We aren't talking about passthrough VR. Why mention it? Passthrough isn't VR, it's MR.
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.
Kuo: Apple Headset Will Use Same 96W Power Adapter as 14-Inch MacBook Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
We aren't talking about passthrough VR. Why mention it? Passthrough isn't VR, it's MR.
So you are a fan of working on the Meta/Oculus Quest 2, of Meta's already announced Cambria and of Apple's upcoming device. All of those have (Quest 2) passthrough or will have passthrough and by your definition are MR. So...what point are you here to make? Again, have you used any recent headset? Your uninformed posts make it sound like you have not.
Battery hog, yeah. I suspect Apple would sacrifice battery life in favor of device comfort. Short battery life also allows VR’s lingering motion sickness after longer use issues to be swept under the rug.
Actually, if this is right, then the VR headset is probably using an M1 Pro or M1 Max, a desktop class chip. Definitely using an M1 or M1-based chip. Is there some reason adequate VR can’t be done on an A-series chip? Plus, that would put it in a weird place in Apple’s ecosystem, a device that’s an iPhone accessory but uses a Mac chip.
I don't think "every sale equates to someone new getting into VR", which would be a dumb and weird thing to think, and I have no idea where you got that from. Of course not everyone is going to love any product. But almost everyone I have shown VR to has loved it, and since this holiday season I personally know several people who have gone from curious to very regular and frequent users. The sales figures are just one small piece of evidence; there are other indicators of the growth of VR. It is currently niche, but rapidly growing - it will get less and less niche over the next few years, especially as technology improves (and this year looks very good for higher quality, lighter, more powerful headsets). That's my guess anyway - but time will tell.
Ah - that’s it! You won’t in an Apple Car at all - you’ll just perceive that you are!
I've already said a dozen times I had an Oculus for game development and that it has many shortcomings.
Look who is uninformed.
Incels and people who don't want to be part of the real world? Right. It sounds like your dim view of the prospects of VR is more about your stereotypes and biases around VR than anything else. It is a rapidly growing industry, and the tech is rapidly improving. There's a reason that both FB (or Meta or whatever) and Apple are so bullish on this. But hey, time will tell.
Before you call me dim listen to this:
Zuckerberg 'You will be able to live and work in VR'
Bezos 'Millions of people will work in space'
Musk 'We're going to colonise Mars'
Anyone who believes these three frauds is dim. Their critics aren't dim. Critics understand realistic expectations, physiological effects, social costs, and aren't saying buzzy things to get money out of investors.
Uh, I did not call you dim. Saying that you have a "dim view" of the prospects of VR is not calling you dim. That's not even remotely what that means. Here, this might help: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/take a dim view
I don't care what any of those people think - that wasn't my point either. Musk and Bezos are jokes, and I have nothing but contempt for Zuckerberg. But he at least understands technology, and so does Tim Cook. These companies (two of the world's largest) and others are very bullish on VR because they think it will be good business. There are good reasons to think this, it's a rapidly growing and rapidly developing industry. The technology has improved incredibly in just a few years, especially as you look at the headsets that are coming out this year. This isn't pie-in-the-sky speculations about Mars, this is stuff that is beginning to happen already. But hey, I could be wrong. Again, time will tell.
You go around saying to people 'In your dim view' and then saying you aren't calling them dim. That's some really virtual reality **** right there, brah.
You need to read the thread before you talk about people's positions. I only said some people need to keep their expectations realistic otherwise they just going to be disappointed.
Your comments show that you are unware of what is current in VR headsets and what has already been announced for
Meta Quest 2 currently has passthrough, on demand passthrough, selective passthrough, and double tap passthrough. I am unsure how you could have used both the device and written that this was impossible
. Passthrough will also be on the upcoming Cambria from Meta with high res, forward facing, full color cameras. They have already announced this. It will certainly be on Apples full headset device. You should really try one. You will be surprised by what is already available.
Your comments show that you are unware of what is current in VR headsets and what has already been announced for
Meta Quest 2 currently has passthrough, on demand passthrough, selective passthrough, and double tap passthrough. I am unsure how you could have used both the device and written that this was impossible
But we're not talking about passthrough in this thread and even that has limitations and friction. If it doesn't solve any problems or offer anything I need the whole thing is money wasted. I'd rather buy 50 Apple Polishing Cloths.
I would definitely not give 1 cent to Facebook. I want that company to die and its founders to suffer a terrible life.
It’s an idiom. I gave you a dictionary link to assist since clearly your powers of reading comprehension are lacking. If you’re going to insist on remaining ignorant, not to mention shifting the goalposts, I’m not going to waste more effort on this discussion.You go around saying to people 'In your dim view' and then saying you aren't calling them dim. That's some really virtual reality **** right there, brah.
You need to read the thread before you talk about people's positions. I only said some people need to keep their expectations realistic otherwise they just going to be disappointed.
To be fair, you’re using the idiom in a semantically unusual way. Idioms are harder to recognize the more you depart from the traditional formulation. Specifically, dim is an adjective, and a “dim view” can easily be parsed as a negative adjective modifying the word “view”. I’d argue that the word “take” provides a valuable contextual clue that you’re referring to the idiom “take a dim view” (and that the word “dim” has sufficiently changed in its meaning from when the idiom was coined that the additional contextual clue is quite important). It also depersonalizes the idiom to an extent, as it means “the position you’re supporting is not an optimistic one” as opposed to “your position(s) is(/are) not (an) optimistic one(s)” (optional plurals because view could be taken as uncountable, if you take it as a synonym of “worldview”).
TL;DR: Playing fast and loose with idiom construction can make it harder to recognize use of the idiom, especially if there’s another semantically valid interpretation.
Since your use of an unusual idiom structure apparently caused a communication failure, you should probably apologize for your role in contributing to it and move on. You’re both taking an “I’m right, you’re wrong” perspective and doubling down on an inconsequential argument. And you bear some more responsibility (since there’s an implicit “you’re an idiot for misunderstanding my idiom” that contributes to the other person’s “you’re calling me dumb” perspective). I find that one of the most important things in avoiding stupid arguments is respectful acknowledgement that perhaps you’re not seeing the full picture or that you’re contributing to the stupid argument. Also helpful in navigating political differences sometimes. I hope you take this as the constructive criticism it’s intended to be, I wholly admit that my writing isn’t the best.
Last edited:
You wrote, "Most people, probably 99.999%, will not wear a VR strap-on because that's not how people like to work and using a keyboard and other actual things on their actual desktop are painfully difficult to use if they can't see them."
Had you used one of these devices you would know that passthrough is already employed on these devices and already answers what you were stating as something that people would not like. Anyone who has actually used one of these devices knows that this already exists and that it already works. It will only improve on future devices.
If you are not talking about the upcoming apple headset or the current models (all using passthrough), what were you talking about
This isn't an unusual usage, it's very common. And this isn't nearly as complicated as you're making it out to be. If I talk about someone's "dim view of the prospects of VR", it's perfectly clear what this means. One really has to be stretching and distorting ordinary English to read that as a personal attack or an insult. "Has/have a dim view", "your dim view", etc is used just as commonly as "take a dim view", see it here in some headlines for example:
Millennials have a dim view of America's future, according to Harvard
Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government released a new national poll Wednesday analyzing millennials’ political opinions, hopes and fears leading up to Election Day. The university’s Institute of Politics surveyed 2,150 young people between the ages of 18 and 29 from October 7 to October...
www.boston.com
Review: “There’s Someone Inside Your House” Has A Dim View Of Young America
There’s Someone Inside Your House is strangely impotent when it comes to suspense and surprise, existing on a ridiculous plain between a caricature of Insta-adolescence and something appropriating Wes Craven’s Scream.
www.top10films.co.uk
Perspective | Carolyn Hax: Fiance’s mom has a dim view of her. How to get her to see the light?
She’s asked him not to confide in his mother, but a gag order isn’t going to endear her.
www.washingtonpost.com
Same for "your dim view", or "their dim view", or whatever:
"Nine months after shutting down public schools, a survey of Los Angeles public school teachers showed their overwhelmingly dim view of distance learning" https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-12-16/teachers-survey
You can google many more examples if you like. This is quite common, very ordinary, everyday English, and it's beyond goofy that we are even debating this.
It is silly to suggest that one should apologize for using ordinary English in the way it is ordinarily used. The initial confusion was fine, it happens - in my initial response to Metapunk's confusion, I provided a dictionary link to explain the idiom. I was perfectly polite in that response. That should have been the end of that aspect of the discussion. Metapunk chose to ignore that information and continue pretending to have been insulted; at that point, the conversation is disingenuous (of course I should have known the conversation was disingenuous when they referred to VR enthusiasts as "incels", but alas).
I am also quite open to the possibility of being wrong on the broader topic of the prospects of VR. As I stated before, I may be wrong and time will tell.
It’s more about apologizing for causing a communication failure. I parsed it as more of a genuine “he took it as an insult” situation than you apparently did. Then again, I’ve noticed that most political arguments boil down to either overloaded terminology, a failure to acknowledge that the other party’s views make internal sense, or genuine disagreement on how to address the same issue (with an implicit acknowledgment that both sides view the thing as an issue but just believe that the answer is different). So I have a tendency to try to correct for communication success. I’ll apologize for language usage that, while cromulent, can be taken as inelegant or can contribute to misunderstanding, when I recognize that misunderstanding.
I think you have a good point about how a lot of disagreements go, especially regarding worldviews/political views/identities, etc. I don't think that anything of the sort was going on here. This is a comparatively trivial topic, and I don't think that Metapunk was arguing in very good faith (both with me and with other people in this thread). The attempt to pretend to have been insulted - even after the simple and very common idiom was explicitly explained - reinforces that view.
As for VR, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, VR is pretty terrible from an accessibility perspective. Obviously, a VR heavy society locks blind people out of it, further marginalizing them. It also locks people with strabismus out of it to some extent. It can also potentially cause some issues with deaf people, as most VR experiences aren’t using sign language in place of spoken audio (though a good way of displaying subtitles would help a little).
Ironically, many assistive devices and applications for the blind use a form of augmented reality, in a certain sense. I worked at a library for several years and played tech support for a blind library patron. He navigated his iPhone surprisingly well and was pretty technologically apt for his age. The sorts of tasks I helped him with tended to be more sophisticated than the sorts of tasks I assisted other patrons with. In his case, it ended up being more along the lines of helping with taking pictures, YouTube search-fu, and sometimes configuring assistive apps (he could use the App Store unassisted, for instance, which so many people I helped seemed to have difficulty with). (For other people, it tended to be basic “how do I set this up” or “how do I Facebook” type questions, or step by step instructions [and re-instructions] on how to download library content [ie ebooks and audiobooks] to their phones, a service we offered.) So I got a good view of what assistive technology circa 2015 could do. For instance, he had a navigation app that used GPS and mapping technology to tell him which street corner of which streets he was approaching and how close he was, same app could also read out location of interest information. If you consider the fact that sound is the primary sense he uses to make sense of the world, spoken prompts in his ear about what street corner he’s approaching is no different than a visual arrow in a sighted person’s field of vision. AirPods (especially the Pro or the Max, with the transparency feature) are something of AR glasses for the vision impaired.
Ironically, many assistive devices and applications for the blind use a form of augmented reality, in a certain sense. I worked at a library for several years and played tech support for a blind library patron. He navigated his iPhone surprisingly well and was pretty technologically apt for his age. The sorts of tasks I helped him with tended to be more sophisticated than the sorts of tasks I assisted other patrons with. In his case, it ended up being more along the lines of helping with taking pictures, YouTube search-fu, and sometimes configuring assistive apps (he could use the App Store unassisted, for instance, which so many people I helped seemed to have difficulty with). (For other people, it tended to be basic “how do I set this up” or “how do I Facebook” type questions, or step by step instructions [and re-instructions] on how to download library content [ie ebooks and audiobooks] to their phones, a service we offered.) So I got a good view of what assistive technology circa 2015 could do. For instance, he had a navigation app that used GPS and mapping technology to tell him which street corner of which streets he was approaching and how close he was, same app could also read out location of interest information. If you consider the fact that sound is the primary sense he uses to make sense of the world, spoken prompts in his ear about what street corner he’s approaching is no different than a visual arrow in a sighted person’s field of vision. AirPods (especially the Pro or the Max, with the transparency feature) are something of AR glasses for the vision impaired.
You wrote, "Most people, probably 99.999%, will not wear a VR strap-on because that's not how people like to work and using a keyboard and other actual things on their actual desktop are painfully difficult to use if they can't see them."
Had you used one of these devices you would know that passthrough is already employed on these devices and already answers what you were stating as something that people would not like. Anyone who has actually used one of these devices knows that this already exists and that it already works. It will only improve on future devices.
If you are not talking about the upcoming apple headset or the current models (all using passthrough), what were you talking about
Most people, probably 99.999%, don't want to wear a strap-on on their head. You do realise that 70% of people can barely afford to pay rent, right? So there goes 70%. Then we have the 29.999% left who also won't give a damn - most Mac users are using laptops that are a few years old. Most offices use budget monitors. Most PC users don't have gaming rigs. All these people will not be using or care for VR for a long time with a large percentage rejecting it.
Sure it might grow later but there are many problems, outlined above and also in the following sentence.
These things you are enthusiastic about don't solve any work related problems. It has a niche use case and that niche is going to be filled with toxic behaviour because corporations and profiting from toxicity.
Last edited:
You don't need to explain it.
And now calling me ignorant when I've used VR probably since before you were born is actually ignorant. My first experience was with SGI VR in 1997. I was also enthusiastic when I was younger. But now that we live in a world where corporations and VCs thrive on hate, trolling, pyramid schemes and scams....the VR and metaverse whatever that you are going to get is going to be a world of pain. If you don't think so you haven't been paying attention.
A cyberpunk is someone who fights against rightwing techno-authoritarianism and cyber corruption. A metapunk is the next level. You will be a metapunk because the early adopters of a technology are always the earliest to feel sick and fight what it becomes.
Last edited:
I didn't say you were ignorant about VR - that was in reference to the idiom. I explained the idiom, and you continued to insist that I was calling you dim. That is not the meaning of the idiom. Insisting that it is when you have been provided evidence to the contrary is willful ignorance. You're also making some wild assumptions about my age; I was born well before 1997 ?
You are now shifting topics somewhat. The original topic was whether VR/AR will become widespread in the near future. I think it will. Whether the metaverse/VR/etc is going to be a good or bad thing remains to be seen. I actually agree with you there are huge potential problems here. With Meta/Facebook becoming so influential in the early days of VR, there's a lot to worry about. I hope that Apple and other companies can produce good products and compete in this space, and I hope that the developers and users involved in shaping the early metaverse will make it into something good, and not a Zuck dominated hellscape... time will tell on that front as well.
When you do get around to trying one, you will realize how silly that just sounded to those of us who already do. You only have to use this work arrangement once to see the future of computing. Really, try it.