The saga of Apple’s troubled mixed reality headset
arstechnica.com
The saga of Apple’s troubled mixed reality headset
1–10 of 201 posts
Re: The saga of Apple’s troubled mixed reality headset
#2Re: The saga of Apple’s troubled mixed reality headset
#3Re: The saga of Apple’s troubled mixed reality headset
#4That way, as long as everyone is wearing a helmet, it looks like no one is wearing a helmet.
Re: The saga of Apple’s troubled mixed reality headset
#5AR is technically impossible with current and near future tech.
All these companies are lying and faking and delaying to collect $ while people like HN are stupid enough to believe in them.
Zuckerberg's latest video blanked out the "AR" glasses. Google also lied and used fake demos glasses in theirs. Magic Leap = lol
The far easier and probably useful VR has gigantuous issues to move forward. For instance there's no way to create content. $100 million games go to half a billion dollar games. People don't want to move their heads when relaxing. At best it might be useful at work where people are forced to do things but that's also contentious, most people don't even want to turn the Zoom camera on.
Re: The saga of Apple’s troubled mixed reality headset
#6>Apple CEO Tim Cook has been relatively hands-off from the product compared to others like the iPhone... The Information's sources say that Apple's mixed reality efforts began almost accidentally when the company purchased a German AR startup called Metaio to use some of its technology on Project Titan, its self-driving car project.
Which is just wild and highly contrary to my expectations. It's been obvious for ages that, while quite a ways from hitting the tipping point, wearable displays are the natural next big disruption in the personal electronics space following in the steps of the PC, notebooks, smartphones and tablets. A retinal scanning display will be able to hit the limits of human visual acuity while also being portable, which completely obsoletes every single other display we use and has massive implications for a lot of our basic modes of interaction. Suddenly there is no connection between "screen size" and device, where you are etc, it's just a matter of tradeoffs with how much power is behind it. With an industry standard even embedded devices could have virtual "displays" with lots of info. If you think about the form factor of nearly everything portable we use, it's "a display, with stuff attached to it" (either attached to the back in the case of phones/tablets or on a hinge to a rectangle that otherwise matches the screen in the case of notebooks). The display bit almost completely defines the basics of how portable it is, how it's used, and the limits on thermal dissipation and roughly how much energy it can have. But a wearable display once again abstracts the human-computer visual interface part from everything else, which means single rectangles are no longer required. Belts, smoother ovoids that can be more easily pocketed, and who knows what else all become possible ways to hold enhanced computation/storage beyond what the wearable itself can do. And as someone enters LAN range (or sits down and plugs in even) of more computation power (in the form of a desktop computer say, or networked computers) there could be seamless switchover. And it's not as if this is 50 years in the future either, the pieces have been steadily coming together. Products like the RETISSA [0] demonstrate the potential that a company with Apple's resources could get to work polishing. The opening up of 6 GHz spectrum and WiFi 7+ along with a long awaited new shift in networking means LAN data rates are there too.
To say there are implications for, oh, products like the iPhone, iPad, and Macbooks (or even iMacs) is a bit of an understatement. With enormous irony if anything Apple's heavily neglected desktop section might be one of the ones that'd best survive. But whomever gets it right and gets the ecosystem going has the potential to really mess up established players. Given how Apple accomplished multiple disruptions and has repeatedly stated they're alert to it and the importance of being willing to go after their own cash cows early before someone else does it, I'd sort of assumed in the background this was one of their key strategic projects even if it was like a 10 year one. It's fascinating to find that no, actually not!
And Ive's influence without the leash of Jobs to make sure form and function stayed linked really seems to have been pretty toxic. Whatever Cooks' other strengths keeping that reigned in doesn't seem to have been one of them. I guess the forces of organizational inertia are always incredibly powerful.
----
Re: The saga of Apple’s troubled mixed reality headset
#7Designers, like Ive, should not be left unchecked. As part of an overall team they have value, but they should never be given carte-blanche as Ive had.
My takeaway though is that the device itself and how it should look/work is not obvious, and that is a bad thing.
For a device like the iPhone, iPod a few people kicking around ideas over sushi could very quickly (and with wild enthusiasm, no doubt) come to agree on the basic form, basic functionality.
If our VR-future has to be shoe-horned into existence, maybe it was not to be.
If anything, I want to see "the cyber" go away, not become more pervasive.
Re: The saga of Apple’s troubled mixed reality headset
#8AR simply has no known value to users, the best SciFi has to offer is sex ads while walking down the street. AR is technically impossible with current and near future tech. All these companies are lying and faking and delaying to collect $ while people like HN are stupid enough to believe in them. Zuckerberg's latest video blanked out the "AR" glasses. Google also lied and used fake demos glasses in theirs. Magic Lea…
Like you though, both figuratively and literally, I'm not buying VR.
Re: The saga of Apple’s troubled mixed reality headset
#9AR simply has no known value to users, the best SciFi has to offer is sex ads while walking down the street. AR is technically impossible with current and near future tech. All these companies are lying and faking and delaying to collect $ while people like HN are stupid enough to believe in them. Zuckerberg's latest video blanked out the "AR" glasses. Google also lied and used fake demos glasses in theirs. Magic Lea…
> AR is technically impossible with current and near future tech.
This is simply not true, there’s been numerous AR products built (just not runaway success stories). IMHO, it’s not “technically impossible”, it’s “prohibitively expensive” generally to get the experience that’s been hyped.
Re: The saga of Apple’s troubled mixed reality headset
#10AR simply has no known value to users, the best SciFi has to offer is sex ads while walking down the street. AR is technically impossible with current and near future tech. All these companies are lying and faking and delaying to collect $ while people like HN are stupid enough to believe in them. Zuckerberg's latest video blanked out the "AR" glasses. Google also lied and used fake demos glasses in theirs. Magic Lea…
Privacy aside, I don't think that would really take off either as I just don't think most people are that interested in people they don't know.