Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I don't think it's going to happen tomorrow, but I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility. 20 years ago, would we have thought a billion humans would carry $1000 computers in their pocket to make phone calls and share instant pictures of their tiramisu with friends?

People already wear sunglasses. A lot of people wear prescription glasses. We're used to that as an accessory. Is it such a stretch that people would want to stop carrying a glass slab in their pocket and choose to integrate that functionality and an improved display into their eyewear?

Just because Google Glass tanked, doesn't necessarily mean the concept is busted-- it might mean we haven't found the right hardware/use case combination. A variety of styles for something you put on your face is probably part of the winning strategy, for example...
To answer your question: yes 20 years ago we thought we would carry computers in our pockets one day. By we I mean members of our species were knowledgeable on the practicality, viability, and intrinsic profoundness of this idea.

AR glasses on the other hand, no. Of course it can and will happen, but it won’t be used by a statistically significant portion of the population, and therefore it is not something that changes human existence, like the smartphone.
[doublepost=1507855916][/doublepost]
If we get to the point that AR features could be integrated into normal looking eyewear then I suspect someone will create an item people will buy. Never say never.
I believe you and others fail to think about the fact that we humans detest wearing corrective lenses. From a sociological standpoint alone, only sunglasses are truly universally accepted, and this is because they are used by all humans for short periods of time, and not by a small portion of humans for long periods.
 
There will never be a mass market wearable for AR like glasses. People won’t buy that and wear it. That’s just a fact.....
Not in the current styles such as Google Glass, etc., but new incarnations are coming that will not only free us from being tethered to 'bulky' cumbersome devices, but actually completely replace smartphones as we now employ them, and these newer devices will project anything and everything we wish to see, in front of us, anywhere and everywhere we may find ourselves, completely revolutionizing the way we use information and consume content, and in the process rendering today's state-of-the-art smartphones as quaint relics of the past, just like we now view those huge original cellphones of the eighties.
 
Not in the current styles such as Google Glass, etc., but new incarnations are coming that will not only free us from being tethered to 'bulky' cumbersome devices, but actually completely replace smartphones as we now employ them, and these newer devices will project anything and everything we wish to see, in front of us, anywhere and everywhere we may find ourselves, completely revolutionizing the way we use information and consume content, and in the process rendering today's state-of-the-art smartphones as quaint relics of the past, just like we now view those huge original cellphones of the eighties.
Nope. There is no such thing as a glasses-type wearable device that is not cumbersome. Humans don’t want to put things on their face over their eyes.

The smartphone isn’t being replaced for a very very long time. Maybe that’s a depressing thought to some people, but reality is depressing sometimes.
 
Nope. There is no such thing as a glasses-type wearable device that is not cumbersome. Humans don’t want to put things on their face over their eyes.

The smartphone isn’t being replaced for a very very long time. Maybe that’s a depressing thought to some people, but reality is depressing sometimes.

I wouldn't say a very long time. They're making fast progress.

 
Nope. There is no such thing as a glasses-type wearable device that is not cumbersome. Humans don’t want to put things on their face over their eyes.

The smartphone isn’t being replaced for a very very long time. Maybe that’s a depressing thought to some people, but reality is depressing sometimes.
I'm expecting that the technology I'm alluding to, isn't going to be anything at all, like what we've seen so far.
Radical and profound miniaturization are key necessities here. Let's review things, say ten years from now....
 
I originally discounted this as being relatively useless technology. I know there is a lot of complex calculations and machine learning behind the scenes, just felt like a solution to a problem we don’t yet have.

That said, I have finally used an ARKit app to help diagram a structure / and some bollards at work. I tried it out as more of a toy, but came away impressed with how well the phone (iPhone 7) could track it’s location, keeping the structure in the same spot on the ground.

I am not that interested in games, but would love to see more productivity development, and, this technology put into a wearable or something a bit more immersive than holding up a screen.

Try walking around a little bit. I tested it pretty thoroughly in an office setting on a 6S, and found that it's too unreliable for anything more serious than a game. Perhaps with an iBeakon setup it could work better...
 
To answer your question: yes 20 years ago we thought we would carry computers in our pockets one day. By we I mean members of our species were knowledgeable on the practicality, viability, and intrinsic profoundness of this idea.

AR glasses on the other hand, no. Of course it can and will happen, but it won’t be used by a statistically significant portion of the population, and therefore it is not something that changes human existence, like the smartphone.
Is it possible that you're not one of the members of our species that is knowledgable on the practicality, viability and intrinsic profoundness of this idea?
 
I haven't heard a lot of news about poor battery life with the rollout of AR. What's your experience with using AR for an hour on an 8?
 
Is it just me, or is TapMeasure actually a bit useless? I've twice now tried to use it in real life and it simply can't get hold of anything. The only time it's been remotely accurate is when I was right on top of a rectangle on the floor, testing it out. Even then it was a couple of centimetres out so no replacement for a tape measure.
 
Try walking around a little bit. I tested it pretty thoroughly in an office setting on a 6S, and found that it's too unreliable for anything more serious than a game. Perhaps with an iBeakon setup it could work better...
I did, and it still tracked quite well.

One thing to note, our phones aren't as optimized for this tech as the 8, and the upcoming X. The fact that it works as well as it does, is still something to appreciate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Analog Kid
AR is cool but I was really hoping Apple adopted VR. Android is doing VR but until Apple really adopts it I don't imagine it going too far.

As a Oculus Rift owner I can't say VR is necessary but it's really freaking cool. I just hope Apple supports it one day.

But I sadly say I think VR is on its way out :-(
 
I wouldn't say a very long time. They're making fast progress.

I’m glad you posted that video. People who look like that guy are the people who would wear AR glasses. Smartphone will remain. Enjoy
[doublepost=1507907827][/doublepost]
I'm expecting that the technology I'm alluding to, isn't going to be anything at all, like what we've seen so far.
Radical and profound miniaturization are key necessities here. Let's review things, say ten years from now....
Ohhh okay so you’re saying you won’t wear something that looks like glasses? Gotcha. Check.
[doublepost=1507908244][/doublepost]
Is it possible that you're not one of the members of our species that is knowledgable on the practicality, viability and intrinsic profoundness of this idea?
Nope, I’m one of the probably hundreds of thousands that are smart enough to know that AR glasses won’t be anything you could even remotely compare in the slightest degree to the smartphone in terms of usage and the changing of human life.

If you want to think about profound revolutionary technologies that will do so, think of things like nanotechnologies, brainwave analytics, direct brain connectivity to the internet, etc.

Think of things that a large percentage of the human species will use, because only when a large percentage use something, does it become revolutionary to life.
 
Nope, I’m one of the probably hundreds of thousands that are smart enough to know that AR glasses won’t be anything you could even remotely compare in the slightest degree to the smartphone in terms of usage and the changing of human life.

If you want to think about profound revolutionary technologies that will do so, think of things like nanotechnologies, brainwave analytics, direct brain connectivity to the internet, etc.

Think of things that a large percentage of the human species will use, because only when a large percentage use something, does it become revolutionary to life.
Large percentages of the human species use corrective or protective lenses...

When you use phrases like "a large percentage of the human species", I'm not sure you've got a clear picture of what that means.

Leaving aside the science questions (are people's brains similar enough to support generic interfaces?), the engineering challenges (where's the battery for your brain reader go?), and the legal minefield (if your brain reader is powered by Android, does Google get to index your private thoughts and advertise to you by triggering a craving for McDonalds?)-- do you think rural China and the poorest parts of India will be able to join the Borg before they're able to adopt custom eyewear?

Someone could have argued that nanotech, brainwave analytics and direct neural links to the global networks were the best solution to the telecommunications problem, and yet we took a pragmatic approach and adopted smart phones as a half measure. I don't understand the excessive confidence that we wouldn't adopt a suitable half measure to always available, spatially referenced information capture and presentation.
 
Last edited:
I believe you and others fail to think about the fact that we humans detest wearing corrective lenses. From a sociological standpoint alone, only sunglasses are truly universally accepted, and this is because they are used by all humans for short periods of time, and not by a small portion of humans for long periods.
I haven’t bothered to look at what percent of humans wear corrective lenses, but about 70% of Americans do. And the vast majority prefer glasses to contacts. I think you’re just assuming the data fits your opinion...

http://news.gallup.com/poll/3115/fo...glasses-would-consider-laser-eye-surgery.aspx
 
Large percentages of the human species use corrective or protective lenses...

When you use phrases like "a large percentage of the human species", I'm not sure you've got a clear picture of what that means.

Leaving aside the science questions (are people's brains similar enough to support generic interfaces?), the engineering challenges (where's the battery for your brain reader go?), and the legal minefield (if your brain reader is powered by Android, does Google get to index your private thoughts and advertise to you by triggering a craving for McDonalds?)-- do you think rural China and the poorest parts of India will be able to join the Borg before they're able to adopt custom eyewear?

Someone could have argued that nanotech, brainwave analytics and direct neural links to the global networks were the best solution to the telecommunications problem, and yet we took a pragmatic approach and adopted smart phones as a half measure. I don't understand the excessive confidence that we wouldn't adopt a suitable half measure to always available, spatially referenced information capture and presentation.
Oh I fully agree, it would be a transitional technology. It’s just not a technology humans will use because they won’t wear them.

A statistically significant portion of humans use corrective lenses at times. A far larger portion use protective lenses at times. No one wants to use corrective lenses though which is why you’ll never see a large percentage using AR glasses. It just won’t happen. Not due to technological challenges, just a willingness not to do so.
[doublepost=1507927732][/doublepost]
I haven’t bothered to look at what percent of humans wear corrective lenses, but about 70% of Americans do. And the vast majority prefer glasses to contacts. I think you’re just assuming the data fits your opinion...

http://news.gallup.com/poll/3115/fo...glasses-would-consider-laser-eye-surgery.aspx
No. The data doesn’t fit my opinion and I don’t want the data to fit my opinion. The data fits reality. I’m describing that reality. It’s your job to allow your brain to accept it.

We humans created contact lenses and laser eye surgery because we dislike the sociological aversion to and inconvenience of wearing corrective glasses. Most don’t have the means to use contact lenses or get laser eye surgery due to the much greater financial toll. A huge number of people have poor vision and elect to not use any correction because they are that against glasses and the inconveniences of any corrective measures.

Humans will not be wearing AR glasses like you see humans using smartphones or vehicles. It will be a fraction and absolutely never change the world.

Look to more ingenious ideas. Don’t worry, just because AR glasses isn’t going to be a revolutionary thing, doesn’t mean many many won’t come.
 
Ohhh okay so you’re saying you won’t wear something that looks like glasses? Gotcha. Check.....
To look into the future requires a bit of thinking outside of the box. As I mentioned before, vastly increased miniaturization will not make our new windows into the world of information look anything at all like what's out there now, which I agree most people reject as unacceptable if not hideous. Confirmation of the miniaturization aspect of that statement can easily be appreciated by comparing the very latest crop of virtually invisible hearing aids, to state-of-the-art models of even only several years ago.

But 'projecting' information and content in front of our eyes does not necessarily mean any type of physical device obstructing our appearance, or even just being visible from the outside. Inroads are being made, and great promise has been shown with implantation of devices that connect directly with, and feed, our optical nerve.

Either way, technology marches forward mercilessly, and info and content available to us anywhere and everywhere will be part of our future, in whatever incarnation that may come. It is an inevitable and natural progression of where we came from and where we're headed as a species, with mankind's insatiable appetite for information, knowledge and power.
 
To look into the future requires a bit of thinking outside of the box. As I mentioned before, vastly increased miniaturization will not make our new windows into the world of information look anything at all like what's out there now, which I agree most people reject as unacceptable if not hideous. Confirmation of the miniaturization aspect of that statement can easily be appreciated by comparing the very latest crop of virtually invisible hearing aids, to state-of-the-art models of even only several years ago.

But 'projecting' information and content in front of our eyes does not necessarily mean any type of physical device obstructing our appearance, or even just being visible from the outside. Inroads are being made, and great promise has been shown with implantation of devices that connect directly with, and feed, our optical nerve.

Either way, technology marches forward mercilessly, and info and content available to us anywhere and everywhere will be part of our future, in whatever incarnation that may come. It is an inevitable and natural progression of where we came from and where we're headed as a species, with mankind's insatiable appetite for information, knowledge and power.
Okay see I suggested vision neurons being manipulated so your suggestion is similar and therefore I agree with that. AR glasses or any other type of device that a person wears on their face to see images on is a no-go is my assertion.
 
Games for sure in AR.... but this is only when separating AR revenue for "other" revenue...
 
To be brutally honest, I haven't seen an AR game yet where AR isn't a gimmick that doesn't add any real value to the gameplay.

Non-games are better use of the technology, in my opinion.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.