What do you mean by we’re not better? I remember Android 2.3 having features that iOS recently got…
The first iOS had no copy and paste but android did. Also, Android was under development anyway for touch screen cameras.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Google Debuts Android XR Operating System for Mixed Reality Headsets and Smart Glasses
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The first iOS had no copy and paste but android did. Also, Android was under development anyway for touch screen cameras.
I don’t want to embarrass myself mocking something I care so little about that I could barely get through this post.
I did care about AVP a lot before it launched. And I still see glimmers of potential.
But this product category isn’t doing anything for me right now.
I’m sure Google can make something just as impressive but useless with its upcoming AR/VR/POO-POO product as Apple did with AVP.
Does that make you happy?
The most interesting thing is the glasses, those will be a bigger seller as they'll be used daily like the watch when paired to a phone.
Meta’s already rejected Android XR.
Meta CTO: Android XR Rejected Due to Google's "restrictive" Terms & Plans to Fragment XR
A report from The Information last week alleged Meta and Google held talks in effort to bring Android XR to Quest. Meta CTO Andrew ‘Boz’ Bosworth has now confirmed this report, stating further that not only were Google’s terms too restrictive, but Google is actively planning to fragment the...
www.roadtovr.com
Apple has AVP patents from 2006 which are part of AVP released. Apple may not release something first, doesn’t mean they were not first to start working on a device. iPad work predates to the iPhone research. Samsung rushed a tablet after rumors started of iPad release.
Even if it was a great device, I still at this point would have zero interest if Google was deeply involved and embedded their anything into the OS or system. I wouldn't even believe their privacy policy, and would imagine that it is going to collect an insane amount of data on the user.
Sure, let's put Gemini in it. I realize things are moving all-AI. But once again, Google in my opinion is just plain evil at this point. I don't want their products integrated into something that I'm wearing around my house, seeing everything I own, etc.
Maybe the tech will be great. But those integrations just wouldn't work for me.
Sure, let's put Gemini in it. I realize things are moving all-AI. But once again, Google in my opinion is just plain evil at this point. I don't want their products integrated into something that I'm wearing around my house, seeing everything I own, etc.
Maybe the tech will be great. But those integrations just wouldn't work for me.
Apple was not the first company to research/release a VR headset or a mixed reality headset. They did not invent the technology. It is important to me that you know that.
AVP has had this for months and it works on any photo from anytime taken with any camera.
I even watched a video where a guy was able to do it with some of his photos from the 90s of his family and was shocked at how well it worked.
Comparing patent dates with product relase dates is just silly. There are probably some patents in this realm from 1950s.
I didn’t compare random patent dates.I was referring to schematics in patents on AvP which matched the final product. It’s undeniable that Apple started working on AVP from 2006.
Never said they invented anything. Apple started working long before Meta or Google.
That's not the point, the thinking there is that is they enter a mature market and carve out a niche with best of class, unique features. Apple was entirely too early to do anything like that with AR/XR so now later entrants can benefit from where they stumbled out of the gate by not making the same mistakes. It's easy to take lessons learned from a competitor and avoid a pothole like this- a move Apple has used to much success in the past.
Ultimately I keep saying this but it bears a repeat: Apple was wrong to release the AVP when they did, it needed a few more years and some early entrants into the space to guide them around some obstacles.
I've been shocked at how well it works. I've used it on scanned photos that my grandfather took of the Dallas downtown buildings in 1929.
I used it on pictures I took in the Grand Canyon in 1993. The results compared very will with photos I took on the same trip with a multi-lens 3D camera.
Currently the software has a problem with reflections and windows. Sometimes an indoor scene will show a window that looks like a flat painting. Large bodies of water sometimes look flat. Glassware, etc just look...wrong. About 10% of the photos I've converted to spatial have been bad enough that I went back to the 2D version.
For the rest, the result is stunning, and to me, emotionally satisfying.
I disagree, I think it was the perfect time to release it.
It’s the G4Cube being imagined 10 years too early and the 2013 MacPro. Both of these machines were not very good at their intended task, but without them the Apple silicon transition might have never happened.
Where now they don’t even need a cube or a tall trashcan because they can fit one of the most powerful chips in a tiny Apple TV sized box or a 5 mm thin touchscreen.
It’s the Newton being introduced and canceled but always floating around internally, turning into a touchscreen tablet evolving into the iPhone.
Apple Vision Pro isn’t it, but the devices that result from it might be.
Google and Samsung jumping in is nothing but a good thing.
You said it perfectly- Apple Vision Pro isnt it. And I fear this will make them very conservative when it comes time to put a real competitor out there. I hope not but so far it's been a poor return and I'm sure the board was hoping for something more electric in terms of it's reception.
I just wanted a stronger showing from Apple, but I think Samsung/Google going into this is a good thing regardless. A rising tide raises all boats etc etc. Funny enough I doubt Apple coming out with amazing AR glasses will do anything above appeal to existing customers, because the tribalized nature of tech at this point all but guarantees it. No one will switch to it away from Android in meaningful numbers because the lines are drawn, lock-in is a thing. I doubt anyone that isn't already on a side will be swayed by these various entrants. Of course there will always be lunatics such as myself that daily drive a flagship Android and iOS device. But we're not fit for polite society.
2.3? I am referring specifically to 1.0. Do you not recall the powerpoint presentation presented at the copyright trial where Samsung had taken apple screen shots and highlighted the features they were going to copy?
It's stupid to handpick features to suggest thats why it was better, when the overall experience just wasn't.
2.3. Not the topic of conversation.
On the other hand, one of the biggest reasons people switched to iOS is the Apple Watch.
So maybe it will, who knows.
At the end of the day, as long as Apple has their flagship products that sell in the millions, there is absolutely nothing wrong with them experimenting.
Steve’s Apple tried random experiments all the time, G4Cube, an iPod shuffle without buttons, an iPod nano that tried to compete with flip video cameras, even the first generation MacBook Air was basically an experiment, one of the thinnest and most expensive computers ever with horrible specifications worse than even Apple’s cheapest offerings and yet now it’s the best selling Mac
What the world needs is a strong YouTube competitor.
I seriously question whether an Apple watch is causing any switching in any significant numbers but as a Garmin Fenix fan I'm fairly unimpressed with the shallow health tracking from all the other watch brands. I sincerely hope whatever comes after AVP is re-thought (and it needs a top down rethink) will move the needle.
Agree. I think this takes all the heat off them needing a native app, it's a miniscule addressable market and that's not gonna change. Maybe if it had better adoption.
The original Air was not the "most expensive". I think specs, and therefore performance, were lacking simply because of the tech at the time. It still performed better than its direct competitors — What were they called? Net PCs, the castrated PC laptops?