The thing where it skews the window near the edges instead of just shoving part of it off the screen is genius and I wish that was in modern desktop OSes.It was 20 yrs ago.
Welcome back home Looking Glass, we hope you are here to remain.
The thing where it skews the window near the edges instead of just shoving part of it off the screen is genius and I wish that was in modern desktop OSes.It was 20 yrs ago.
Welcome back home Looking Glass, we hope you are here to remain.
It's not a problem but you replied to my comment by saying "It's sad that you think", that doesn't sound like agreeing.
By the time he’s 16 it’ll be within the range of affordability. Not a huge comfort though, lol.My child is 12, he saw the presentation with me. Eagerly he waited for the VR part ... was excited. Bur even he, when saw the price, stood and left the couch disappointed ("What 3.5k, get out of here, ill gather for a Quest 2").
Facepalm 🙈Will be interesting to see how Snapchat works with this.
No. Like steveballmer said, "...the conversation is about whether the device "completely obscures the user's field of vision". Which it does not."
Yes, through a camera is not the same as looking at your living room. But it is is not obscured.
Vs. what other augmented reality product out there? Apple addressed the problem through use of other technologies...it will do for now, and I fully expect a Google Glass style product in the future as well. This being the "Pro", that being "Apple Vision".
Watch the keynote (1:50:43) -- they create a realistic looking avatar that other people on the call will see.
I can’t even imagine Steve Jobs walking on stage and trying to sell the Apple Watch. Even though it wasn’t that long ago, he really died in a different era.In 2010 Steve Jobs sat down on a sofa and picked up an iPad to read the news. That's how the presentation went, anyway.
Can you imagine Steve Jobs putting this on his head and doing a presentation extolling the values of this, the latest and greatest Apple product?
This product is not of the Apple we know. It might be a great product (I'm not convinced of that, but am willing to entertain the idea) but it's not Apple, and this makes me jolly sad.
Curious about what this R1 processor is
Me tooI think they priced it inline with the tech and the capabilities it contains. A Mac Studio costs $2-4K. We've been thinking about this like a monitor, and comparing it to toys like the Meta Quest. It's so much more than those. It's a wholly new general computing device. The tech had to be best possible to get the device to the level it needs to be.
They sold me the vision today.
Likely a coprocessor that handles all of the positional awareness and tracking (eye, hand, mouth) so the M2 isn’t bogged down by trying to handle that and run apps at the same time. I honestly think an M2 is underpowered for the price of this headset, but I’m up to being wrong.Curious about what this R1 processor is
Seemed like something optimized for I/O transport and stitching together all the camera and sensor streams. The M2 is for overall system and compute.Curious about what this R1 processor is
When it was rumored as “AR/VR headset” I called it dumb. After todays presentation - there is a new way to interact with computers and there is huge potentialCould be useful for some small things but mostly this is just flat out dumb.
The way they own your current face scans or fingerprints? (Hint, they don’t)Just what we all want. A detailed scan of our faces that Apple owns.
Do you own an iPad Pro or a non-SE iPhone X or newer? Bad news if so.Just what we all want. A detailed scan of our faces that Apple owns.
You're right. I should have . . . sat for a few minutes to make it look like I didn't see it until later? Then I'd be cool?Person on internet forum responds to other person within seconds telling them to go outside. 😂
That's like a drunk at the bar telling someone else they're cut off. "Oh internet" indeed.....