- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
I think there’ll be some real amazing uses for AR/VR products in the hands on tech fields, you can show another colleague exactly what you’re looking at.
This is just another stepping stone to this being a thing. 🤷🏻♀️
Smartest move of this project yet
$3500 To run regular boring Mac apps with a stupid set of goggles on your head that doesn’t bring much else. Sure, sign me up! NOT
Can anybody explain to me why it is so hard to make a proper transparent display instead of these monstrosities? We already have LCDs, polarizers, faraday rotators, optic fibre multiplexing, piezoelectric materials…what’s the catch?
I’ll be the first to admit that my technical experience in this field is limited, but I have been following the tech for some time.
Transparent display tech has come a long way since its inception, but from either a transparency standpoint or as a high fidelity interface for VR I can’t see how it’s a viable option. Given the choice I would much rather have a crystal clear UI with simulated AR than compromise display quality with adjustable transparency.
Why Apple chose to develop the googly-eyes outward-facing display is beyond me though. Maybe it looks better in person than in their promos.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this get suspended and eventually withdrawn like the AirPower, it’s not a very attractive product regardless of the price.
The LCD panel on the front showing your face is tacky and battery wasting, it has a surprisingly limited movement space, the battery setup is too awkward for still only covering 2hrs like the Meta (Oculus) Quest which has been on the market for years.
I think this product is like the Cybertruck, where we were all looking around the room to see if anyone else thought it was cool before making our opinion, it just looks lame.
I don’t believe we will see another breakout product from Apple, but they will remain on top like Sony has with their consoles due to already having market dominance.
Wait it’s a panel? I thought it was some weird seethrough glass but I guess I didn’t think very hard about how that would work.
Yeah it’s the camera view of your face from the inside. Looks crazy weird to see. Kinda like when someone is wearing craaaaazy thick glasses and they look at you and it looks like their eyeballs are 15 ft closer to you than their face lol
It’s not even the real face. It’s a real time render of your face. Crazy uncanny valley territory.
it’s the camera view of your face from the inside.
When you’re setting up the device, you scan your face to create a “Persona” which is a digital representation of your face, this is what’s shown in the outside of the thing.
The cameras are used to track your eyes and have the “Persona”’s eyes move mimicking yours.
This seems like sometuing that wouldnt work so well anyway.
It looks great and if it was more affordable i think alot of people would be interested but its going to be hard to get a large number of early adopters with the 3.5k price tag.
This will be a rich boy toy for a long time before it sells on a large scale a few versions down the line.
1 million isnt that many people but i dunno if its features are enough to justify the cost to 1 million people.
I feel like something like this truly won’t go mainstream until two things happen:
- they need to be smaller and have a battery life closer to that of current smart phones
- they need to look waaaay less wonky. I mean most people would be embarrassed to wear this goofy ass looking thing in public. Don’t even get me started on the goofy digital eyeballs on the front. There’s a good reason this is the first apple product ever that the presenter didn’t use on stage, cause he would look like an idiot and they knew it.
Once that happens I think they’ll explode in popularity. If they can make them look closer to just reading glasses or something with a 5 hr battery life at a bare minimum, everyone will want them. Obviously it would help a lot if they weren’t $3,500 too lmao
I think it would be better if it had no eye display
The glasses thing will not happen for a long time, the are just too many limitations with the form factor.
On the other hand, Bigscreen’s HMD looks and feels way better than the toasters we’re accustomed to strapping to our faces. For that alone, I considered switching from the Index.
What we can hope is that Apple will somewhat normalize VR gear usage and push it further mainstream. They’re really good at this and the VR industry could use some more competition. Now, only if they wouldn’t patent every screw in that thing…
From discussion I’ve heard by my gen z friends I’m pretty sure apple could sell almost anything and people will buy it and claim it’s the best thing ever. Airpods are treated as jewelery at this point. I will say their phones are decent products but they’re way too locked down for me to ever own one. Great for my parents etc who want something simple
Thinking of Apple kit as Jewelry makes so much sense.
I have a pair of £40 Bluetooth earbuds and recently asked a group of co-workers why they owned Airpods.
They all admitted the sound quality was worse but it has a nifty find my airpod function. Which put me off buying Airpods.
Thinking of them as £200 earrings explains alot. The reason you buy them isn’t for a practical purpose but to be seen in them or look pretty (which is entirely subjective).
Can’t say anything about the regular airpods since I haven’t tried them, but the Pros are unparalleled. Impossible to offer anything near that kind of transparency mode without custom silicon, the competition is stuck with what they can get off the shelf.
I understand all of those words but not the sentence.
I know there are differences in sound replication quality, but the difference between high end and cheap kit has eroded over the last 10 years.
Its like comparing 720p to 1080p, sure there is a difference and 1080p is better, but not 10 times the cost improvement. 4k is having the same issues selling itself atm.
No, it’s not about sound replication, that is the easy part. AirPods have both really good active noise canceling, and a transparency mode that does completely lag-free filtered pass thru, meaning that you can hear everything around you and follow a podcast at the same time. They even switch between ANC and transparency if you start speaking to someone. Nobody has anything similar except on paper, everyone else does it with so much lag that it’s useless.
$3500 in today’s money is not far off from what early computers cost. It’s actually less.
The Mac SE retailed for $2900 in 1987. This is equivalent to over $7000 in today’s money.
“A rich boys toy that will never amount to anything” would have been a grossly bad prediction back in 1987.
Just sayin.
“But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.” ― Carl Sagan
Just because a large expensive rich toy turned into a staple does not imply that all rich toys turn into the same thing.
I see your point but i dont know if i equate this new apple device to a computer. Its certainly got alot of amazing features but compared to a computer it doesnt hold up functionally.
You could argue that eventually it will surpass a computer in functionality and become more mainstream but thats kind of my point. Right now its not there, but after they have developed it for 10-15 years you might see mass adoption of this type of device over PCs.
I also didnt say it would never amount to anything. Using your statement i would point out that computers were not found in everyones home until the end of the 90s and beyond. So i stand by my suggestion that it will be something rich people have for many yeara beforw becoming mainstream.
The difference is this doesn’t solve any problems. It is just a new way to do the same things. It isn’t even any faster. At least the computers in the 80s were a faster way to do what we could do on paper or with older computers.
It doesn’t solve any problems that you have thought of yet. There may be some cool stuff that none of us thought of that we’ll find has become a part of our daily life in the future.
I’m not buying one but I’m glad they are working on stuff like this. It’s a fully portable, wearable 3D computer system. We didn’t use to have cool stuff like that and now we do.
I’m an early VR/AR adopter. I love that shit and use it all the time. This may be an unpopular opinion in the community but I still don’t think it’s ready for mass adoption. It’s not the price it’s that there’s no reason to use it. It’s all fluff. We bought cell phones because we needed it to call people, then get emails and now full internet. What do we NEED AR/VR for?
I love that shit and use it all the time.
What do you use it for?
Shark porn.
I say make a cheaper version that just connects to the iPhone or a Mac the way the Pro connects to a battery pack.
I agree, the core technology here should be the display, everything else is already figured out and can be externally connected.
no way, a $3,500 product that does the same thing your phone or computer can isn’t selling well?! no way!
You’ve just attacked Apple’s entire business model.
You only forgot to mention the part where they take from open source and don’t give anything back.
Pre-ordered. You think $3500 is too expensive meanwhile you spent $1k on your phone and have a $2k laptop and $1k tv this replaces both
