying to diversify their product range as quick as possible to account for falling iPhone sales which is still their biggest revenue generator.

But I’d lower your expectations of what you think any Apple Glasses might be able to do.

 

[citysnaps]

They will burn through money regardless of what anyone says. They are trying to diversify their product range as quick as possible to account for falling iPhone sales which is still their biggest revenue generator.

But I’d lower your expectations of what you think any Apple Glasses might be able to do.

Thanks, but no need to. I'm fully aware of the potential of AR and have the systems/hardware engineering background over many years to know what's possible.

 

[UK-MacAddict]

That's a somewhat limited analysis.
You can present information on the screen in two ways
- either as "context-free" information, essentially floating text (Google Glass) OR
- information that's tied to the surrounding world in some way (ie the AUGMENTED part of AR).

We obviously have no idea what Apple has planned.
On the one hand, they have talked up AR for three years now...
On the other hand, it's hard to see how you can do any sort of interesting AR without a camera.

I square the circle by assuming that
- Apple understands that AR is what makes this a party, not just a repeat of Google Glasses
- meaning there is a camera in there
- AND SO the people claiming there is no camera are misunderstanding something. For example they may be interpreting "you cannot record with the glasses" as being the same thing as "there is no camera".

In other words the conceptual differences from Google Glass are
- use of camera as an input mechanism. Google was mainly "camera as a way to take photos".
- overlaying relevant data on top of what the camera sees. ie the sort of extreme AR that's only become possible in the past two years or so via custom NPU closely tied into the ISP and GPU.

- Whether that information is presented "context free" as you say or through AR its the same principle putting information on the lens for someone to see.

- I think a camera built in is pretty much a guaranteed component.

- My point is can they take that camera and the AR software that will likely accompany it and make it a smooth, enjoyable and natural experience. You said yourself the kind of extreme AR which would have to be present in a product like this to make it worthwhile is in its infancy.

For Apple glasses and any product of this type the experience has to feel like an extension of yourself, the connection between the user and the glasses need to be seamless.It must understand natural language. For instance if I'm driving I might say "Hey Siri, I'm totally lost, I have no clue where I am, can you help me find my way home?". The response back to the user has to be less than 3 seconds otherwise its not worth it.

In those couple of seconds the glasses will need to GPS locate you, report back where you are and at the same time bring up route information and overlay it to your glasses with turn by turn directions and 3D road mapping. Also it must be able to change all this information on the fly again in 1-2 seconds if I turn my head and look in different directions.

Currently on Siri there are pauses, processing time, sometimes you have to hit the Siri button to respond. Its a robotic back and forth exchange. A product like the glasses needs a constant open natural dialogue flow. In addition mobile networks arent up to scratch to support a product like this. 4G currently is patchy and barely delivers the top speeds. I go into central London and have full 4G signal and my iPhone tells me my data isnt working and I can't load anything.

Honestly I think any glasses from any company along with driverless cars are probably way too ahead of their time for any mainstream release. They need at least another 10-20 years minimum for technology to catch up and make them a truly worthwhile product.
[automerge]1590101540[/automerge]

Thanks, but no need to. I'm fully aware of the potential of AR and have the systems/hardware engineering background over many years to know what's possible.

Ok, have to wait and see.

Though with Apples track record in recent years of lacklustre products I won't hold my breath.

 

[jmadara]

Hello to readers of this thread ten years from now.

I still remember the people who balked at the iPad.

 

[Ryan Bell]

Any chance of nvidia GFX support coming to macOS? Developing for Oculus or doing ML work with a stock AMD card barely works.