Apple Surveys Devs With Vision Pro About Digital 'Persona'

[dante_mr]

But how do you see someone’s face when they’re enclosed inside a headset. An avatar is pretty much necessary for a headset if you still want to put an image to someone, whether it’s a static image (like our forum icons), or a virtual 3d avatar

Apple’s memoji stuff is pretty vile, though, and I’d much prefer something more stylized than whatever Apple’s version is trying to be. Something like Nintendo’s Miis would be way more appealing IMO, especially if I can have some actual fun with face-customization without it looking “realistic cute” to the point of making me want to vomit (or even let us use something completely custom, like VRChat or, again, like our forum icons)

I actually like Memojis 💩 I just wish they'd be a bit more high res and with more lighting effects now that Apple's hardware can handle it.

Not to mention they're significantly better than whatever the hell Meta is doing on Quest (I say this as a satisfied Quest owner, but the avatars are actually horrendous).

Also, I'm surprised there was zero mention of using Memojis with the headset. Ever since I heard rumors of the headset I've been convinced they would sell Memojis as a main feature in virtual meetings. I suppose it's not "Pro" to use a stylized avatar in work meetings, but oh well.

 

[DeepWebinar]

• what’s your favorite thing about your persona?
• could you see yourself falling in love with your persona or do you see them as just a friend?
• does your persona ever tell you to do things you don’t want to do?
• is your persona in the room with us now?

 

[Spoonbender01]

If there are human beings involved in the call, there will be carbon emissions.

Lol, well far less than an airplane!

 

[Surf Monkey]

Let's face it: the big application for this stuff is porn.

I dunno. Porn in an iPhone helmet? Doesn’t sound good.

 

[Spoonbender01]

It's still a visual simulation.

Just as as facetime currently is as well.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Just as as facetime currently is as well.

With FaceTime you see the actual person’s face. Because they’re not wearing an iPhone helmet.

 

[JamesHolden]

I honestly believe this will wind up being the killer app for XR/spatial computing, by apple and Meta's codec avatars. Imagine in 18 months when we are through the uncanny valley, for those that celebrate it, Christmas morning with all the relatives in a nerf'ed visual of our childhood living room at mom's. No carbon emissions required to do it..this is the future..

Sounds awful. Some weird fake backwards looking simulation. Who even wants this?

 

[JamesHolden]

I don't know about you, but I don't plan on getting out of bed at all.

WALL-E.

 

[JamesHolden]

Oh. Do people who want to live in an iPhone helmet even GO to parties? I kinda doubt it.

Lol. I’m sure there will be some super lame tech bro parties (ie: Silicon Valley premiere episode) where a bunch of people with middling social skills and horrible style will think it’s way cool. I dread the day I have to deal with some dork wearing vision pro at work. It’s going to be hard to keep a straight face.

 

[SIGSEGV1]

where Vision Pro MAX?

 

[haemolysis]

Vision pro would be an amazing experience if FaceTime ACTUALLY looked anything like that. Even if I was to believe the resolution is that flawless… not with a FaceTime call lol. Imagine what the reality looks like: 3 blocky, low-res, compressed faces hovering in the air… some of them cutting in and out as their local wifi gets bottlenecked lol.

 

[macduke]

It weirds me out and I don't see myself really using it. The point of FaceTime is to see the actual person. Get a read on their emotions, how they look, the bags under their eyes if they're tired, the cut on their lip if they fell, etc. And a lot of people in long distance relationships especially use FaceTime for...other reasons that Apple probably won't allow in this system. Perhaps for a business meeting, but I don't really see anything personal about this, which is kinda Apple's M.O. To me it feels like an overcomplicating of something that shouldn't be complicated.

 

[JamesHolden]

It weirds me out and I don't see myself really using it. The point of FaceTime is to see the actual person. Get a read on their emotions, how they look, the bags under their eyes if they're tired, the cut on their lip if they fell, etc. And a lot of people in long distance relationships especially use FaceTime for...other reasons that Apple probably won't allow in this system. Perhaps for a business meeting, but I don't really see anything personal about this, which is kinda Apple's M.O. To me it feels like an overcomplicating of something that shouldn't be complicated.

It’s such a silly gimmick. How much of an improvement is a fake 3D “persona” over a real 2D image? It just screams gimmick. I’d much rather see a real 2D face that accurately conveys emotion, nuance, etc. than some ghostly semi-accurate avatar.

 

[Surf Monkey]

It’s such a silly gimmick. How much of an improvement is a fake 3D “persona” over a real 2D image? It just screams gimmick. I’d much rather see a real 2D face that accurately conveys emotion, nuance, etc. than some ghostly semi-accurate avatar.

Exactly. To optimize the video conference you need a screen, not a head set. Head sets make natural video conferencing impossible.

But something like this:

Google's 3D video calling booths, Project Starline, will now be tested in the real world | TechCrunch

Google is expanding its real-world tests of Project Starline's video calling booths with an early access program that will see the tech used in the offices of various enterprise partners, including Salesforce, WeWork, T-Mobile and others.

techcrunch.com

That’s the path forward in remote presence and teleconferencing. Not Vision Pro or any of the other headsets.

 

[ackmondual]

I'm a cheapskate - I use Affinity Photo!

If it works, then all the better!

I use Paint.NET since I do mostly cropping, resizing, while still working with layers. It's still free, so it's a better alternative to the included Microsoft Paint on Windows.

 

[_Spinn_]

If it works, then all the better!

I use Paint.NET since I do mostly cropping, resizing, while still working with layers. It's still free, so it's a better alternative to the included Microsoft Paint on Windows.

I use Paint.NET all the time too. Though MS just announced that transparency and layers are coming to Paint in the future.

Hell freezes over, MS Paint adds support for layers and PNG transparency

Automated background removal was also added recently.

arstechnica.com

 

[ackmondual]

I use Paint.NET all the time too. Though MS just announced that transparency and layers are coming to Paint in the future.

Hell freezes over, MS Paint adds support for layers and PNG transparency

Automated background removal was also added recently.

arstechnica.com

Yep! But that's only for Windows 11. I'm going to stick with win10 and Paint.NET in the meantime, and will get Paint.NET for my win11 system when it gets to that point.