TheYayAreaLiving 🎗️
Suspended
Vision OS gets hit with Windows XP. 🤯
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.
Video: A First Look at visionOS for the Apple Vision Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I’m not. Looking at a screen that’s showing you a live feed with data overlay is not the same as looking directly at the reality in front of you through a transparent screen with data overlay. So no, it isn’t augmented reality. It’s a video stream. A stream that can stop, be inaccurate, obscure important things…
All true. However, just like viewfinders on the best cameras, the ability to do computer work related to that video stream (e.g. things like adjusting for anomalies in the real-world space) outweigh the loss of direct reality.
Doubtful. I’m also a photographer and as good as EVF systems have become they’re still not 1:1 with looking at reality itself and likely never will be. And of course the base problem continues to exist visa vis the fact that you’re looking at screens that can lose power and could render what’s supposedly in front of you in error.
Listen, I get the enthusiasm around this product. As I noted earlier it sure looks to me like a scaled back version of their car project. A pretty impressive accomplishment to basically meld an iPad, AirPods, AppleWatch, iPhone and more into a single semi-coherent product. I’m sure it makes perfect sense to Tim Cook.
But if anyone cares to he honest about it, the issues it faces in regard to anything resembling wide spread adoption, even with a much smaller and cheaper version, are mountainous and really really obvious.
Photographer and cinematographer here too. Although a lens can change your perspective there's no question that looking through an optical viewfinder is preferred over viewing on an EVF.
A product that one can use all day like normal eyeglasses that has the AVP UI would have sales like a raging wildfire.
The utility and practical portability of AirPods, iPhones, Apple Watch, iPads is the point of those products. I would be ok with Apple Vision being tethered to an iPhone for power and to drive processing.
Last edited:
We already know from people inside Apple that this was the product they set out to make, and this is what the software was developed for. But the hardware is still ten years away, and Apple made this headset to demo the software, and Tim Cook saw it and said ship it. Could be the biggest mistake they've ever made, and seriously impact the existence of the glasses product down the line. But glasses + AR is an eventuality I think.
Same size as glasses isn’t going to happen. Smaller than what we see now, yes. But there’s no way this fits in a standard pair of glasses.
You disagree that this tech can’t fit in a standard pair of glasses. Why? Can you explain to us where the cameras go? Where the processor goes? What about the massive battery required? How the heat is managed and so forth?
This is a simple matter of physics. These systems can’t be made infinitely small. There are limits, especially when it comes to battery size and heat management.
Ultimately, it’s fun for Hollywood to dream up things like standard glasses frames that contain a complete iPad and a dozen cameras but it’s pure fantasy. This system will always be a full on headset.
Last edited:
Exactly this. I keep hearing that everything's magically going to get lighter and thinner and much longer battery life but just look at your iPhone. It is bigger and heavier than the original not the other way around. The Apple Watch has been out for nearly a decade and it still only lasts a day. And what you do on the headset is only going to get more resource intensive over time.
I'm sure we'll see the headset get marginally lighter and more power efficient over time, its capabilities will increase and there might be a couple more hours of battery life. But at the end of the day this is a computer, with a lot of cameras and a lot of processing power needed. There's only so much you can do with that.
Last edited:
Excellent point. Let’s dig into that a bit.
iPhone: Much larger today than when introduced. It went through a period of increasing thinness, but the overall size has only increased.
AppleWatch: The Ultra (the latest iteration of the device) is larger than the original series.
iPad: both bigger and somewhat smaller.
Desktops and laptops: somewhat smaller but basically the same size for over a decade now.
This whole notion that Apple makes things smaller and smaller and smaller is a remnant of the iPod era when the device actually was made smaller and smaller until it was arguably too small. But an iPod is basically a single purpose device that does’t even approach the functionality and complexity of most other Apple products and it existed at a moment when hard drives were being replaced by solid state. No such phenomenon has occurred since. Apple is not in the habit of making things smaller and smaller and smaller… because you hit a floor in terms of what can be fit into a limited space especially when it comes to the battery. Least we forget, battery technology hasn’t changed in terms of physical size requirements for decades.
Again, true. My argument is simply that immediate wide spread adoption is not necessary. IMO Apple should be moving into the AR/VR space and participating applied-research-aggressively to take advantage of all the tech that grows out of said applied-research-aggression. Much like the tech that the Newton helped facilitate even though the Newton never succeeded as a product.
As an uber-profitable $3T tech company Apple can and should afford such research expenditures. Short term (~two years) product financial success is not necessary even though long term goals obviously must include successful products. IMO the AR/VR space is unequivocally worthy of long term effort, and folks who insist on immediate consumer product financial success are thinking wrong.
Last edited:
But here’s the thing: Apple NEVER makes niché products for long. Every single one of Apple’s current products is designed and dialed for mass appeal with the possible exception of the MacPro. Outside of that (and they sell lots and lots of MacPros) everything they make is intended to reach a broad and wide audience. When they don’t achieve that Apple drops them in a hot second.
So yeah, I think this does need to achieve wide spread adoption in order for Apple to consider it a success. If not? It’ll go the way of the original HomePod. Largely marginalized and abandoned.
You need to read better. No where did I "disagree" with that. You're literally quoting a post where I'm describing Apple engineers saying that they can't do that yet. Who on the planet is there to disagree with that?
The idea that it will always be a headset is of course wrong though. The only potential it has, at all, is as an every day wearable. It may take 10 more years before it becomes that, but that's the only future for spatial computing. It has not future as an isolating and cumbersome head gear.
You put a disagree on my post. So yes, you literally did disagree with it.
Ten years. Twenty. Fifty. Pick any number you want. That doesn’t alter the laws of physics. That doesn’t conjure up a battery that can power all this while being significantly smaller than your finger. That doesn’t cause optics to be capable of being miniaturized to the extent you’re suggesting. That doesn’t solve the issue of heat dissipation around the processor and battery.
And I’d also point out that you just said exactly what I was reacting to. Again. So I’ll reiterate my rebuttal: this system will NEVER be small enough to fit in standard glasses frames. Never. It will ALWAYS be goggles because there’s simply no other way to put all that tech in a single place on your face. To that extent my observation stands. It will ultimately fail because people don’t want to wear head gear around.
As it stands now the AVP has an external battery pack.
It's not much of a leap to suggest that a modern iPhone, maybe even in a battery pack holder, could provide the processing and battery power for a much smaller device.
Components get smaller all the time. Cameras sensors can be extremely small. I believe the largest components in the AVP are the two displays. I wonder if fiber-optics (or similar) could used instead on a multilayer optical lens.
Or it will evolve for the same reason.
This WILL happen, even if Apple doesn't do it.
One can’t violate the laws of physics simply by wishing for a thing.
Name one. The processor, the battery, the cameras, the emitters… the list goes on and on. The reality is that these systems are NOT infinitely miniaturizable. There’s a limit on how small you can make any of them. And then there’s heat management. Know how your iPhone gets hot when you do really intensive things on it? How’s that going to work on your FACE?
I mean, seriously. The issues here couldn’t be more blatant. The notion that this can be implemented in a standard size glasses frame is simply unrealistic.
They intend to make a product that’s literally impossible for anyone to make? You’re going to have a lot of trouble backing up that extraordinary claim.
Sorry you feel that way. It’s odd that you refuse to accept that things can’t be infinitely small. But they can’t, so the dream of “Apple Vision” in a product that’s no bigger than standard eye glasses is pure unattainable fantasy.