Telegram Demos visionOS App

[JordanCautious]

To be fair, it's hard to really reinvent the wheel when the app concept in question is a messaging app.

Text in VR has always been a little dry when compared to media content

 

[Bodhitree]

Yeah but think of a cross between the convenience of a text messaging app and something like Zoom. Low-friction video messaging with avatars, which Apple already has. That might be a lot more compelling in a headset than a straight port of Telegram.

 

[JustSomebody12]

Given how critical Durov has been of Apple, and the increase in monetization attempts, I wonder if Apple compensated monetarily Telegram to develop this app.

 

[Haiku_Oezu]

Durov still can’t make up his mind whether Apple platforms are the worst or the best

He keeps saying iOS is the worst platform to experience telegram but anybody who’s used the Android app can tell how much jankier it is and how most often gets new features after the iOS version

 

[spaxxedout]

THIS is the best thing I've ever read on here - and so true! lolll

Thanks. To be fair, I’ve just never seen Telegram used for anything remotely legal.

 

[nmart1214]

These comments are hilarious, I always like seeing the perspective from people that have no idea about the VR industry and Apples competition in the space. The Vision Pro is pricey but it blows the Varjo XR-3 out of the water, and it's less than half the total cost(you still have to buy the PC to run it AND pay a $1400 yearly subscription). This is a dev and enthusiast product, just like most PCVR setups, this isn't for most of us. Vision Poor will be for us when it comes out one day, this product is meant to kick off development.

 

[jwdsail]

I'm still skeptical.

But, it's nice to see developers trying things and seeing how their existing products could fit into this UI.

I'm not sold that a messaging app is going to be the demo that ever wows anyone enough to push them past a hesitation about spending $3500...

But, what could help get more people interested is if a whole lot of their favorite developers start showing off what they're doing... If this is just the first of a big wave of demo videos from Mac and iOS devs about to drop? It changes the context of the story?

I still say that the people who would be most willing to drop $3500 on high-end AR/VR headsets are the people who already own thousands of dollars in simulator gear (flight and racing) and Apple saying nothing/doing nothing in regards to making the AVP compatible with those existing $5000-$10,000 sim rigs is absolutely insane.

Hell, my iRacing setup is modest in comparison to most, but I'm not dropping $3500 on a AR/VR headset that won't work with it. I'll stick to my 3-monitor setup.

Besides that, I really wish we were hearing more from Apple about creating photo/video content on the ProSumer side... Aperture/FCP updates that revive QTVR and bring it back to the ProSumer level.. I want to be seeing tools that make creating non-static photo/video VR environments that will run on the Mac that I can be using to create for the AVP TODAY...

SMFH


apple.com/feedback

 

[redbeard331]

A virtual date with one of Apple’s weird looking avatar things? Doesn’t sound appealing. The issue here is that you’re both wearing a bulky head set so you can’t actually see each other when conferencing.

I was thinking it would show your actual face, can it not do FaceTime? I can see this morphing into something like a stimulation chamber in the future, like way off over 100-200 years from now where you don’t need to leave your home. Just climb into a warm bath of bio gel that can simulate any human sensation as images are beamed directly into your brain. Can’t give too much more away, it’s a shame though that we’ll never get to this stage since we only have a couple decades left on Earth at best.

 

[redbeard331]

These comments are hilarious, I always like seeing the perspective from people that have no idea about the VR industry and Apples competition in the space. The Vision Pro is pricey but it blows the Varjo XR-3 out of the water, and it's less than half the total cost(you still have to buy the PC to run it AND pay a $1400 yearly subscription). This is a dev and enthusiast product, just like most PCVR setups, this isn't for most of us. Vision Poor will be for us when it comes out one day, this product is meant to kick off development.

This is what I was thinking, it’s less than the cost of a ram, storage, and gpu upgrade on a MacBook. A lot of people will probably just put it on a CC, Apple will sell everyone they can make I bet for years.

 

[Surf Monkey]

I was thinking it would show your actual face, can it not do FaceTime? I can see this morphing into something like a stimulation chamber in the future, like way off over 100-200 years from now where you don’t need to leave your home. Just climb into a warm bath of bio gel that can simulate any human sensation as images are beamed directly into your brain. Can’t give too much more away, it’s a shame though that we’ll never get to this stage since we only have a couple decades left on Earth at best.

It shows your “Apple Persona,” not your face. How could it? You’re both wearing bulky headsets on your faces.

 

[redbeard331]

It shows your “Apple Persona,” not your face. How could it? You’re both wearing bulky headsets on your faces.

I thought it had a camera on the inside? It shows your face on the outside, I think that’s enough for now along with a profile where they can view more images etc.

Hope no devs steal my ideas.

 

[Surf Monkey]

I thought it had a camera on the inside? It shows your face on the outside, I think that’s enough for now along with a profile where they can view more images etc.

Hope no devs steal my ideas.

Nope. How would a camera on the inside show your face without the device on it? Not possible. That’s why “Apple Personas” exist.

 

[Frantisekj]

OoOoOoOo can't wait to share disinformation in spacial 3D!

Ohhh. Do not worry. You will be abble immediatelly once our mass media throws their garbage into Vision Pro lol.

 

[redbeard331]

Nope. How would a camera on the inside show your face without the device on it? Not possible. That’s why “Apple Personas” exist.

Well it shows your eyes on the outer screen, don’t remember how they get the image, anyways, dating in this thing is gonna be wild.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Well it shows your eyes on the outer screen, don’t remember how they get the image, anyways, dating in this thing is gonna be wild.

Right. So if you were conferencing with someone else on a Vision you’d seem wearing the headset. Yes, you’d see a display showing their eyes, but is that really conducive to a date? That’s why Apple has you use “Personas” amongst other reasons.

 

[nmart1214]

Right. So if you were conferencing with someone else on a Vision you’d seem wearing the headset. Yes, you’d see a display showing their eyes, but is that really conducive to a date? That’s why Apple has you use “Personas” amongst other reasons.

After reading the back and forth between you two, I don't understand what you think is happening here in this dating scenario, nobody should be seeing the other person wearing their headset. My understanding of what they meant goes like this:

Jimmy and Tiffany are two made up people who use their Vision Pro headsets to meet others in virtual spaces online from the comfort of their own homes. Jimmy went on TinderXR and met Tiffany in a virtual bar, they both saw their full body personas as if they were actually there and had a great time laughing the night away. They exchange information and agree to keep in contact. After another virtual date they decide to meet in person. Neither person wears their headsets to the intended location and they both see eachother in person without a headset blocking their view. What happens from here? I don't really care, but I hope you get it.

In this scenario, nobody is navigating a situation where the other person wears a vision pro and is relying on the external display to fake eye contact. There isn't a single date in this scenario in which one of them is on a live, in person date with the other and wearing a headset.

I would also like to point out that VR dating has been a thing for years and quite a few people have found their real life partners in virtual clubs and events via VRChat. Mixed reality isn't mainstream yet so it's understandable why you would be skeptical, but the precedent has been there for a few years.


(There is a very large chance that I misunderstood your points, we'll cross that bridge if we get there.)

 

[Surf Monkey]

After reading the back and forth between you two, I don't understand what you think is happening here in this dating scenario, nobody should be seeing the other person wearing their headset. My understanding of what they meant goes like this:

Jimmy and Tiffany are two made up people who use their Vision Pro headsets to meet others in virtual spaces online from the comfort of their own homes. Jimmy went on TinderXR and met Tiffany in a virtual bar, they both saw their full body personas as if they were actually there and had a great time laughing the night away. They exchange information and agree to keep in contact. After another virtual date they decide to meet in person. Neither person wears their headsets to the intended location and they both see eachother in person without a headset blocking their view. What happens from here? I don't really care, but I hope you get it.

In this scenario, nobody is navigating a situation where the other person wears a vision pro and is relying on the external display to fake eye contact. There isn't a single date in this scenario in which one of them is on a live, in person date with the other and wearing a headset.

I would also like to point out that VR dating has been a thing for years and quite a few people have found their real life partners in virtual clubs and events via VRChat. Mixed reality isn't mainstream yet so it's understandable why you would be skeptical, but the precedent has been there for a few years.


(There is a very large chance that I misunderstood your points, we'll cross that bridge if we get there.)

I’m not talking about an encounter in person. I’m talking about a virtual date where the two individuals are in VP but not located in the same place.

In this scenario you can’t “FaceTime” the other person. They’re wearing a headset. You can join their AVATAR (what Apple calls “persona”) in a virtual space but you can not see their actual face.

I’m not sure why this is confusing?

 

[nmart1214]

I’m not talking about an encounter in person. I’m talking about a virtual date where the two individuals are in VP but not located in the same place.

In this scenario you can’t “FaceTime” the other person. They’re wearing a headset. You can join their AVATAR (what Apple calls “persona”) in a virtual space but you can not see their actual face.

I’m not sure why this is confusing?

I read things literally(thanks autism) and some of the points you made read as if one person would be looking at the exterior of their dates headset. This is exactly why I made the note at the bottom of my reply, I can miss things that should be understood by most others.

The larger issues with "personas" that I tend to see with most people assumes that every app uses Apples(admittedly not great) "Personas" and not another avatar platform like(the far superior yet unreleased) Meta Codex avatars, they are noticeably less uncanny. Rec Room VR is going to launch on Vision Pro and uses custom avatars so there is already evidence to suggest Apple will allow this. Either way, both options are still better than looking at profile pictures while you awkwardly chat online until you go on a date.

 

[Surf Monkey]

I read things literally(thanks autism) and some of the points you made read as if one person would be looking at the exterior of their dates headset. This is exactly why I made the note at the bottom of my reply, I can miss things that should be understood by most others.

Because I was pointing out the absurdity of something the other member wrote.

The larger issues with "personas" that I tend to see with most people assumes that every app uses Apples(admittedly not great) "Personas" and not another avatar platform like(the far superior yet unreleased) Meta Codex avatars, they are noticeably less uncanny. Rec Room VR is going to launch on Vision Pro and uses custom avatars so there is already evidence to suggest Apple will allow this. Either way, both options are still better than looking at profile pictures while you awkwardly chat online until you go on a date.

Excellent points. “Personas” will likely be Apple exclusive.

 

[redbeard331]

After reading the back and forth between you two, I don't understand what you think is happening here in this dating scenario, nobody should be seeing the other person wearing their headset. My understanding of what they meant goes like this:

Jimmy and Tiffany are two made up people who use their Vision Pro headsets to meet others in virtual spaces online from the comfort of their own homes. Jimmy went on TinderXR and met Tiffany in a virtual bar, they both saw their full body personas as if they were actually there and had a great time laughing the night away. They exchange information and agree to keep in contact. After another virtual date they decide to meet in person. Neither person wears their headsets to the intended location and they both see eachother in person without a headset blocking their view. What happens from here? I don't really care, but I hope you get it.

In this scenario, nobody is navigating a situation where the other person wears a vision pro and is relying on the external display to fake eye contact. There isn't a single date in this scenario in which one of them is on a live, in person date with the other and wearing a headset.

I would also like to point out that VR dating has been a thing for years and quite a few people have found their real life partners in virtual clubs and events via VRChat. Mixed reality isn't mainstream yet so it's understandable why you would be skeptical, but the precedent has been there for a few years.


(There is a very large chance that I misunderstood your points, we'll cross that bridge if we get there.)

Yes, you see my vision, now I just need to make the app.

🥽

 

[jwdsail]

I’m not talking about an encounter in person. I’m talking about a virtual date where the two individuals are in VP but not located in the same place.

In this scenario you can’t “FaceTime” the other person. They’re wearing a headset. You can join their AVATAR (what Apple calls “persona”) in a virtual space but you can not see their actual face.

I’m not sure why this is confusing?

I'd suspect that any competently written VRdating app that Apple would actually ever allow on any of their devices.. (there's a lot of ifs right there IMO) would allow users to hand-off to their iPhones and actually see each other via FaceTime as well (should they both choose to?)

(Sorry for jumping in on this but I'm finding the discussion fascinating)

And, as far as VRdating app on the AVP, I'd say that an initial conversation in VR, where your talking to each other in a VR environment and only sharing photos to get a feel for each other, then make a 2nd date for a FaceTime call, wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility? I mean, hasn't online dating always been a bit like that? Chat/message each other, make a date to talk on the phone, then a date to meet IRL?

Regardless, I don't think Vrdating is going to be the killer app that gets people buying the AVP for $3500.. or the 2nd version for $1750(ish)?

 

[Surf Monkey]

I'd suspect that any competently written VRdating app that Apple would actually ever allow … would allow users to hand-off to their iPhones and actually see each other via FaceTime as well (should they both choose to?)

And that demonstrates why the Vision system isn’t appropriate for a date. FaceTime? Yes. Vision? No. Vision isolates your actual face behind hardware.

(Sorry for jumping in on this but I'm finding the discussion fascinating)

And, as far as VRdating app on the AVP, I'd say that an initial conversation in VR, where your talking to each other in a VR environment and only sharing photos to get a feel for each other, then make a 2nd date for a FaceTime call, wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility? I mean, hasn't online dating always been a bit like that? Chat/message each other, make a date to talk on the phone, then a date to meet IRL?

Regardless, I don't think Vrdating is going to be the killer app that gets people buying the AVP for $3500.. or the 2nd version for $1750(ish)?

Right. Dating is inherently social. Vision is essentially anti social. Not a good match.