Apple Reportedly Looked at Acquiring Augmented Reality Display Maker Plessey

[ipedro]

Just my opinion, just not sold on AR other than it being a momentary wow factor. Who knows, maybe I'm just crazy.

You're going to be in the "Why is Apple making a music player? This iPod thing is doomed" camp.

There are visionaries who see how society can evolve through technology that hasn't become common yet and there are those that eventually catch up and adopt it. At this point, you don't have to be much of a visionary to see the future applications of AR and how it can totally transform society.

 

[whitedragon101]

There is no future in AR. The people that believe in it are 100% wrong.

The reason is that it's not useful for the average person and has terrible UX.

I think you are making the mistake of judging a technology by the earliest and worst versions of it.
It would be accurate to say current AR is poor and has no wide use case.

However, imagine a set of glasses that are indistinguishable from regular glasses.

When you wear them you can

- add digital objects to the real world
- change the appearance of the real world
- view screens of retina resolution that are totally scalable.
- navigate to anywhere where arrows are overlaid on the floor
- play games with characters and locations indistinguishable from real (take glasses off you're in a field, put them on you're in a battle)

The use cases are endless and also replace many devices we currently have. Not to mention the massive environmental and cost impact of removing the need to manufacture and ship large heavy screens all over the world with tiny lightweight glasses.

 

[KillerTree]

Really? Did you take a poll? Do you have a source for this or is just a hunch on your part?

You must not remember to Google Glasses backlash. Many businesses near Silicon Valley had signs saying you’re not allowed to wear them inside their business

 

[ipedro]

Apple has already revealed their first piece of Apple Glasses technology. One of the biggest areas of resistance to smart glasses is that they have a camera, making it uncomfortable in human interactions and taboo in places where some privacy is expected — in gyms, locker rooms, public bathrooms, even in corporate meeting rooms.

Apple Glasses most likely won't even have a camera at all, or at least not one that's always exposed — it won't need it. The LiDAR scanner that's been put in the new iPad Pro sits behind an opaque plastic. On Apple Glasses, this could be built completely invisibly in the bridge of the glasses. There will be no camera pointed at people. This LiDAR can do all the work that's necessary to superimpose AR objects as seen from the wearer's perspective. Everyone else will just see someone wearing regular looking glasses.

Apple tends to reveal technology in their current devices that go on to be used in unannounced products. Apple Watch debuted Force Touch which went on to become 3D Touch and the iPhone X's rounded OLED screen then appeared in the soon to be announced Apple Watch 4. The LiDAR sensor is small enough to fit in the bridge of a pair of glasses, hidden under plastic.

I anticipate that instead of having a camera in the glasses, we'll see one built into the Apple Watch face instead. It's something you can point at a subject to photograph and use the glasses' screen as your viewer. This would enable short FaceTime calls or video messages with the Watch which you can point at your face and could also be used to capture photos of people and things like you do with an iPhone today: intentionally pointing the camera at things rather than have a camera on your face always capturing what you may not want captured.

It's possible that an accessory, either from Apple or third parties would be able to be clipped to the glasses to capture first person perspective for sports and the like but I don't expect the glasses to have a standard camera built in.

 

[ipedro]

You must not remember to Google Glasses backlash. Many businesses near Silicon Valley had signs saying you’re not allowed to wear them inside their business

That's exactly why Apple's glasses won't have and won't need a camera (see my post above).

Secondly, Google Glass was released at a time very different than the one we live in now. Every single person out there has a camera with them, including in places where cameras would never have been allowed, even in your pocket. You could never ever go into a gym or a locker room with a camera on you, even in your bag. But it's normal to see people on their phones sitting in a locker room or walking into a public washroom. We used to be searched at concerts, no cameras allowed, period. Now thousands of cameras are lit up capturing a concert. It's become accepted.

Times have changed and people expect to have cameras everywhere there are other people. You can't just take the conditions that existed 10 years ago and transpose them to a future product without adapting the conditions to our present time. You have to think three dimensionally, adapting all conditions to when the product is released.

That said, Google's implementation was incredibly short sighted (hehe pardon the pun). The camera was the most obvious part of the whole thing, with this large barnacle sitting in between you and the other person's sightline, very obviously pointed at you.

A pair of standard looking glasses with no camera at all will become invisible. The LiDAR released in the iPad Pro is all that's needed to enable the glasses to overlay virtual objects visible only to the wearer. No standard RGB camera needed at all.

 

[Ghost31]

That's exactly why Apple's glasses won't have and won't need a camera (see my post above).

Secondly, Google Glass was released at a time very different than the one we live in now. Every single person out there has a camera with them, including in places where cameras would never have been allowed, even in your pocket. You could never ever go into a gym or a locker room with a camera on you, even in your bag. But it's normal to see people on their phones sitting in a locker room or walking into a public washroom. We used to be searched at concerts, no cameras allowed, period. Now thousands of cameras are lit up capturing a concert. It's become accepted.

Times have changed and people expect to have cameras everywhere there are other people. You can't just take the conditions that existed 10 years ago and transpose them to a future product without adapting the conditions to our present time. You have to think three dimensionally, adapting all conditions to when the product is released.

That said, Google's implementation was incredibly short sighted (hehe pardon the pun). The camera was the most obvious part of the whole thing, with this large barnacle sitting in between you and the other person's sightline, very obviously pointed at you.

View attachment 902361

A pair of standard looking glasses with no camera at all will become invisible. The LiDAR released in the iPad Pro is all that's needed to enable the glasses to overlay virtual objects visible only to the wearer. No standard RGB camera needed at all.

Yep notice when he covers the camera and it can still track the room perfectly. No camera needed. Just lidar and maybe some other sensors and we’re golden. Apple glasses will come out. Itll be cool. It’ll be the next big thing. And it’ll be expensive as hell

 

[cmaier]

You must not remember to Google Glasses backlash. Many businesses near Silicon Valley had signs saying you’re not allowed to wear them inside their business

Once again:

1) they looked ridiculous
2) they took photographs, and thus invaded privacy and had the potential to steal confidential information, etc.

Apple will not make these mistakes.

 

[mozumder]

Yeah, ok. Companies are spending billions on it for a reason.

Indeed. They should stop wasting that money.

 

[Vjosullivan]

Apple Glasses most likely won't even have a camera at all, or at least not one that's always exposed — it won't need it. The LiDAR scanner that's been put in the new iPad Pro sits behind an opaque plastic. On Apple Glasses, this could be built completely invisibly in the bridge of the glasses. There will be no camera pointed at people. This LiDAR can do all the work that's necessary to superimpose AR objects as seen from the wearer's perspective. Everyone else will just see someone wearing regular looking glasses.

Having a secret scanner actually sounds worse than having a visible camera.

 

[mozumder]

I think you are making the mistake of judging a technology by the earliest and worst versions of it.
It would be accurate to say current AR is poor and has no wide use case.

However, imagine a set of glasses that are indistinguishable from regular glasses.

When you wear them you can

- add digital objects to the real world
- change the appearance of the real world
- view screens of retina resolution that are totally scalable.
- navigate to anywhere where arrows are overlaid on the floor
- play games with characters and locations indistinguishable from real (take glasses off you're in a field, put them on you're in a battle)

The use cases are endless and also replace many devices we currently have. Not to mention the massive environmental and cost impact of removing the need to manufacture and ship large heavy screens all over the world with tiny lightweight glasses.

Moore's law isn't going to make AR viable for dozens of years. What exactly is increased processing power/watt going to help you with that's going to make things useful?

Is a 2x speed increase going to magically make AR viable? That's about 4 years at current rates. Is a 10x speed increase going to make AR viable? That's about 10 years.

AR competes with smartphones in terms of mobility, and smartphones won.

I experienced the hype of VR back in the 90's. It's the same horrible hype.

 

[citysnaps]

Moore's law isn't going to make AR viable for dozens of years. What exactly is increased processing power/watt going to help you with that's going to make things useful?

Is a 2x speed increase going to magically make AR viable? That's about 4 years at current rates. Is a 10x speed increase going to make AR viable? That's about 10 years.

AR competes with smartphones in terms of mobility, and smartphones won.

I experienced the hype of VR back in the 90's. It's the same horrible hype.

Seems you are not aware AR-assisted surgery is used today in surgical procedures.

 

[CarlJ]

I'm not sure that the possibility they may have done so with regard to any particular company should be all that surprising - or newsworthy.

Surprising? No. Newsworthy? Maybe not for the front page of a normal newspaper, but this is a site dedicated to collecting every scrap of news about Apple - here, it's mildly interesting information.

 

[cmaier]

Having a secret scanner actually sounds worse than having a visible camera.

No it doesn’t. The camera won’t take photos. Nobody will ever see whatever view of the world that the glasses see. Are you creeped out when the supermarket doors slide open when you approach? Why not?

 

[CarlJ]

There are loads of both commercial and consumer applications.

AR-assisted surgery, for example, has been used for a few years during procedures, seeing through obstructions, providing real-time reference data and information, collaboration with colleagues, as well as for education, training, etc.

I hear it has some use, and will likely have much more, in repairing complex mechanical systems - think in terms of doing maintenance on an aircraft engine and having exploded diagrams of subassemblies you're looking at.
[automerge]1585596703[/automerge]

You must not remember to Google Glasses backlash. Many businesses near Silicon Valley had signs saying you’re not allowed to wear them inside their business

We remember Google Glasses just fine, thanks. One, that was quite a while ago (decades in technology terms), and two, Google went about it stupidly. Apple tends to be smarter about how the public will perceive things.
[automerge]1585597075[/automerge]

There is no future in AR. The people that believe in it are 100% wrong.

Wow, good thing we have you here to determine everything by decree, with no need to, you know, present persuasive evidence.

Not interested unless you can offer convincing evidence. Saying the equivalent of, "I'm definitely right" over and over is not evidence.

 

[sidewinder3000]

X

 

[laz232]

Apple recently considered acquiring British company Plessey Semiconductors, a maker of Micro-LED displays for augmented reality devices, according to The Information.

The paywalled report claims that Plessey has instead reached a licensing deal with Facebook, which in a statement said it wants to build "a glasses form factor that lets devices melt away so we can be more present with our friends, families, and surroundings":Apple has expressed a profound interest in augmented reality in recent years, making a major push into the space with frameworks like ARKit and RealityKit, creative tools like Reality Composer and Reality Converter, and hardware like the LiDAR Scanner on the new iPad Pro and likely some iPhone 12 models.

Multiple reports have indicated that Apple plans to release a combination AR/VR headset by 2021 or 2022, followed by a sleeker pair of AR glasses in 2022 or 2023. Last week, MacRumors obtained a photo of a generic HTC Vive Focus-like controller that Apple appears to be using to test its AR/VR headset.

Article Link: Apple Reportedly Looked at Acquiring Augmented Reality Display Maker Plessey

I didn't realise that Plessey were still in business! I knew them from the 1990s as they made a few special communication ICs for high-performance receivers... (I'm sure I still have a couple of SL6440 HF mixers lying around somewhere)

 

[anthogag]

It appears Facebook doesn't care about user privacy and preventing the spread if misinformation and because it's primarily a social media platform they won't care if people really dislike being secretly recorded by users wearing glasses because they need that kind of content.

AR glasses from a business whose primary reason for existence is social media could be quite boring.

 

[sidewinder3000]

Ok, two thoughts on the future of AR and Apple playing a big role in it. Interested in people’s thoughts on these:

1. With Apple’s unique privacy/security position among the top global technology companies, centered around the fact that they make money selling hardware, not user data, they have a distinct advantage when it comes to getting people to trust such a potentially invasive technology like AR.
2. Because Apple has been a privacy focused company, they have had a disadvantage when it comes to certain technologies that depend on crowdsourcing, leveraging users’ data, or basing complex operations in the cloud as opposed to on device. These reasons are often cited as to why Apple is typically a few years behind their competition in areas like personal assistants, voice recognition, and mapping. Which leads me to believe that they may also be at a disadvantage when it comes to certain aspects of AR, which may depend heavily on massive amounts of cloud computing, and linking to cloud-based databases.

I really hope that one of Apple‘s strengths, they’re admirable stance and practices around privacy, don’t wind up hurting them when it comes to A.R. Anyone with special expertise have any thoughts about these these two divergent thoughts about Apple and AR?

 

[citysnaps]

I didn't realise that Plessey were still in business! I knew them from the 1990s as they made a few special communication ICs for high-performance receivers... (I'm sure I still have a couple of SL6440 HF mixers lying around somewhere)

I remember Plessey high intercept point mixers as well. Along with WJ/Relcom mixers. They were both used in high performance receivers we designed and manufactured years ago.

 

[sidewinder3000]

VR is quite different from AR - different (though related) tech pursuing different goals. VR is trying to project an entirely new world in front of your eyes. AR is trying to overlay a bit of useful information on your current view of the real world.

I’m not a computer scientist, but my guess is that one of the primary ways in which the tech varies is that VR is based around creating immersive 3-D environments while AR is based on recognizing and interpreting those 3-D environments and matching them with databases. Of course there is a good deal of overlap in the technology, but the main difference to me seems to be the difference between creating/refining and interpreting/reacting. If there’s anyone here who is actually an expert in this area, I would love to hear if my theory is even close, and what their take is.

 

[Ultramove69]

You're going to be in the "Why is Apple making a music player? This iPod thing is doomed" camp.

There are visionaries who see how society can evolve through technology that hasn't become common yet and there are those that eventually catch up and adopt it. At this point, you don't have to be much of a visionary to see the future applications of AR and how it can totally transform society.

Maybe...I dunno. I've been on board with most other things up until this point. I'm not anti AR, perhaps it just hasn't really found its real life application or spot to shine. It still feels like something which is really fun for about 10 mins and then it gets put back on a virtual shelf.

I compare this essentially to the VR headsets that cell phones could snap into people were buying a couple years ago (thinking about you Samsung.) Those had the same 10-20 min wow factor and then became immediately old. I put current AR in a similar light.

 

[Vjosullivan]

No it doesn’t. The camera won’t take photos. Nobody will ever see whatever view of the world that the glasses see. Are you creeped out when the supermarket doors slide open when you approach? Why not?

Lidar is not a door switch. I do not want to be scanned by other people and organisations and to have the results of that scanning used for unknown purposes.

 

[cmaier]

Lidar is not a door switch. I do not want to be scanned by other people and organisations and to have the results of that scanning used for unknown purposes.

The scan won’t ever leave the glasses. And you are constantly scanned by lidar when you are out and about. So what? What is it you are worried about?

 

[CarlJ]

Lidar is not a door switch. I do not want to be scanned by other people and organisations and to have the results of that scanning used for unknown purposes.

Then... don't go out in public? There are already plenty of actual cameras out there that may or may not record pictures of you when you're out and about. LIDAR would get nothing about you other than roughly how tall and wide you are, and that your shape fits the characteristics of "humanoid". The same way that other cars may, today, scan your car in the process of providing their drivers information about how close other vehicles are (blind spot monitoring and automatic braking systems and such) - they don't know who you are or what you think, they just know that there is a car-shaped object 4.37 meters in front of their car. Hardly something to get all worked up about.

 

[Tech198]

Facebook is just looking to be first

"by it all up, then it'll make life for Apple that much harder"