As small or nonexistent as that for 3D glasses, in fact.
Just hire Elon Musk as CEO, let him axe half of the wasteful projects just like SJ did, and move on.
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 Stops Work on Lighter Vision Pro to Fast-Track AI Smart Glasses
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Just hire Elon Musk as CEO, let him axe half of the wasteful projects just like SJ did, and move on.
Once the AI in those 2028 glasses can help me with conversation with other people, I am all in. Yep like playing an old school adventure game on PC. I bet that this will be EU excluded anyway.
Edit: spelling
Edit2: I mean in real time conversation, not some “gimmie conversation icebreakers”.
Edit: spelling
Edit2: I mean in real time conversation, not some “gimmie conversation icebreakers”.
Last edited:
The first Google glasses were released in 2014.
It only took Apple 11 years to realise that’s what they should be focusing on.
I’ve lost count of how many people said so when they released the Vision Pro, including myself.
Apple could be clever here and use an Apple Watch instead of the ugly Meta (Whoop looking) wrist band to navigate controls.
To be honest, I’m not sure there is a good use case for AR glasses. The Vision Pro has all of these AR abilities, but what most people (anecdotally) seem to use it for is a movie theater you can wear on your head. What Vision Pro users use AR for should guide you in how to develop AR for lightweight glasses. And if Vision Pro users treat AR as a gimmick, perhaps there is no good reason to develop AR glasses and it will only ever be a niche product.
Moving engineers to a new project to develop a rival product to Meta Ray-Bans just because they’ve sold a few thousand of these is just the kind of knee-jerk reaction I’d expect from a company led by accountants rather than visionary product people.
Moving engineers to a new project to develop a rival product to Meta Ray-Bans just because they’ve sold a few thousand of these is just the kind of knee-jerk reaction I’d expect from a company led by accountants rather than visionary product people.
And say good bye to privacy? Accountant Tom Cook has no skills in product management at all. But truth is Apple is an exception in the world of privacy consuming corporations, most of which are just ads businesses (Google, Meta).
I think that actually it’s strange that such company like Apple, which sells privacy as one of the products, even exists at all. I hate some decisions made by Tim Cook (like this nightmare called Liquid Glass) but still appreciate they offer overall. Strange love-hate relationship but … whatever.
I feel like the Apple I used to love 20-25 years ago is really gone.
Well here comes the negative hypocrite complaining about people that have opinions that don’t mesh with his and so bashes them before they even post.
WhatsApp is the ubiquitous messaging app in many countries around the world for its simplicity, robustness and cost. It’s got sweet fa to do with moving contacts etc. Or loyalty to meta. Know before you talk.
Vision Pro is just an accessory. Nice-to-have accessory. And should have price appropriate for accessory. That is what I actually expected. There were many cases of 3D technologies failures (TVs, etc). Yet Tim Cook decided to launch it at ridiculous price just to have one product associated with his CEO shift. Vision Pro is and will be a flop which consumed huge amount of R&D resources. That’s the fact that will be associated with him.
I'll join the memorial. It was really quite different back then, doing different things and being the outcast.
Now it feels they chase the market a lot rather than disrupt existing paradigms which they were awesome at.
Wish they’d focus on their existing product lines instead of flailing around with niche things like apple cars and vision pro/glasses. The homepod line needs love and they nevr should have given up on airport routers. Amazon and Google have captured the market because Apple can’t focus on what customers want.
Yep, I think it's his halo product more than any other. Best in class (arguably) and top in sales (no argument).
But do you? Glasses like the Viture are designed around putting a large display in front of you. I would never wear Vision Pro goggles, but I could see myself wearing smart glasses with a screen on flights, etc. Personally, I would love it if Apple made something like this that could physically plug into an iPhone, Mac, etc.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
If you're watching movies by yourself, sure. I literally never do that, and always watch with my wife, friends, and or the kids.
"Better compete with Meta"
Huh?
Just release regular glasses because that **** doesn't work. Their demo was a complete cluster****. lol.
Huh?
Just release regular glasses because that **** doesn't work. Their demo was a complete cluster****. lol.
Thanks for the lead in—Apple unfortunately overshot the mark by over engineering the mac experience in a VR world when most Apple users want the pared down visuals of basic messaging, bit of music and a voice assistant in their day to day items, similar to the apple watch. Had they focused their efforts on regular eye wear, they may've been quicker to market. I'll add the irony of their CEO being a glasses wearer himself
Here, in Germany, the Vision Air would be a better bet, smartglasses are a legal minefield.
You can't use them in public without getting permission from anyone in the prospective image (technically, if they are identifiable and in the foreground, if somebody is 10M away and strolling across where the image would be taken, that is usually allowed), you can't use them in offices (cameras in general are generally not allowed and with smartphones these days, you generally can't photograph workspaces, screens etc.), on some sites I travel to, even smartphones, tablets and laptops with cameras have to be put in a secure-box at the security point and retrieved again when leaving the premises.
Private gatherings as well, you have to get permission, for example, my wife tells everyone when we go to a party that they do not have her permission to post photos of her online, which is legally binding.
You can't use them in public without getting permission from anyone in the prospective image (technically, if they are identifiable and in the foreground, if somebody is 10M away and strolling across where the image would be taken, that is usually allowed), you can't use them in offices (cameras in general are generally not allowed and with smartphones these days, you generally can't photograph workspaces, screens etc.), on some sites I travel to, even smartphones, tablets and laptops with cameras have to be put in a secure-box at the security point and retrieved again when leaving the premises.
Private gatherings as well, you have to get permission, for example, my wife tells everyone when we go to a party that they do not have her permission to post photos of her online, which is legally binding.
I just don't see the point of them. I can't use them in public (illegal, unless I get the permission of everybody I meet, before I use the camera or record them), I can't wear them at work (company policy), I can't wear them to social gatherings (illegal, as in public), so I can only use them within my own 4 walls, as long as none of my family object (and I know my wife would object, so I can't use them at home when she is in the room either).
Plus, I need varifocal lenses, the last set of lenses cost me around 1,000€, I'm not giving out that sort of money on top of smartglasses, which will only work for a couple of years, probably...
Given that they would be illegal to use in many parts of the EU, probably. Photographing people without permission is a big no-no.
That is absolutely terrifying. AI to give you conversation help with people? First off how is it going to do that other then it coming up with its own responses to what someone says, so you just become a parrot for AI. If that is the case why are you even needed at all in this conversation?