![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
We're talking about very different things. If you want VR as it exists today, then as you say, you more or less already have what you want.
I read through the linked article in post one. It mentions apps like Apple TV, Apple Arcade, Zoom calls - all things that are very stationary, or contained within a single room. All the same tech for those use cases would likely be best served NOT in the headset to lighten it up and increase battery life - let a much more powerful desktop wirelessly handle the processing and just stream to the lenses.
Sure they're going to have all the niceties of VR and VR headsets, such as watching Netflix and merge all of their platforms. That's an Apple thing to do. But if that's what you think is their end game goal is: a "new way" to watch movie content or play Apple Arcade, then you're grossly missing the point. Instead of spending $3500-$4000 on a HMD, you could just buy an 82" TV. Literally all the things you listed just now could all be accomplished with a AppleTV 4k and a big cheap TCL.
The future of what exactly? AR seems to be even bigger of a gimmick than VR is. And VR is already having a very tough time becoming mainstream, like I said it would remain a niche.
It's like you all don't read all of the posts for context. I said the tech necessary to get this to be where Apple wants it to be will take a minimum of 10 years and likely 20.To answer this question directly: AR is the only thing that isn't a gimmick. It’s likely the future of communication and real time information tech.
The irony is that I've had the exact same song and dance about VR years ago, and look VR is still a gimmick that almost nobody gives a damn about, even those who have it readily available more often play games without it.
Yes, it is patently obvious that grandpa and soccer mom do not want to "wear scuba gear for the street". Though I have to say you have zero imagination, nor been looking at the tech long enough if you think this requires brain implants.
You are talking about technology that doesn't exist. What exists is a goofy, heavy, cumbersome device. If it ever gets to a point where the entire tech fits in regular looking glasses it will start to have more utility instead of being a gimmick. But right now you are literally talking science fiction.
So why not have a HUD then, that technology already exists.
What magic lets you pinpoint the exact location of a tracker in 3D Space? And why do you need to see it through walls instead of just having an app that displays its distance to you, which is actually real existing technology instead of fiction? This, seeing your lost keys through a wall is the dictionary definition of an unnecessary gimmick.
Yeah, I'd really love if it if my glasses just spammed wiki articles in front of my eyes about things that appears in my field of vision. They might even show a "relevant ad" before the actual article
Assuming I want it to be in my head all the time. But you are missing one key ingredient. If we ditch the cell phone how do you control your AR glasses? How do you make calls, how do you enter a new contact? How do you bring up an article unrelated to your current environment? Will it have mind reading capabilities as well?
The early days were when we explored the applicability of AR for our work more than 10 years ago. We went to a startup who genuinely thought they were in possession of the next breakout technology, a 3D input device for AR Applications. They talked about their inventor / CEO in hushed voices as if he was the next Mark Zuckerberg. If AR would've lead anywhere everybody would be using it by now, so what does that tell you about the utility of AR if 10 years later we still see virtually no practical application?
Yes.
I have zero interest in picking through the rest of your post.
CP/M FTW! ;-)
I have to admit some of that sounds borderline distopian to me--particularly what M76 characterized as sending an ad to your screen when you walk by a store. That would be horrible. I remember people talking about that a decade or more ago when they were talking about that kind of stuff, only pushing to your phone and I'm kind of glad that particular thing never took off.
I suspect there's an assumption that the hardware won't stay like that. Something closer to Google Glass, for example.
I mean it was billions of dollars and a decade of R&D to make the Vision Pro, on top of what it cost to make, produce, and distribute the thing, so they've still got a ways to go.
I’m sure that much of the tech developed from the R&D has multiple applications so it can be used in other product lines but yeah the Vision Pro has a long ways to go before it breaks even.
Yes! I eventually upgrade my system to run CP/M, had 64K RAM dual 8 inch floppy drives.
Why do you respond without actually reading entire posts?
Yes. There is zero tech that has ever come that didn't have multiple consequences, both good and bad. Frankly I think ads are the least of the worries.
The Vision Pro supports controllers. It just doesn't come with its own. Having said that, it won't have special VR controllers like other VR headsets have.
You replied before my edit.
Not sure yet - I haven’t tried many (well, any) VR games yet. I tried some slower paced puzzle games for which hand lag was a non-issue and surprisingly intuitive - e.g. I was reaching for things with my hands, and just pulling them toward me and positioning them - but I don’t think that would scale to a VR Fruit Ninja kind of thing if that’s what you’re wondering about. I don’t yet know much about controller integration - either at launch or possibilities for the future.
This is not Macintosh or iPhone level of 'game changing'.
I don't know any normies that would ever in a million years ditch their giant TV's in their living rooms so they could all sit with goggles on their head. It's just idiotic to think that would happen. Is it a potential monitor replacement for professionals and geeks? Sure. That's not a game changer though. The Nintendo Switch is more 'game changing' than this.
That dude is a gigantic moron of epic proportions.
You don't have friends if that's the case. No one, and I mean no one, is going to want to sit around drinking wine with their friends watching Housewives of Utah (Or whatever dumb show it is) with goggles on.
Yes I can imagine being a better single-person movie watching device like he said, not a better movie (or superbowl) watching experience than what a tv enable the moment you are not alone watching.
a smarthphone is almost exactly the same shape and user experience than the digital camera too, imagine 6 people wearing personal mask watching the superbowl next weekend versus a single shared television that significantly more different than the smarthphone replacing the digital camera.
Did smartphone got smaller over time ?
I can see in what way many things would be lost and more expensive for so little potential gain, view angle versus a small room/small tv situation, not loosing the game when going to the fridge-piss by keeping it in a corner.