Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Yes, the majority of people have evolved to control their base reactions.

And before you accuse me of more absolutism, only 3/5 of these people are wearing goggles.

View attachment 2312660

OMG these people have their whole heads covered, some of them are only wearing half helmets so nothing absolutist about it.
View attachment 2312665

See above. Your rebuttal completely failed.
 
The topic is discussed by... persons, who have various levels of knowledge about a subject, including AR.

How can the topic of AR be fruitfully discussed when many people have zero knowledge about AR?

Try and dig a little deeper on the subject of AR and its utility instead of proclaiming (guaranteeing?) people will not use something that goes on their face.

The assumption you’re making is that comments are being offered from a place of ignorance. That is not the case.
 
No such insinuation.

Feel free to offer your insight/thoughts/knowledge/etc about AR, how it's used with use-cases, etc, and express why you think Apple is making a huge mistake. That doesn't include guaranteeing customers won't put a device on their face.

The majority won’t do it. That’s my contention and it stands. As to the rest, I’ve done that… and been ignored by you and others in favor of attempts to turn it personal. Sorry. I’m not inclined to take that bait.
 
  • Like
Reactions: turbineseaplane
I don’t think he specifically said it was the next iPhone (I may be wrong) but it 100% is a hobby project right now. And a lot of people, I mean a lot get triggered when you say that. I made a thread about it in the AVP section of the forums. It’s akin to when Steve said the same thing about AppleTV and it does just fine now.

I wonder if maybe if they let the designers at Apple have more push and not the pragmatists like Cook and Willams, if this would have been the truly revolutionary thing. At the very least they would have made it more stylish like the watch, and not unsurprising like the concept renders people were making 2-3 years before its launch.

Explicitly? No. But what he has said in many different ways is that it’s the “next step” for Apple. A “new computing paradigm.” In effect he’s saying Mac -> iPhone -> Apple Vision. That’s a clear case of setting expectations WAY too high for a product that to all appearances doesn’t live up to it and probably never will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: XboxEvolved
The majority won’t do it. That’s my contention and it stands. As to the rest, I’ve done that… and been ignored by you and others in favor of attempts to turn it personal. Sorry. I’m not inclined to take that bait.

Got it - you have nothing to share with respect to AR except people would not put such a device on their face.

Feel free to ignore people here who are familiar with technology, how it's used in many different scenarios, and believe Apple has a bright future in that area.

Thanks!
 
Got it - you have nothing to share with respect to AR except people would not put such a device on their face.

Apple Vision isn’t really AR. That’s part of the issue with it.
Feel free to ignore people here who are familiar with technology, how it's used in many different scenarios, and believe Apple has a bright future in that area.

Thanks!

I haven’t ignored anyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: turbineseaplane
Apple Vision isn’t really AR. That’s part of the issue with it.


I haven’t ignored anyone.

And that's the problem. There are a handful of people here who are very familiar with AR, its history, how it's used in a wide range of disciplines, enjoy talking about the technology, are excited about the future/potential of Apple's device, and like to discuss it.

So, again...Please... just ignore us.

Thank you.
 
Motorcycle helmets are mandated by law because so many people refused to wear them and ended up catastrophically injured or dead on the public dime. The joke isn’t funny, it just demonstrates that valid criticism isn’t welcome in some circles.
No states mandate a full-face helmet yet people still wear them. So I guess this evolutionary aversion can be easily controlled. No joke.

Still waiting for valid criticism beyond price and battery life.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Surf Monkey
And that's the problem. There are a handful of people here who are very familiar with AR, its history, how it's used in a wide range of disciplines, enjoy talking about the technology, are excited about the future/potential of Apple's device, and like to discuss it.

So, again...Please... just ignore us.

Thank you.

Back to the appeal to authority. A fallacious rebuttal.
 
No states mandate a full-face helmet

Massive hair split.

yet people still wear them. So I guess this evolutionary aversion can be easily controlled. No joke.

Because helmets are mandated, why not wear full face if you HAVE TO WEAR ONE ANYWAY? Evolution has nothing to do with bikers and mandated helmets beyond the fact that people generally don’t want to wear them, but evidently smugness does?

Still waiting for valid criticism beyond price and battery life.

Clearly you haven’t been reading the thread. If you had been you’d see that the issues with the device extend well beyond those two points.
 
Back to the appeal to authority. A fallacious rebuttal.

Rebuttal? Rebuttal to what? Not a rebuttal at all.

Merely a request to simply ignore people who are familiar with AR, it's potential, are excited about Apple's entry into the market, and wish to have uninterrupted discussions about the subject without having to deal with sideways distractive comments such as people never being onboard with having a device on their face.
 
Massive hair split.
Not at all. Your argument was that people wear full-face helmets because they are mandated, which they aren't.
Because helmets are mandated, why not wear full face if you HAVE TO WEAR ONE ANYWAY? Evolution has nothing to do with bikers and mandated helmets beyond the fact that people generally don’t want to wear them, but evidently smugness does?
People not wanting to wear helmets has nothing to do with some evolutionary aversion to face coverings.
Clearly you haven’t been reading the thread. If you had been you’d see that the issues with the device extend well beyond those two points.
Still waiting for valid complaints against the platform beyond price and battery life.
 
Probably what that first guy said when handed a cellular phone and told to roam around the area to make and take calls. Where's the cord? But where do I put in the quarter? There's no way this big hunk of tech is every going to be popular with the masses. Solution in search of a problem. If I want to make phone calls, I'll use the phones I already have... or a pay phone on every corner when out and about.(…) All "brand new" anything triggers "odd feelings." Fear of change is as old as mankind. It's perhaps the most normal feeling humans can feel short of the fundamentals
Personally owned phones used to be a thing before consumer adoption of cell phones. So were handsets held to the ears. And wireless walkie-talkies. Or, more generally, the miniaturisation of technology. It all kind of followed a gradual path of product improvement and optimisation.

Even tablet computers can be seen as a very fancy evolution of handheld books (just make the content animated and dynamic and dynamically loaded) from an ergonomical point of view. And I’ve introduced other (older) people to their first cellular phones, and none of them felt much oddness after being used to older phones.

Strapping huge monitors to your head, just and inch or so before your eyes, fully obscuring your vision and isolating one of your (probably your most important) senses from the outside world around you something quite different.

Mobile phones, electric light, combustion-engine cars and even passenger air travel have all found broad mainstream consumer adoption. 3D movies and audio have not - why not?
 
Last edited:
Rebuttal? Rebuttal to what? Not a rebuttal at all.

Merely a request to simply ignore people who are familiar with AR, it's potential, are excited about Apple's entry into the market, and wish to have uninterrupted discussions about the subject without having to deal with sideways distractive comments such as people never being onboard with having a device on their face.

Right. You claim authority in order to short circuit criticism.
 
Not at all. Your argument was that people wear full-face helmets because they are mandated, which they aren't.

Nope. You introduced the idea of full face helmets, not me.

People not wanting to wear helmets has nothing to do with some evolutionary aversion to face coverings.

Still waiting for valid complaints against the platform beyond price and battery life.

You should read the thread.
 
Right. You claim authority in order to short circuit criticism.

That's your assertion/projection...certainly not mine. Being familiar with AR is hardly claiming authority. As is being familiar with cars/computers/planes/cement/cameras/nail guns/laws/etc. is hardly claiming authority.

It would just be nice to have a discussion with people who are familiar with AR, its history, uses, etc. Without comments from people who don't, and even assert Apple's device is not AR. Simply to disrupt.
 
Last edited:
Nope. You introduced the idea of full face helmets, not me.
Yes I did, along with skiing and scuba diving, as examples of people wearing face and head coverings because they enjoy the activity. And you said people are forced to wear full face helmets, which they aren't. These are examples of people controlling and ignoring the evolutionary aversion to face coverings you proposed.
You should read the thread.
I have. Most complaints beyond price and battery life have been subjective.
 
Last edited:
@Surf Monkey

There is no proof, at all, that people have evolved to hate putting things on their faces. Thats an absurd assertion to make - unless you have this evidence?

People dont like it, perhaps - but thats not even slightly the same thing. The fact that people wear them to ski or snowboard, ride motorbikes, snorkel just proves the point that people will also wear something like these AR devices too. If one enjoys something, or one has to do something like wear a certain piece of uncomfortable clothing to do it, one will do it anyway. So will be the same for using this device.

I have an opinion too: t’s ok if you dont like the idea. It’s even ok if a lot of people dont like the idea. Looking past this initial foray by Apple, and the previous efforts by other companies, it’s clear to see this is just the start, its clear to see that AR in one form or another is the future of this type of computing. One only need to look at the history of tech and how far each product in each segment has come since it’s inception to realise that this is simply the starting point.

Your argument is entirely based upon your opinion, which would be fine, but your stating it like facts, and further more trying to bulk out your assertions with made up science regarding human evolution.

Apple Vision isn’t really AR. That’s part of the issue with it.
Apple Vision is exactly AR, as much as the current consumer tech allows for AR. What makes you say that it isn’t? Do you know what AR is?
 
Last edited:
That's your assertion/projection...certainly not mine. Being familiar with AR is hardly claiming authority. As is being familiar with cars/computers/planes/cement/cameras/nail guns/laws/etc. is hardly claiming authority.

It would just be nice to have a discussion with people who are familiar with AR, its history, uses, etc. Without comments from people who don't, and even assert Apple's device is not AR. Simply to disrupt.

It isn’t. Insulting me doesn’t change that.
 
Yes I did, along with skiing and scuba diving, as examples of people wearing face and head coverings because they enjoy the activity. And you said people are forced to wear full face helmets, which they aren't. These are examples of people controlling and ignoring the evolutionary aversion to face coverings you proposed.
I rebutted each of those examples individually. Attempting to put words in my mouth and then basically ignoring the substance of what I actually said it a sure way to have your argument fail.

I have. Most complaints beyond price and battery life have been subjective.

False. You should probably spend some time reading the actual thread.
 
@Surf Monkey

There is no proof, at all, that people have evolved to hate putting things on their faces. Thats an absurd assertion to make - unless you have this evidence?

People dont like it, perhaps - but thats not even slightly the same thing. The fact that people wear them to ski or snowboard, ride motorbikes, snorkel just proves the point that people will also wear something like these AR devices too. If one enjoys something, or one has to do something like wear a certain piece of uncomfortable clothing to do it, one will do it anyway. So will be the same for using this device.

I have an opinion too: t’s ok if you dont like the idea. It’s even ok if a lot of people dont like the idea. Looking past this initial foray by Apple, and the previous efforts by other companies, it’s clear to see this is just the start, its clear to see that AR in one form or another is the future of this type of computing. One only need to look at the history of tech and how far each product in each segment has come since it’s inception to realise that this is simply the starting point.

Your argument is entirely based upon your opinion, which would be fine, but your stating it like facts, and further more trying to bulk out your assertions with made up science regarding human evolution.

Apple Vision is exactly AR, as much as the current consumer tech allows for AR. What makes you say that it isn’t? Do you know what AR is?

Rationalize all you like. It goes on your face. That will be a deal breaker for the majority of people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AppliedMicro
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.