No worries about the criticism. But I'm not following you saying there is a difference. I would assume that an AR solution that is presented for iOS is much like Samsung VR Gear in that you put your phone into a case that holds the phone in front of your eyes. The difference is that you have a hole in the case that allows the phones camera to record the real world. There you have your AR kit and the phone being light, powerful and battery efficient makes it better.
The only difference between AR and VR is that in VR the computer makes the entire picture and in AR the computer just records the real world and overlays part of the picture. In VR the computer uses the program to create the picture. In AR the computer uses the camera recording the real world as input that goes on the screen (while also providing the program part). Am I missing some distinction?
As for the porn part, well the whole apparatus has to be hands free for obvious reasons.
It's obvious Apple would have to build a headset for the phone to be inserted to use the AR aspects of the product. The biggest flaw with AR with iOS is that you have to hold it up with your hands. Imagine doing that for hours for a game or such.
So, let's see.....Apple disputes having touchscreen on iMac as creating 'gorilla arms' but yet they promote ARKit for iOS where people are SEEN on videos holding up the devices. Talk about double standards. That, to me, is telling. People should be questioning Apple on " Where the hell is your AR headset? ". That was the one part they failed in not addressing.
Lack of foresight is usually the problem with Apple when they put out keynotes like these, demonstrating technology. So when I see someone holding up an iPad using AR, and since I have a critical eye ( yes, I'm a trained artist so I'm not going to be told to pretend or look the other way ), I saw a huge flaw there. A guy holding up an iPad going around the table. Hmmmm...if kids are expected to be playing games like that for hours holding it with two hands...that's going to an ergonomic issue. The iPhone, on the other hand, is a different issue but similar.
So in essence, I would not want to hold up the phone horizontally for long periods of time using software that is game or entertainment based. It would have to run on a short term or used for quick application purposes for work, productivity, etc. And no, Pokemon Go doesn't count. They LOOK down on the phone while walking. I know because I play Ingress and it's done in similar fashion.
I suspect the headset will be independent and may not require putting the phone in it. There's a reason for that. If you're using AR on your iPad, there is no way in hell you can fit in on the headset. Therefore, you need to use Bluetooth or Wi-fi for the iPad to stream AR to the headset, which also means...the headset has to have a rechargeable battery.
AR just layers interactive graphics over what you see in real life, via a live camera or GPS location ( ie. Ingress game ). VR is more on the virtual side of things where you are interacting with a three-dimensional world as a form of escapism and has more sense of independent movement than AR. And there's a combination of the two which is usually specific for work related projects usually in the military, engineering or medical fields. One Navy craft was recently designed from scratch using the VR-AR hardware ( not Apple, obviously ).
The porn part is dead obvious. That market will flood to that regardless how puritan Apple acts. And it already had on the other goggles made by Samsung or other.
[doublepost=1497536651][/doublepost]
I was thinking.... I want to walk through the garage door and into the forest.... Ouch!
I think that demo was kind of stupid because when you hold the phone up and try to cut the door down, I question the use of peeking through the door. Okay, so he cuts a path. Does he walk in? No. If this was a VR situation, that would've worked easily. But using AR, it doesn't work. It's like "ooooh, he cut a door down. Oooooh, he's peeking through ". Please. Not impressive. Cute demo but pointless.
They can do far better than that level of interactivity. If you're gonna cut a door down, make sure the user can 'virtually' walk through it. Unless, the only purpose is to use that as a form of a walk-along interactive story.
[doublepost=1497537006][/doublepost]
After just a few days, and a developers-only release, iOS is already the dominant platform for AR. This is a market Apple will pioneer and dominate.
Who can miniaturize an AR device to the point it's actually desirable to wear? Only Apple. It's like all their work in chips and sensors of these last years is converging to make that single device possible.
So what? So AR is on iOS. It's not even dominant yet until the developers can work the magic. The demos I've seen were so-so and believe me, nothing revolutionary at all. I've known about AR for a long time so nothing out of Apple's mouth surprises me. They're trying to milk something that's been already out there. In fact, I play Ingress and it's a form of augmented reality gaming using GPS. That has been around LONG before Apple jumped into it.
You should be questioning WHY Apple failed to bring up mention of a headset for the AR application. You said it yourself 'to the point it's actually desirable to wear'. That should be RIGHT. NOW. Not later.
Here's another flaw for you to think about. Watch the video clips carefully. Notice how they're holding up iPads for AR to work. Imagine doing that for a long period of time. And compare to how Apple disputed using touchscreens on iMacs.
See the problem? It's called hypocrisy.
Take off your DJ headset and use your eyes critically.
