Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Kuo: Vision Pro Likely to Launch in Late January or Early February

Karma*Police said:
Eye tracking and hand gesture recognition have been around for awhile but the tech to implement all that was/is too expensive. VP is super expensive because they packed it with expensive tech from other companies. That’s not unconventional, it’s business 101.
Click to expand...
The biggest innovation of the iPhone was capacitive multi touch. Multi-touch prototypes have been around since at least the 80's, and I believe Apple bought the company behind the technology the iPhone uses.
The Meta Quest Pro had passthrough and eye tracking and hand tracking before Apple... but it didn't really do anything innovative/useful with those technologies. They kind of just put them there and said developers should figure out what to do with them. Apple used them to provide effortless UI.
Karma*Police said:
As for non-gaming use, VP is not the first to promote VR for things other than gaming.
Click to expand...
In the consumer space, the only devices not primarily focused on gaming have been the very low end devices that are more focused on watching video, like the Oculus Go and the Gear VR.
Karma*Police said:
Notice how Apple went from triple digit growth under Jobs to negative growth this year with little to no growth expected this year?
Click to expand...
Apple has had tremendous growth since Cook took over. Apple can't grow forever.

By your standards of what "innovative" means, Apple has never released an innovative product.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Surf Monkey
Lounge vibes 05 said:
it’s not, the original $250 deposits were refundable.


lol, imagine defending a company threatening to sue the people who are purchasing their vehicles.
If Apple ever, ever told me I could buy their stuff, but I’d get sued if I sold it in the first year, I’d sell all my Apple products right there and then.
Click to expand...
A lot of the car manufacturers have had trouble with flippers buying up the available cars and then placing huge markups in the resale market. I would like to think that Tesla is trying to prevent this from happening. So instead of ‘ticking of the customers like yourself’ they are actually getting the trucks into customers that want them at the price that is advertised. Similar to preventing ticket scalpers for concerts and games.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Surf Monkey
Realityck said:
While putting the headset on and being immersed is VR, the spatial computing features are AR. Examples

AR

VR

Most of what Apple demonstrated at WWDC 2023 with the Vision Pro's launch video is AR not VR.

Tim even says it is a AR platform during this keynote segment, which means Apple wants to emphasize AR computerizing instead of games/entertainment that are usually VR. So they are not going all in VR are they? ;)

Click to expand...
It's VR with video passthrough. There are fewer APIs for environmental awareness on the Vision Pro than on the iPhone or iPad. For example, I don't believe developers have any access to the cameras, so they couldn't implement something like Snapchat filters that modify the appearance of people.
Basically all that "AR" means with the Vision Pro is that the user doesn't lose awareness of their real environment. The apps are pretty much exactly the same whether the background is your real environment or a virtual space.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Surf Monkey
Jensend said:
It's VR with video passthrough. There are fewer APIs for environmental awareness on the Vision Pro than on the iPhone or iPad. For example, I don't believe developers have any access to the cameras, so they couldn't implement something like Snapchat filters that modify the appearance of people.
Basically all that "AR" means with the Vision Pro is that the user doesn't lose awareness of their real environment. The apps are pretty much exactly the same whether the background is your real environment or a virtual space.
Click to expand...
AR is still 3D augmentation of reality. VR is when you create your own reality and inject some interface to navigate it. Makes a nice argument to debate. Your comment of adding 3D effects over Video passthrough is still describing AR. ;)
=====
From investopedia
Augmented reality and virtual reality are often confused, so let’s clarify. Augmented reality uses the existing real-world environment and puts virtual information—or even a virtual world—on top of it to enhance the experience. For example, think of Pokémon Go, where users are searching in their real-life neighborhoods for animated characters that pop up on their phone or tablet. In the NFL, broadcasters use AR technology to better analyze plays.


In contrast, virtual reality immerses users into an entirely different environment, typically a virtual one created and rendered by computers. For example, virtual reality users may be immersed in an animated scene or a digital environment. Virtual reality can also be used to photograph an actual local location and embed it in a VR app. Through a virtual reality headset, someone can walk around Italy as if they were actually there.
 
Last edited:
  • Disagree
Reactions: Surf Monkey
Jensend said:
The biggest innovation of the iPhone was capacitive multi touch. Multi-touch prototypes have been around since at least the 80's, and I believe Apple bought the company behind the technology the iPhone uses.
The Meta Quest Pro had passthrough and eye tracking and hand tracking before Apple... but it didn't really do anything innovative/useful with those technologies. They kind of just put them there and said developers should figure out what to do with them. Apple used them to provide effortless UI.

In the consumer space, the only devices not primarily focused on gaming have been the very low end devices that are more focused on watching video, like the Oculus Go and the Gear VR.

Apple has had tremendous growth since Cook took over. Apple can't grow forever.

By your standards of what "innovative" means, Apple has never released an innovative product.
Click to expand...
Technically Apple could grow forever. They just need to find that next greatest thing. Which isn’t that hard when you have boatloads of cash.
 
Realityck said:
AR is still 3D augmentation of reality. VR is when you create your own reality and inject some interface to navigate it. Makes a nice argument to debate. Your comment of adding 3D effects over Video passthrough is still describing AR. ;)
Click to expand...

Not really. A video feed of what’s in front of you is not the same as looking at that thing directly.
 
Jankie said:
A lot of the car manufacturers have had trouble with flippers buying up the available cars and then placing huge markups in the resale market. I would like to think that Tesla is trying to prevent this from happening. So instead of ‘ticking of the customers like yourself’ they are actually getting the trucks into customers that want them at the price that is advertised. Similar to preventing ticket scalpers for concerts and games.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t matter why they’re doing it.
How would you feel if Apple started suing those who sell jailbroken iPhones, or iPhones without genuine batteries or displays?
it’s no different.
Scalpers are scum, of course, but it’s not Apple, or Tesla, or any product companies job to deal with.
 
Realityck said:
AR is still 3D augmentation of reality. VR is when you create your own reality and inject some interface to navigate it. Makes a nice argument to debate. Your comment of adding 3D effects over Video passthrough is still describing AR. ;)
=====
From investopedia
Augmented reality and virtual reality are often confused, so let’s clarify. Augmented reality uses the existing real-world environment and puts virtual information—or even a virtual world—on top of it to enhance the experience. For example, think of Pokémon Go, where users are searching in their real-life neighborhoods for animated characters that pop up on their phone or tablet. In the NFL, broadcasters use AR technology to better analyze plays.


In contrast, virtual reality immerses users into an entirely different environment, typically a virtual one created and rendered by computers. For example, virtual reality users may be immersed in an animated scene or a digital environment. Virtual reality can also be used to photograph an actual local location and embed it in a VR app. Through a virtual reality headset, someone can walk around Italy as if they were actually there.
Click to expand...

rulymammoth said:
A direct video feed of reality is still AR though. VR is a completely virtual world.
Click to expand...
Both of my VR headsets have had external cameras that can show a video feed of reality... albeit at a much lower fidelity than the Vision Pro.

I just think that functionally, the Vision Pro is more similar to the existing VR devices than to something like the Hololens.

If my primary focus is a floating virtual window, it doesn't really matter to me whether the backdrop is my room, or a virtual recreation of Hobbiton. The only advantage of having my real room be the background is that I don't lose awareness of my surroundings, even if those surroundings have nothing to do with the task I'm doing in the headset.

To me, the more important distinction is whether the device has an opaque front or not.

So whatever you want to call it, I don't really think that the difference between passthrough to the real world and passthrough to a virtual world will be important for the design of 95% of the apps on the Vision Pro.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Surf Monkey
rulymammoth said:
A direct video feed of reality is still AR though. VR is a completely virtual world.
Click to expand...

It isn’t AR. There’s no reality element in a direct video feed. You’re not looking at the world. You’re looking at a screen showing the world. AR implies that you’re looking at reality and technology is augmenteing it. But a video feed doesn’t augment. It replaces. Apple’s system is closer to VR than AR.
 
Lounge vibes 05 said:
It doesn’t matter why they’re doing it.
How would you feel if Apple started suing those who sell jailbroken iPhones, or iPhones without genuine batteries or displays?
it’s no different.
Scalpers are scum, of course, but it’s not Apple, or Tesla, or any product companies job to deal with.
Click to expand...

Uh… if scalping cuts into a company’s bottom line then it very much is their business. It’s also their business if scalping is damaging their marketing image.
 
Surf Monkey said:
It isn’t AR. There’s no reality element in a direct video feed. You’re not looking at the world. You’re looking at a screen showing the world. AR implies that you’re looking at reality and technology is augmenteing it. But a video feed doesn’t augment. It replaces. Apple’s system is closer to VR than AR.
Click to expand...
You may be the only person who thinks a photo or video of something real, like the environment someone is occupying, is virtual. Or maybe you don't, but dislike VisionPro enough to make that claim.
 
Last edited:
Surf Monkey said:
It isn’t AR. There’s no reality element in a direct video feed. You’re not looking at the world. You’re looking at a screen showing the world. AR implies that you’re looking at reality and technology is augmenteing it. But a video feed doesn’t augment. It replaces. Apple’s system is closer to VR than AR.
Click to expand...

Is seeing the world through eyeglasses or contact lenses virtual? If not, why is a screen any different?
 
darngooddesign said:
While there is a difference between looking through clear glass/plastic and an LCD screen, when I’m taking a photo or video with my phone or camera, the view I see on the LCD or EVF is not virtual.
Click to expand...

Assuming Apple doesn't do post-processing other than to adjust for perspective distortion (which glasses do, too)… the only differences I would expect are lower resolution / dynamic range, and worse latency.

Like, I'm unsure where this is going. Obviously, augmented reality is going to require some kind of filter you put on top of the world. In the case of Google Glass, you only do that for part of your eyesight, but does that make that part of your viewport "virtual" or "augmented"? The latter, I'd argue.

Put that another way: is the hearing you get with a hearing aid augmented, or is it virtual? If it's augmented… well, is the hearing you get with AirPods Pro or other ANC augmented, or virtual? Is that really different?

Seems similarly moot to "how many edits can you do to a photograph until it's no longer truly a photograph" discussions.
 
Surf Monkey said:
Not really. A video feed of what’s in front of you is not the same as looking at that thing directly.
Click to expand...
Do you understand what is defined by "live video"? That implies no delay at the receiving side, or at most, imperceptible delays. We are not talking about streamed events which might occur much higher latency, or an introduced broadcasting delay of several seconds to bleep out something. I thought darngooddesign's example of looking at your iPhone's camera preview was proof that live video feed can meet that definition.

Let me pose this question back at you, why can't a modern video camera such as what the iPhone has not reproduce accurately reality? :cool:
 
Realityck said:
Do you understand what is defined by "live video"? That implies no delay at the receiving side, or at most, imperceptible delays. We are not talking about streamed events which might occur much higher latency, or an introduced broadcasting delay of several seconds to bleep out something. I thought darngooddesign's example of looking at your iPhone's camera preview was proof that live video feed can meet that definition.

Let me pose this question back at you, why can't a modern video camera such as what the iPhone has not reproduce accurately reality? :cool:
Click to expand...

Time delay is only ONE of the ways that looking at the world via a screen is different from looking at it with your eyes.

As far as cameras go, NO CAMERA REPRODUCES REALITY. Why in the world would anyone think it does? Photography and videography are recording ARTS. They produce naturalistic images but they do not reproduce reality.
 
Last edited:
chucker23n1 said:
Yeah. The AR view you get with AVP is like a digital viewfinder.
Click to expand...

And a looking through a digital viewfinder isn’t the same as looking at the subject with your eyes. In fact the same is true of an optical viewfinder since the image it presents is filtered through a number of lenses and prisms. Most photographers will tell you: open both your eyes when shooting because you don’t want to rely on the viewfinder alone. Your eye tells you vastly more than the viewfinder does, optical or digital.
 
darngooddesign said:
You may be the only person who thinks a photo or video of something real, like the environment someone is occupying, is virtual. Or maybe you don't, but dislike VisionPro enough to make that claim.
Click to expand...

You’re wrong. Please examine the entire history of photography and videography. No one in their right mind imagines that photos reproduce reality itself. Images, even 3d images, are mitigated via the hardware. And really, it’s an odd thing for someone calling themselves “darn good design” say since this is visual arts 101 stuff.
 
Ultimately it’s an academic discussion since Apple itself does not refer to it as AR. It’s not AR. It’s VR with your surroundings as the backdrop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back