These Third-Party Apps Are Optimized For Apple Vision Pro So Far

[glindon]

Absolutely they have. As David & Marques said on Waveforms, they had an Alfa Romeo C43 F1 car in front of them in real size, and they 'exploded' the parts and were moving them around. If that isn't a version of AR, I don't know what is.

That isn’t useful AR, and calling it AR is really a stretch. It’s more like VR. AR is your personal reality but augmented, such as displaying useful info onto actual objects you can see and touch.

Here’s what an actual AR experience should be:
Kroger Grocery Store App…
You enter the Kroger and the app automatically launches. Off to the side of your view a shopping list appears. An illuminated path or arrows appear to direct you to the first item on your list. You pick the item off the shelf and the price floats over the item. You also are given alternative products you could buy and their prices. You put the item in your cart and it adds it to a running total list. The path appears again to direct you to the next item on the list.

 

[gerald.d]

<snip>Immersion makes some sense for watching videos.
Even more sense for Gaming.
It would be ideal for a next level of immersive media consumption like „attending“ live events or event recordings, some kind of remote travelling.
But there I don’t see any content at all.
At least there should be real world look around in maps.

Apple is about to burn a great product by lack of vision.

This would be astonishing as an app on the Vision Pro. Such a shame there has been no investment in it for 6 years...

 

[steve09090]

That isn’t useful AR, and calling it AR is really a stretch. It’s more like VR. AR is your personal reality but augmented, such as displaying useful info onto actual objects you can see and touch.

Here’s what an actual AR experience should be:
Kroger Grocery Store App…
You enter the Kroger and the app automatically launches. Off to the side of your view a shopping list appears. An illuminated path or arrows appear to direct you to the first item on your list. You pick the item off the shelf and the price floats over the item. You also are given alternative products you could buy and their prices. You put the item in your cart and it adds it to a running total list. The path appears again to direct you to the next item on the list.

It is the actual definition of Augmented Reality.

A technology that superimposes a computer-generated image on a user's view of the real world, thus providing a composite view.​

The fact that you don't find it useful means nothing. Others would, and it was an example of what is actually available now. The point of the post was because it actually happened and others said it hasn't! Yet you decided to use it an opportunity to show you don't know what Augmented Reality really is.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Absolutely they have. As David & Marques said on Waveforms, they had an Alfa Romeo C43 F1 car in front of them in real size, and they 'exploded' the parts and were moving them around. If that isn't a version of AR, I don't know what is.

That’s VR.

 

[steve09090]

That’s VR.

No it’s not. Did you not understand what a definition is?

 

[Surf Monkey]

No it’s not. Did you not understand what a definition is?

Yes I do. And you’re using the term wrong.

 

[steve09090]

Yes I do. And you’re using the term wrong.

Then provide your version... No? Can't.. Okay...

The distinctions between VR and AR come down to the devices they require and the experience itself: AR uses a real-world setting while VR is completely virtual. AR users can control their presence in the real world; VR users are controlled by the system.​

So, if you have a Virtual Formula 1 car, that 'explodes' into parts as it did in the Apple Environment Marques Brownlee was involved, and you can manipulate those parts, then that is AR. by definition.

Feel free to add a definition. Or don't if you aren't able.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Then provide your version... No? Can't.. Okay...

The distinctions between VR and AR come down to the devices they require and the experience itself: AR uses a real-world setting while VR is completely virtual. AR users can control their presence in the real world; VR users are controlled by the system.​

So, if you have a Virtual Formula 1 car, that 'explodes' into parts as it did in the Apple Environment Marques Brownlee was involved, and you can manipulate those parts, then that is AR. by definition.

Feel free to add a definition. Or don't if you aren't able.

Is the actual physical car in the room with you? No? Then it isn’t AR. It’s VR. Now, if you were standing beside an actual F1 car and it could show you the various parts in a manner you suggest THAT would be AR, as in AUGMENTED reality. If the system is creating the car out of whole cloth that is a VIRTUAL reality, not an augmented one.

But it seems like you prefer to argue for argument’s sake. I’m not really into playing your foil for that sort of nonsense.

 

[steve09090]

Is the actual physical car in the room with you? No? Then it isn’t AR. It’s VR. Now, if you were standing beside an actual F1 car and it could show you the various parts in a manner you suggest THAT would be AR, as in AUGMENTED reality. If the system is creating the car out of whole cloth that is a VIRTUAL reality, not an augmented one.

But it seems like you prefer to argue for argument’s sake. I’m not really into playing your foil for that sort of nonsense.

So no definition then. Knew it. No substance.

 

[d686546s]

Then provide your version... No? Can't.. Okay...

The distinctions between VR and AR come down to the devices they require and the experience itself: AR uses a real-world setting while VR is completely virtual. AR users can control their presence in the real world; VR users are controlled by the system.​

So, if you have a Virtual Formula 1 car, that 'explodes' into parts as it did in the Apple Environment Marques Brownlee was involved, and you can manipulate those parts, then that is AR. by definition.

Feel free to add a definition. Or don't if you aren't able.

But does that mean that it's AR if you manipulate a fully virtual car against the backdrop of your living room, but it becomes VR if you manipulate that same car in the same living room but you turn on a background that makes you think you're in an auto repair shop?

If that is the case then you're probably technically correct, but is that really the most helpful definition even if we acknowledge that the line between AR and VR will naturally be blurry?

At the very least I would have expected that AR involves displaying virtual information to help you manipulate objects, navigate environments or otherwise accomplish tasks in the real world. In other words, if you see a virtual Alfa Romeo to help you repair a real Alfa Romeo I'd have thought it to be AR, but if you're only exploring a virtual one then I'd think it'd be closer to VR?

 

[Abazigal]

What Apple does best.

Steve Troughton-Smith (@stroughtonsmith@mastodon.social)

All the amazing visionOS apps we've seen are pretty much 1:1 Microsoft's Hololens demos from 2016, but backed by a real OS, SDK and ecosystem. No smoke and mirrors, no 'concepts’, no 'Contoso’. Apple doesn't have to fake it. Execution is everything. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0FCZRFh2Ec

mastodon.social

They are rarely ever first to the party, but they sure know how to play for keeps.

 

[steve09090]

But does that mean that it's AR if you manipulate a fully virtual car against the backdrop of your living room, but it becomes VR if you manipulate that same car in the same living room but you turn on a background that makes you think you're in an auto repair shop?

If that is the case then you're probably technically correct, but is that really the most helpful definition even if we acknowledge that the line between AR and VR will naturally be blurry?

At the very least I would have expected that AR involves displaying virtual information to help you manipulate objects, navigate environments or otherwise accomplish tasks in the real world. In other words, if you see a virtual Alfa Romeo to help you repair a real Alfa Romeo I'd have thought it to be AR, but if you're only exploring a virtual one then I'd think it'd be closer to VR?

I agree with much of you say, but having 'information' is not the key to this. It is just having access to features that can be manipulated rather than just being a passenger in that scene.

So, sure having data on the screen and being able to react to that as it changes is AR. But it’s when you are more than the passenger. It’s having the scene around you evolve based on your interaction with it. The classic example is walking down the street whilst the map shows the names of shops, sales whatever as you walk past. But what is the difference between that and having a formula 1 car and being able to move the objects around and getting feedback based on those manipulations. Versus doing a racing car game and just playing a predetermined game.

 

[ChromeAce]

I'm not ever going to a movie theater again, when I can just watch the same movie on my iPhone.

You just pointed out the mindset of the vast majority of millennials.

 

[dannynjoni]

Many great minds have questioned the actual meaning of "Reality". Tech seems to be ramping up to literally bending our current concept of the word.

The arguments about "Virtual", or "Augmented" come from our best grasp of things as we know them now. But we are about to learn a great deal, with AI and also experiences like VP.

Based on some comments here, I'd say that even some of the smarter people are actually being challenged to "Think Different". Right now seems like we're getting close to the point where possibilities in tech are reaching beyond our current understanding. Pretty exciting. A little scary too.

 

[Surf Monkey]

So no definition then. Knew it. No substance.

I just did define it. You’re being disingenuous.

 

[Surf Monkey]

I agree with much of you say, but having 'information' is not the key to this. It is just having access to features that can be manipulated rather than just being a passenger in that scene.

So, sure having data on the screen and being able to react to that as it changes is AR. But it’s when you are more than the passenger. It’s having the scene around you evolve based on your interaction with it. The classic example is walking down the street whilst the map shows the names of shops, sales whatever as you walk past. But what is the difference between that and having a formula 1 car and being able to move the objects around and getting feedback based on those manipulations. Versus doing a racing car game and just playing a predetermined game.

One is a completely created experience and the other is an AUGMENTATION of existing reality.

You’re trying to split hairs to make your original erroneous statement true. But it still isn’t. What you’re describing is virtual reality, not augmented reality.

 

[Surf Monkey]

You just pointed out the mindset of the vast majority of millennials.

Nonsense. Plus, the generational framing isn’t useful. Age groups aren’t monolithic.

Regardless, the idea that this system can replace a communal experience is absurd hogwash.

 

[steve09090]

I just did define it. You’re being disingenuous.

That was an example, not a definition. You’re really having problems with this aren’t you? Nevermind. I don’t expect a reasonable answer from you, as I haven’t received a single one yet.

 

[Surf Monkey]

That was an example, not a definition. You’re really having problems with this aren’t you? Nevermind. I don’t expect a reasonable answer from you, as I haven’t received a single one yet.

I’m not having problems at all. The definition is in the terms themselves. Virtual reality is completely constructed. Augmented reality augments the existing environment.

VR: you shop at a virtual Macy’s where you can use a correctly sized avatar to “try on” clothes and look at them in 360 degrees.

AR: you’re walking down the street when you see someone wearing a jacket you like. You look at it and the system identifies it and provides a link to where to buy it.

Apple has shown primarily VR applications for the Vision system. AR has been largely absent. That’s significant. Attempting to redefine AR doesn’t accomplish anything. My comment remains accurate.

 

[steve09090]

Is the actual physical car in the room with you? No? Then it isn’t AR. It’s VR. Now, if you were standing beside an actual F1 car and it could show you the various parts in a manner you suggest THAT would be AR, as in AUGMENTED reality. If the system is creating the car out of whole cloth that is a VIRTUAL reality, not an augmented one.

But it seems like you prefer to argue for argument’s sake. I’m not really into playing your foil for that sort of nonsense.

I relooked at this post from you. And whilst I didn't respond properly, or even fairly, I did so because I didn't read it properly. This explains it quite well, and was actually what I needed to look at. I kind of had a light bulb moment and this makes a lot of sense to me now. thanks.

 

[Abazigal]

You just pointed out the mindset of the vast majority of millennials.

Your point being?

 

[d686546s]

I agree with much of you say, but having 'information' is not the key to this. It is just having access to features that can be manipulated rather than just being a passenger in that scene.

So, sure having data on the screen and being able to react to that as it changes is AR. But it’s when you are more than the passenger. It’s having the scene around you evolve based on your interaction with it. The classic example is walking down the street whilst the map shows the names of shops, sales whatever as you walk past. But what is the difference between that and having a formula 1 car and being able to move the objects around and getting feedback based on those manipulations. Versus doing a racing car game and just playing a predetermined game.

It's not really my area of expertise, but I'm not convinced why virtual reality couldn't be a fully interactive environment filled with things you can manipulate and get feedback based on those manipulations? Why would VR be restricted to games or movies, or things where one is a "passenger in that scene?"

I do think the boundaries between AR and VR are fluid and people way smarter than us will spend the next decade arguing over definitions, but in my mind the primary difference is whether you stay primarily in a real or in a virtual environment. For me, this is quite clear on either end of the spectrum, for example having directions and speed superimposed while driving an actual car clearly being AR and while being in a fully virtual environment that doesn't actually exist is clearly VR [for the closeted Community fans like me: JESUS WEPT], but things get pretty fuzzy in the middle.

Assume you sit at your desk and work on a virtual screen, manipulate virtual objects and have virtual meetings as an avatar with people represented by avatars, but you still see your room: AR. Now you turn on your virtual office background and all of a sudden it's VR. That seems rather arbitrary to me. At the same time I find it unhelpful to limit the definition of VR to video games and movies.

 

[SoftEXIT]

You can add ours to the list, SoftEXIT Groups, a free Social Network with No adds and no tracking.

 

[Born Again]

Impossible, people already told me the VP was doomed because it didn't have a Netflix app.

people are skeptical because apple doesn't know what to do with thing.

Yet people on here are already calling it a hit!!! lol - can you believe it?

 

[dannynjoni]

people are skeptical because apple doesn't know what to do with thing.

Yet people on here are already calling it a hit!!! lol - can you believe it?

Yes. That's because a lot of people WANT it to be a hit. And if enough people want it to be, it will be.