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 Reiterates 'Enormous Potential' of AR, Hints at 'Devices That May Exist Tomorrow'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I've put myself on Starlink's list. They say they will notify me when it becomes available. I have relatives at the south end of Puget Sound Washington and they can get Starlink now, and the price is about $100.00 a month. I pay the same amount for my landline phone and internet now. The landline is still necessary because cell phone service is iffy.
Edit: I should specify that the relatives have not signed up and probably won't. They get internet from a local provider and its good enough for them, and cheaper.
Last edited:
Sounds great however where is the business ROI?
We would need complex quasi-AIs that can easily write / create the AR objects.
I can see it now; my semi understandable IKEA instructions in AR - not sure if that is an improvement. 🤣😂
While I do think the Apple glasses will have both HUD and AR, those two terms are not at all the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably like many are doing mistakenly. They are completely different.
Chances are that the underlying technologies for that application would be funded (and probably licensed) by larger organisations that really need it. I used to work for a major airplane engine manufacturer and they were all over AR as a way for their engineers to see overlaid schematics of the engines.
You just need someone with big pockets to write it once and then it can be made available to the masses. Similar to Formula 1, NASA or military tech. Us mere mortals can benefit eventually and at some point AR assisted IKEA assembly will be a thing. I think it’s inevitable.
I can see this be a great tool in a number of ways. What I struggle with is the infrastructure needed near term for genral public use. I just don’t see the public aspect near term.
Both of your assumptions are false.
1. Augmented Reality does NOT have to be anchored to the world. That's your limited definition.
2. HUDs *absolutely* feature information display anchored to the world. All the time.
1. Wikipedia on AR: “objects that reside in the real world are enhanced by computer-generated perceptual information”
To me that reads as world anchor, not viewer anchor. Otherwise the google glass from back in 2013 would have probably been considered augmented reality, but it wasn’t (no marketing or reporters mentioned AR). Let me know if you have an example of an accepted viewer-anchored (or other non world-anchored?) AR.
2. HUD is just implementation of information, so it *can* feature information anchored to the world, yes. On that we agree. (That’s why I said *if* by HUD you’re referring to viewer-anchored information.) I’m just making the distinction between the two related but different technologies that many aren’t realizing. So another example, just like the 2013 google glass were HUD but not AR, the ikea app on my phone is AR but not HUD since the phone is a different implementation of information (I’m looking at my screen, not the world).
Also, some day self-assembling IKEA furniture will be a thing, when nano technology gets sufficiently advanced. Of course, shortly after that, sending you components will bedome irrelevant, and you’ll simply purchase the use of IKEA (or other) designs for use in your matter compiler at home.
Augmented Reality. Generally discussed as overlaying helpful computer generated visuals on top of your actually view of the world - e.g. wearing glasses that Put a name over every person in your current view. But, of course, the whole story is a lot more complicated.
I think many are (subconsciously?) thinking that AR was "Alternate Reality", not "Augmented Reality" for this.
Hmmm, is AR really a thing? I mean sure there are some applications of it, but even games are not racing to use AR. There will be novelty apps great for demos, but it feels like the real life benefits are not really there yet.
OTOH, plenty of AR used for selfies/Tiktok. Yay... I guess?
I can see some great RL practical uses. Low-light vision enhancement ALONE for the elderly would help with a host of activities from driving at night to skiing on overcast days to, well, anything that used to be easy to do in low-light conditions but no longer is. My father has been hesitant to drive at night since he hit about 75, for example, especially in the rain, despite having no cataracts or other issues. Just normal loss of low-light vision as one ages. Aging skiers (even middle-aged) often start to have issues with 'grey light' days; you've got to have some sun or wait to ski at night (or ski boring easy runs) as you lose the ability to see all contrast on the snow. This is why at events you'll see the blue-contrast added to the snow; so the athletes can see what's going on. I know about this one personally; it's not fun carving straight off an edge, or straight into a mogul, that you literally can't see because it's a cloudy day and the bumpy run looks exactly like a flat sheet of white.
One thing I'm worried about is that so far the reports seem to be indicating that Apple is looking at some very low resolutions. I've got a Pimax 5K+ VR HMD (2560x1440 per eye) and that's pretty much would call a good baseline for sharp VR. Possibly in AR it's less important, I've never had AR equipment on my eyes; but when the screens are that close and trying to create your entire (or most of your) FOV it takes a HUGE number of pixels to produce anything resembling acceptable sharpness.