You are exactly right there. It's not that AR/VR doesn't have some use cases and they are cool and useful in their context. It's hard to see how Apple (or anyone) can create a mainstream product, iPhone style, that changes things dreamatically.
Maybe one day when camera/screen/battery tech is advanced enough that instead of having a phone in your pocket, you put on your sunnies and the glasses lenses projects the "screen" into the air and your fingers gesture and type in space. SOmething like that. We are a long way from that though.
Apple? Or Steve Jobs? Steve was responsible for the incredible Apple platforms. macOS, iOS, and Apple Silicon, they are all Steve. Nothing particularly special has happened since then, merely iterations. The most incredible thing Timmy has done, is not completely ruin Steve's platforms, thankfully.
Am I the only one here on the Forum aware that one T. Cook (an Apple employee) has been in secret talks to leave Apple to help Ford develop an 'A' Version (The 'Apricot') of their F-150 EV? Read it in an article by.......
The Information's Wayne Ma today published a lengthy report detailing technical and leadership challenges that Apple has faced during development of its long-rumored AR/VR headset, which is currently expected to be announced by the end of 2023.
For example, the report claims that Apple's team working on the headset, led by former Dolby executive Mike Rockwell, regularly had to fight to get help with the project from other parts of the company. As of mid-2017, the team also worked out of office buildings in Sunnyvale, California that were several miles away from Apple's headquarters, which allegedly "helped preserve the group's invisibility to the rest of Apple."The report adds that the team considered swappable batteries for the headset that would enable users to wear it for up to eight hours per day, but the idea was eventually scrapped due to the complexities involved. As of 2021, the headset had a battery that could last "several hours, in line with similar products," according to the report.
The full report outlines many other challenges and is a worthwhile read for those interested in the development of Apple's headset.
Bloomberg's Mark Gurman, Takashi Mochizuki, and Debby Wu previously outlined issues that Apple has faced with the headset, ranging from overheating to camera and software challenges. Gurman said the headset will be powered by two chips, with at least one on par with the M1 Pro chip in the latest 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro models.
The Information last year shared a render of Apple's supposed headset based on a "late-stage prototype" that it viewed. The report claimed the headset would have a curved visor with a soft mesh material, swappable headbands, and dual 8K displays. There may even be a third display, according to display industry consultant Ross Young.
Article Link: Apple's Struggles With Long-Rumored AR/VR Headset Detailed in New Report
1. Audio is better at this than visual as it is less distracting from the dangers of the real world. Are Airpods Apple's best AR product?
AR will be like the OS for everyday life. Meetings don't suck because they're online but because they're a waste of time and show of dominance status and heirarchy as people submit to rules. AR glasses won't make these magically better, but you could be doing other things potentially with a little window that pops up in the corner of your field of view showing whomever is speaking. And don't think googles like these pictured. They will be for VR in the long run, not AR. For AR, think of unobtrusive glasses.
1. Video cues done right are far better as they superimpose directional arrows on your real field of view.
Think about the switch of humanity and computers melding together. We'll live in the OS. The internet and cell phones are obviously major developments in human history, but when we move into the machine so to speak, it will be a whole new era.
But from everything we know Apple AR uses goggles, not glasses. With goggles you will feel like a scuba diver and wearing those for a long time will cause eye strain and sweat. Goggles are just such a horrible idea.
Dangers of the real world? LOL. What? Sometimes visual cues are better. For example trying to find your seat in a stadium, or when you have to go through four roundabouts.
Instead of relying on some museum having access to obsolete gaming consoles (weird, but cool I guess) how does that help with viewing architecture, natural landmarks, or historical locations? Being able to highlight specific brush strokes in a painting, or zoom in on a feature of the top of a building, or allow you to walk through a battle or historical event at the very location it occurred.
You can't dismiss an idea because someone wants to add tech to an existing product. Any game that gets people up and moving is going to be popular.
You can't have behind-the-scenes commentary on audio while watching TV or a movie. The dialog would overlap and it would be hot garbage. Also, not everyone watching wants to hear the commentary or have things in the scene pointed out.
AR stargazing happens in real life.
What exactly do you consider an 'industrial application'? If we both go to the supermarket looking for bananas you might want them ripe today, but I might want to use them in a week. We both want the same product, but very different versions of the product. This isn't about having less staff.
Hiking was just an example. Any independent activity where people like do it in pairs or groups could benefit from AR.
I wouldn't consider self-evaluation of a golf swing, or a daughter's free-throw and industrial application.
Just because I make a mean Hello Fresh, doesn't mean I consider myself a professional chef. Translate recipes into AR so that the people cooking compare their current meals to previous ones they or others have cooked.
Again, trying to decide if a piece of art will look good in your home isn't an industrial application. Nor is trying to decide what flower you should plant near your mailbox.
I have to disagree with that one particularly. My Nav in my car has both audio prompts and physical "arrows" via a HUD. Audio is what I go by near a turn because I'm using my eyes to see the surroundings at that time. I find the arrows with miles interesting only for long range stuff. (a right turn in 10 miles for instance, and that's a constant display rather than an intermittent verbal cue.) While useful, the verbal cues and my driving to them is much more important.
Exactly. Most directions are currently given for driving, which encourages taking your eyes off the road to see your phone. Out of the car, we have few options for say, finding a particular store at a mall.
Or for the deaf / heard of hearing needing it without translation. Or being able to offer tourism of buildings and natural wonders that can't easily be curated.
It's hard to imagine how games might be transformed with a little technology. Tag, for example, could show a counter for how many times or how long someone has been 'it'.
This is a great example. My SO always wants captions on, and I find them distracting because I read them before the actor says their line.
The ability to quiz yourself as you get more knowledgeable.
Or help people understand how different brands differ. It could make it clear that one product has an ingredient you are trying to avoid something due to allergies (nuts) or health concerns (corn syrup).
I would give anything to be able to hear my grandmother retell a story about her childhood as we drove through town.
True. I was thinking more from a consumer standpoint. Allowing for graphical overlays while at the live event, or when at home practicing with your kid.
And help prevent installing a part upside down...
Exactly. One issue with that tech now is that you have to be in the location you want to add the item to. Imagine being able to recreate the location while looking at the real item in the store. Or being able to simulate how a garden might look with different plants that bloom at different times of the year.
You are talking about a HUD inside the car. That's not nearly as easy to follow as painted arrows on the road, which is what AR glasses would provide.
What?! AR doesn’t do any such thing, it’s basically just a heads up display. Oh sure, it might present very helpful information in a timely manner, but certainly claiming that it “edits reality” especially “on an atomic level” is a major exaggeration! It’s not like you’re strapping an unlicensed nuclear reactor to your face! You’re not going to be changing the chemical structure of the world around you just because you’ve got an intelligent display in your face. Now, you might be able to look at the atomic makeup of substances in front of you (for instance, a nuclear physics course that could show you the decay products of uranium in the form of uranium glass), but that depends on 1) having said demonstration running when you want it but not running when it isn’t useful and 2) the substance would have to be tagged in some way to make the device register it as a certain substance (there are too many clear liquids to tell on sight alone that something is water [and, what’s more, could you tell by sight alone what substances might be dissolved in that water?], and don’t get me started on how many vaguely silvery metals there are).
I still disagree, seeing arrows on the road itself still doesn't get past the fact that I need to be seeing where I'm going, not just the road. You have a turn coming up, you better be totally aware of your surroundings, instead of just looking at the road.
AR is not a heads-up display at all. You are thinking of Google Glass, which is a different type of technology.
So it can be a floating arrow for each corner you need to take. There are various ways this can go down.
Gesturing in space doesn’t sound terribly appealing, though. It’s the same problem vertical touch screens have. They demo well and they’re fine for very brief interactions, but you wouldn’t want to type out a message or edit a photo by reaching out to a physical screen in front of you even with all the feedback the screen gives you. To do the same with a virtual screen seems awful. (Also, what even are the Fitt’s Law attributes of an AR display?)
