xrOS: What to Expect From the Software Designed for Apple's AR/VR Headset

[cfountain72]

OK, but even then, I'd still offer the same feedback. Multiple "leading tech" players have taken cracks at smart phones with the benefit of fully knowing how iPhone functions. Remember Windows phone? Tesla?

I don't think we should dig the grave for this new Apple product only because some other players efforts at it have failed or flopped or are very niche. Apple does actually have that reputation of not being first, but getting it right. For all of the pessimism we can summon against this thing, a "think different" crowd should be able to also summon some optimism tied to "what if Apple gets it right? What are the potentials of being able to show our eyes ANYTHING that looks as real as actual reality?"

Ok, let's revisit this a year from now.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Zero evidence this thing can run mac OS apps.

And zero evidence that it can't.

We know almost NOTHING concrete about it. For all we know, it's one big smokescreen and Apple reveals a Mac Pro or Apple Car instead.

But whether it is or is not Mac app capable, there are piles of perception that it will be able to display screens. If it can display a screen, one can probably airplay to it. If we can airplay to it, anything running on a Mac can be airplayed to it. So whether the Mac runs on presumably Mx chips built in or on a Mac nearby, we may see and use Mac apps just like we use them on an actual screen.

Much cheaper and presumably technologically inferior cuts at VR glasses can already do this. It seems that Apple could do it too.

Or not. We know nothing. But all will be revealed soon... maybe.

 

[subjonas]

Google Glass could translate signs in real time just by the user looking at them. For example, it could translate street signs in German and show them in English. This is an example of AR.

That’s not AR unless the digital translation is, in the user’s view, overlaid on and registered to the real world, for example on top of the real sign. Real time interaction alone doesn’t define AR. The basic quality of AR is that digital information is overlaid on top of and registered to the real world (as opposed to registered to the user’s view), whether it’s on an HUD or a phone screen. But AR truly shines on an HUD, because AR’s unique benefit is that the user’s focus never needs to be taken off of the real world.

 

[citysnaps]

Sadly, seems like they're skating to where the puck was (Metaverse) instead of where it's going (AI).

Apple has been wildly successful in taking already successful products and taking them (mostly) to another level.
MP3 Players -> iPod
Cell Phones -> iPhone
Tablets -> iPads
TV -> Apple TV
Wireless headphones -> Airpod
Watches/Fitness Trackers -> Apple Watch

Can we say that VR headsets are truly successful products, that Apple can actually build on?

Sure, especially if it's AR-focused. That's pretty wide open. VR, not so much.

 

[imamacperson]

Not at all interested in blocking my vision, hearing and general awareness of the real world with this product. Thing are bad enough already!

 

[_Spinn_]

I am very interested to see what Apple can bring to the table here. So far I’m not impressed with AR/VR

 

[MacWiz_007]

That’s not AR unless the digital translation is, in the user’s view, overlaid on and registered to the real world, for example on top of the real sign. Real time interaction alone doesn’t define AR. The basic quality of AR is that digital information is overlaid on top of and registered to the real world (as opposed to registered to the user’s view), whether it’s on an HUD or a phone screen. But AR truly shines on an HUD, because AR’s unique benefit is that the user’s focus never needs to be taken off of the real world.

It was AR, as it was overlaid over the real sign.

 

[generationrex]

Airpods was ridiculous. Apple Watch was ridiculous. Then we saw what happened next. 😉

My prediction: 2025 it will be perfectly normal to see people wearing ski googles and making random pinching movements in the air on the bus, train, ferry, park, cafe, even street. Not only you can see Apple 'google', but there would be Samsung google, Google google (Googoo), and perhaps one from Huawei?

Maybe.. I never thought either of those was ridiculous and don't pay enough attention to this kind of stuff on social media to know what the buzz was for those products at the time. But those seem different (AirPods are just a wireless version of an existing, wired product) than walking around with a screen strapped to your face.

And while earphones do contribute to hearing loss, that's something that can be mitigated with controlling the volume (and more recently, noise alerts in the OS). There's already a marked acceleration in vision problems associated with smartphones. Moving the screen even closer and using it more frequently will just add to the problem.

 

[Ctrlos]

And many of “us” just paid upwards of $2K for a rigidly finite desktop that is usable in a single spot it is placed for likely the life of the device. Not only were we quick to lay out $2K for it, but we then evangelized it to everyone else as if it is the one and only choice for anyone wanting any display.

If this thing can bring that infinite desktop- basically making a laptop or mobile device have any size screen that looks as real as sitting in front of any size physical screen- that’s enough for me, even at $3K. Only $1K more for an any size screen(s) anywhere I happen to be? Sign me up for just this one, “simple” goggles application done well.

Don't get me wrong: I think an infinite desktop that only the user can see is a great idea, particularly if you can then pull something out of one of them and walk around it, like a CAD model or LiDAR scan.

But I'm not expecting anything more than this.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

For me, that ONE thing done well would be enough... even at $3K. That would be the screen half of my next Apple "laptop."

 

[spinedoc77]

Can’t wait to see what Apple has been working with. But I would hate to pay $3000 for the AR/VR headset with software limitations.

This. Apple is the king of neutering their own software to push consumers to purchase multiple hardware. Personally I'd love to see MacOS on it and have a video out so I can dock it onto an external monitor, let it switch to xrOS when in goggles mode. But what we'll probably get is yet another OS to try and juggle information/work between devices, with no ability to use the goggles as a primary device. Rumors point to dual M2 chips, the question at this point isn't what will it run but how will Apple twist that into relying on something else.

 

[subjonas]

It was AR, as it was overlaid over the real sign.

Overlaid over the real sign in real time movement? Can you provide any reference for this? Everything I’ve seen and read said Google Glass did not have that capability. If it did, then Google was able to achieve technology in a pair of glasses a decade ago that all other companies including Apple are still unable to achieve today. I feel like we’re having some sort of miscommunication here because what I think you’re saying is not possible.

 

[MacWiz_007]

Overlaid over the real sign in real time movement? Can you provide any reference for this? Everything I’ve seen and read said Google Glass did not have that capability. If it did, then Google was able to achieve technology in a pair of glasses a decade ago that all other companies including Apple are still unable to achieve today. I feel like we’re having some sort of miscommunication here because what I think you’re saying is not possible.

Yes, overlaid over a real sign in real time. I'm not sure why this seems to be so hard to understand. I owned Google Glass, I've seen it live and in person, so I'm the reference. There used to be plenty of videos showcasing this online. I'm sure they're still out there. It was AR, period. It is sad that you think I'm online spouting lies about Google Glass for some kind of sick enjoyment. Sorry, but you've got the wrong person.

 

[subjonas]

Yes, overlaid over a real sign in real time. I'm not sure why this seems to be so hard to understand. I owned Google Glass, I've seen it live and in person, so I'm the reference. There used to be plenty of videos showcasing this online. I'm sure they're still out there. It was AR, period. It is sad that you think I'm online spouting lies about Google Glass for some kind of sick enjoyment. Sorry, but you've got the wrong person.

I don’t think anything of the sort. Like I said, there must be some miscommunication. Let’s back up. Are we both talking about this same device that was released in 2013?

Google Glass - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[MacWiz_007]

I don’t think anything of the sort. Like I said, there must be some miscommunication. Let’s back up. Are we both talking about this same device that was released in 2013?

Google Glass - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Yes, but let's back up even further to before this conversation started. You refuse to believe me, fine. I've labored on this topic long enough. This forum is exhausting sometimes. Anyway, have a good one.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Google Glass put a tiny image in the upper-right corner of your view.

But it wasn't "full coverage" where the image matches and follows the real world which is how AR is commonly defined today.

😎

 

[MacWiz_007]

Google Glass put a tiny image in the upper-right corner of your view.

But it wasn't "full coverage" where the image matches and follows the real world which is how AR is commonly defined today.

😎

View attachment 2210253
View attachment 2210254

If you were looking at a street sign you could have the prism measure up to the sign and overlay English over German. It may have been rudimentary AR, but it was AR none the less because you would only see the English text.

 

[subjonas]

Yes, but let's back up even further to before this conversation started. You refuse to believe me, fine. I've labored on this topic long enough. This forum is exhausting sometimes. Anyway, have a good one.

I’m just trying to find out more information. I’ve been googling to try to confirm what you’re saying, but I can’t find anything so far. You’re under no obligation to help, of course, but any link would be appreciated.
Also, sorry I’ve agitated you, but this is something that always happens online. Someone firmly believes one thing, someone else says they’re wrong but doesn’t provide any source. Second person isn’t obligated to provide it, but that leaves the first person in a frustrating situation if they want to know if they’re wrong, but can’t find any information supporting it.

 

[kkee]

Maybe.. I never thought either of those was ridiculous and don't pay enough attention to this kind of stuff on social media to know what the buzz was for those products at the time. But those seem different (AirPods are just a wireless version of an existing, wired product) than walking around with a screen strapped to your face.

And while earphones do contribute to hearing loss, that's something that can be mitigated with controlling the volume (and more recently, noise alerts in the OS). There's already a marked acceleration in vision problems associated with smartphones. Moving the screen even closer and using it more frequently will just add to the problem.

Ah yeah I did follow the social media at that time. Let me see. One of the most common initial ridicules was regarding the design of the AirPods. People found them visually strange, with the earbuds lacking any wires and instead having a stem-like protrusion hanging down from the ears. Some compared them to the appearance of a toothbrush head or dangling earrings. The price of AirPods was another subject of ridicule. Some felt that the price tag for wireless earbuds was too high, especially considering the alternatives available in the market at that time. The charging case for AirPods, which doubles as a storage case, was also a point of ridicule for some. Some people thought the case looked like a dental floss container or a small, plastic pillbox.

Don't these remind you of the current situation a lot?

 

[spinedoc77]

Ah yeah I did follow the social media at that time. Let me see. One of the most common initial ridicules was regarding the design of the AirPods. People found them visually strange, with the earbuds lacking any wires and instead having a stem-like protrusion hanging down from the ears. Some compared them to the appearance of a toothbrush head or dangling earrings. The price of AirPods was another subject of ridicule. Some felt that the price tag for wireless earbuds was too high, especially considering the alternatives available in the market at that time. The charging case for AirPods, which doubles as a storage case, was also a point of ridicule for some. Some people thought the case looked like a dental floss container or a small, plastic pillbox.

Don't these remind you of the current situation a lot?

Still valid complaints! Don't forget that they fall out of your ears very easily, well at least for some ear shapes.

 

[kkee]

Still valid complaints! Don't forget that they fall out of your ears very easily, well at least for some ear shapes.

Apple, Inc. | AirPods Pro

Apple, Inc. | AirPods Pro, Annual ID: ADC_EXP20_027M, Award: Merit Honor , Category: Experiential Design - Environmental Design / Retail / Restaurant

www.oneclub.org

edit: I just skimmed through google, that's only one example lol

 

[generationrex]

Ah yeah I did follow the social media at that time. Let me see. One of the most common initial ridicules was regarding the design of the AirPods. People found them visually strange, with the earbuds lacking any wires and instead having a stem-like protrusion hanging down from the ears. Some compared them to the appearance of a toothbrush head or dangling earrings. The price of AirPods was another subject of ridicule. Some felt that the price tag for wireless earbuds was too high, especially considering the alternatives available in the market at that time. The charging case for AirPods, which doubles as a storage case, was also a point of ridicule for some. Some people thought the case looked like a dental floss container or a small, plastic pillbox.

Don't these remind you of the current situation a lot?

A little. I think the difference is that in this case, the comments less about the design of the headset and more about the functionality / long term effects on behaviour and health. I haven't really seen enough compelling use cases to convince me that this is a mass market device, but that doesn't necessarily mean one doesn't exist. Personally speaking, t would take a lot for me stick a screen that close to me eyes with any kind of regularity.

 

[mazz0]

@mazz0 what do you disagree with??

Use of the term "vapourware". It's not vapourware if it hasn't been announced yet. You might legitimately call it vapourware in the period following the announcement up until the point it's released, but generally that term's only used for things with an unusually long gap between announcement and release, in particular in cases where the release date gets pushed back. That's my understanding of the term anyway.

 

[stocklen]

Use of the term "vapourware". It's not vapourware if it hasn't been announced yet. You might legitimately call it vapourware in the period following the announcement up until the point it's released, but generally that term's only used for things with an unusually long gap between announcement and release, in particular in cases where the release date gets pushed back. That's my understanding of the term anyway.

Well its just a term - and yes the strict definition of that term is a product that has been announced but not delivered.

"software or hardware that has been advertised but is not yet available to buy, either because it is only a concept or because it is still being written or designed"


I think in this case Vapourware kindof fits because you'd be forgiven with all the hundreds of macrumors articles weve had over the last 2 years with specs, costs, abilities, designs, and photorealistic renders.... that the thing has been announced and we are waiting for it to be released. It is certainly a concept at the very least.

Of course back to the bigger picture this product doesnt exist at all right now. But we are all discussing it like it does 🙂

 

[mazz0]

Well its just a term - and yes the strict definition of that term is a product that has been announced but not delivered.

"software or hardware that has been advertised but is not yet available to buy, either because it is only a concept or because it is still being written or designed"


I think in this case Vapourware kindof fits because you'd be forgiven with all the hundreds of macrumors articles weve had over the last 2 years with specs, costs, abilities, designs, and photorealistic renders.... that the thing has been announced and we are waiting for it to be released. It is certainly a concept at the very least.

Of course back to the bigger picture this product doesnt exist at all right now. But we are all discussing it like it does 🙂

Thats what we come here for 🙂

Speaking of vapourware, I wish somebody would finally make a really versatile, reliable, sustainable smell-omitting device for computers. I was playing a game the other day and it occurred to me than smell would make it sooooo much more immersive, and I bet the same would be true for XR.