Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
yeah for now ar glasses has a potential market - i may even want one - the ray ban one
as for the vr goggles - they have a long way to go before it becomes a "i want one"
 
Last edited:
I own and love the AVP and this also looks pretty good. VR is of limited use, AR is the future.
Completely agree, AR is what the masses one day will use. While big and clunky looking still, this is a move in the right direction. Previous AR I have seen have all had very small windows, we need basically full coverage so the complete line of sight is covered. Lots of growth potential for this type of AR and I agree with Meta, these will one day replace the phone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: peterdev
So, not for consumers? Fine with me, they look ugly. Will be interesting to see how they are perceived, esp to the “old” Google glasses.
But it is also Meta, which means you are the product…
In case you missed that, they are prototypes for now, need to be refined to look smaller and be more fashionable.
 
Where did I see these glasses before?

Ah, of course!
9881b065a306ec52125ec4d15b3651ab.jpg
 
be funny if major music and film artists started wearing them and coke bottle glasses became a thing
 
It costs $10,000 to make and isn't being released to consumers, so no, 99% of humanity can't afford it. And the ones who can afford it can't buy it even if they wanted to.

So again, let's talk when Meta is shipping this.
You don’t watch the whole presentation.
 
In case you missed that, they are prototypes for now, need to be refined to look smaller and be more fashionable.
Nope, they are just too expensive for the mass market. Look and feel would have been ok - maybe super thick glasses would have been cool to wear.
 
Meta just made a product 99% of humanity can afford.

Apple made a product that 1% of humanity can afford.

You’re math ain’t mathin
Apple didn’t get where it is by pursuing the lowest common denominator in the market
You have to have developers willing to invest early on to have an ecosystem robust and ready to go.

Developers do not want to work with this platform. It’s a nightmare to code in.
This illustrates my point about it being a DTK type device for experimentation and working out the kinks. It’s a new platform. Of course there is going to be a learning curve and effort to see what works and what doesn’t. It took years to get the iOS App Store beyond gimmicks and cheap web apps.
 
You don’t watch the whole presentation.
I don't need to - I read several recaps of said presentation (including the article we are commenting on). I think you are getting confused between the cheap Meta Quest 3S goggles Meta announced and the Orion AR glasses everyone else here is talking about (which cost $10k per prototype and are NOT being commercially released). Two different products, one is being released, and one is not.

I reiterate, I am sure Apple has something that looks like the Orion in their research labs, but know it can't be made at scale yet, and so isn't going to show off a prototype that is years away. That's just not how Apple operates.

But given you saying things like "AVP is a nightmare to code for" and "not a single new developer has signed on to work for the platform in nearly four months" (citation please) I am pretty sure you're not an unbiased observer here.
 
This is what Vision Pro should have been, a thing that’s not for sale LOL!
Not very useful if there aren’t tens of thousands of consumers using it in the wild. It’s not like the Intel or Apple Silicon DTKs where everyone already knows how to use a desktop UI and it was just a matter of developing software for a different processor. It’s an entirely new way of using a computer.
 
I assume that the screen technology in the future would be something like this: https://www.lg-informationdisplay.com/oled-signage/brand I.e you want to be able to see through your display instead of using cameras. This is what I think apple would be aiming for, for the Apple Vision Pro 10
Seeing through the display means the environments wouldn’t work as they require Apple be able to obscure the entire view. Would also make watching videos less nice, too.
 
What I would like to see though, is Apple not trying to make it a standalone product. Show me one person who would buy one without also owning an iPhone. And it will never fully replace the phone, because you can never fully replace touch input. Make it a companion product to the iPhone, and I’m in.
Enterprises would buy hundreds without owning an iPhone for each one… would actually prefer it as it’s less inventory to keep track of.
 
Impressive. Meta created something new instead of going the Apple way of just taking some VR glasses, adding super expensive displays, a ton of cameras, computing power and calling it „Apple Vision“ and „spatial computing“.

We will se how many years Meta can afford to drive the development and how a final product will look like. If AR will ever make it, this is how it will look like.

To be fair, though, isn’t it interesting how every new AR/VR demo just looks like Apple’s spatial computing with a slightly different interface? Even adopting the should-have-been-already-a-thing-all-along-why-wasn’t-it tap to interact method. Apple will not EVER own the market in unit sales, there are too many companies willing to go cheaper. But, they’ve already made their influence felt.

Couple quotes from the video.
“It was supposed to be a product you can buy. But, it’s not.”
“If you’ve ever used the Vision Pro”
 
Last edited:
I still don't understand why so many of you think AR is the future. I have AR & VR in my Vision Pro. I never use the AR, and I hate apps that don't go full immersive.

1) Work. If you're going to use these to do work, with a virtual monitor, then why do you need AR? I find that using AR in the AVP is distracting and confusing. My coffee table or my bed or my kitchen or a chair or my dogs get in the way of the view. To use AR in this manner would require a clean, uncluttered space that compliments the visual of the virtual monitor. That doesn't protrude or pass through it. So when I'm working, I go full VR, immersive environment, and suddenly nothing in the real world matters. It doesn't matter that my office is a mess, I simply go full immersive to a clean, calm environment.

2) Movies? Same as my work. Why do I need to see anything in the physical space in front of me in order to watch a movie? In fact, they are distracting. The immersive environments are much better for media consumption. On an airplane, what advantage would AR give you? In VR, I can basically forget I'm cramped in a little seat on a flying tin can and feel like I'm fully immersed in a large theater watching the show.

3) Scrolling the web/social media, etc. Again, what purpose does AR serve for this function? In what way are they enhanced by AR? If the answer is that you wouldn't feel disconnected from the real world, then isn't just using your phone good enough? When I'm in an immersive environment, I can more singularly focus on what I'm doing, and that's the advantage of immersion. But just seeing a floating window over my living room that is not constructed to accommodate a virtual floating monitor? Just clutter.

4) AR overlays while driving: How often would you really do this? What do you need to see that would require AR glasses on all the time?

5) AR walking down the street: Walking directions? OK, every 500 feet you need to get a prompt to turn left or right. You'd really want to wear glasses just to get prompted every 500 feet or so? My iPhone already dictates turns in my Airpods.

6) AR billboards or information? This would rely on third parties producing content that would more than likely quickly become advertisments: Hey! Try this restuarant! Wings are on Special! I don't understand the use case here. To recieve advertising?

7) Walking a museum: This use case I could understand. I'll grant this one. But how often would you use it? For example, I can wander a bunch of museums, in VR, sitting in my living room. That's cool. But with AR I'd have to physically go to each museum.

8) Teleprompter: This I can see, if you're a lecturer or giving a presentation to an audience, these might eventually work well.

9) Live sporting/concert events: giving you stats, replays etc, while you're at an event. But in VR, I can be taken right onto the field (not sitting in some 300 level seat with a terrible view) and still get the overlay of stats and replays.

I guess I'm curious to know how those of you who think AR is the future really envision using AR.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrWojtek
To be fair, though, isn’t it interesting how every new AR/VR demo just looks like Apple’s spatial computing with a slightly different interface? Even adopting the should-have-been-already-a-thing-all-along-why-wasn’t-it tap to interact method. Apple will not EVER own the market in unit sales, there are too many companies willing to go cheaper. But, they’ve already made their influence felt.
I don‘t know - IMHO, HoloLens had it first. Meta added a new way to project information into the glasses and externalized the computing device.
Does the UI remind you on AVP? Didn‘t notice that …
 
An important thing to keep in mind is that a lot of the upsides of this particular prototype design—wide field of view, relatively high contrast, relatively high ppd (only on a handful of the prototypes)—come from the silicon carbide printed lenses. There isn't a path for these lenses to be mass-manufactured. Silicon carbide lenses take up about 90% of the cost to manufacture each of these prototype units, and silicon carbide lenses are what make these displays so impressive. Meta is hyping up unobtainium lens tech without also showing the downsides of the lens tech that can actually be made at a ~$2,000 price point.
 
It’s not working now. At all.
Apple’s still pulling in 80% of the profits made on mobile. Does Apple have EVERY developer on board? Absolutely not. However, they’ve got enough developers on board to pull in 80% of the profits made on mobile with a number of units that’s FAR smaller than Android.
 
so while the rest the world has to wear headsets, the first AR glasses appear and already people are complaining they're too big for glasses. you do not deserve nice things.
If these are the "nice things" you're talking about then I'm totally fine with that, you can keep them.

These are a step in the right direction for the face-computer form-factor but if you can't see how chunky they are then you need real glasses more than you need AR ones.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.