Rumor: Apple working with Carl Zeiss on AR glasses to debut in 2018

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 55
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 15,817member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    williamh said:
    cali said:
    If Apple enters the market I expect one MAJOR change:

    iPhone-less glasses.

    hooking up an android to bulky glasses is the past. I expect Apple's glasses to be more expensive and non goofy.
    Not sure if that would work. You would still need the phone hooked up to the glasses somehow. Only option would be a cable. That's more cumbersome than hooking up phone directly into the glasses. 
    We can ignore some of the limitations of current technology. Let's dream a little and assume the stuff in the works will be better.  Why would the only option be a cable?  Why wouldn't the glasses connect with a video version of the W1 chip?  The AirPods demonstrate an ability to stuff battery and whatnot into a very small package.  Many fashionable eyeglasses have very thick temples.  I think you could make a fashionable frame with plenty of stuff hidden. The trick will be to hide a camera in the bridge and it will have to be hidden very effectively to avoid the glass hole effect and so the wearer doesn't look like a freaky minotaur. 
    So if others couldn't SEE the camera on the man in the bar restroom then they'd be OK with Apple glasses in there? As I remember it the camera simply being there in the first place was the issue being promoted to fear Google Glass even tho it gave clear indication when it was in use. Why would folks accept an iWear camera, especially a hidden one?

    If Apple is developing a similar product to be used on the street and in public I think that's the PR problem that needs to be solved. 

    Because Apple isn't an advertising company. Google is.
    Sorry, but that's not what garnered the Glasshole moniker, with even threats of bodily harm to some folks if they were to walk into bars, restrooms, theaters or perhaps simply looking at someone while wearing them. Ads had zero to do with it. 

    Snap Spectacles are now being worn by a lot of people and I don't see them getting any derogatory nicknames or people threatening violence against them. Why do you think Google Glass was derided and Snap Spectacles aren't?
    I had no idea a lot of people used 'em. I've never seen a single set in public. And yes, the ones that are out and about are garnering privacy concerns, so that part of your argument is butkus. You just didn't look. Search up snap spectacles privacy concerns

    But Snap Spectacles do have two advantages. The landscape has changed a bit since 2012, and folks are a little more comfortable with everywhere video cameras. A little.

    Secondly, with a few years to work on it since GG was introduced Snap came up with a quirky, fun and in-your-face design. They scream "here's the camera, smile".

    Google Glass might have gotten there eventually considering the third parties who had begun designing frames, but I don't think fun was the primary consumer-facing goal for Google. It should have been. Four years ago it might still not have saved it, but it would have been better to try IMHO. 

    One more thing you apparently missed: You said "Google makes its living on advertising" as tho that made them evil and an outlier.  How do you think Snap makes it's living?
    http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/snapchat-beginning-use-machine-learning-improve-ad-targeting-175330
    edited January 9
  • Reply 22 of 55
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,323member
    VR is a fad like 3D. Don't do it. 
  • Reply 23 of 55
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 4,506member
    jungmark said:
    VR is a fad like 3D. Don't do it. 
    VR isn't AR. 

    That said I wrote AR apps for the iPhone in 2008. And they were somewhat useful too. But that died down (Also they are no more useful than maps really). 

    Here is the problem. People don't wear glasses. Even the myopic don't in general wear glasses. They get lazik or wear contacts. So why get your eyes fixed to then go back to glasses, non prescription? 

    Maybe cyclists. Or skiing. Or motor bike helmets. Maybe joggers will be persuaded to wear sports glasses with their calorie count etc. Joggers look ridiculous anyway. 

    But for normal workday - can't see it. 

    And VR is just useful for games 
    edited January 9
  • Reply 24 of 55
    irelandireland Posts: 16,463member
    Scoble has no decent sources in Apple. How do we know? Because he'd be saying this stuff far more often if he had.
  • Reply 25 of 55
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    williamh said:
    cali said:
    If Apple enters the market I expect one MAJOR change:

    iPhone-less glasses.

    hooking up an android to bulky glasses is the past. I expect Apple's glasses to be more expensive and non goofy.
    Not sure if that would work. You would still need the phone hooked up to the glasses somehow. Only option would be a cable. That's more cumbersome than hooking up phone directly into the glasses. 
    We can ignore some of the limitations of current technology. Let's dream a little and assume the stuff in the works will be better.  Why would the only option be a cable?  Why wouldn't the glasses connect with a video version of the W1 chip?  The AirPods demonstrate an ability to stuff battery and whatnot into a very small package.  Many fashionable eyeglasses have very thick temples.  I think you could make a fashionable frame with plenty of stuff hidden. The trick will be to hide a camera in the bridge and it will have to be hidden very effectively to avoid the glass hole effect and so the wearer doesn't look like a freaky minotaur. 
    So if others couldn't SEE the camera on the man in the bar restroom then they'd be OK with Apple glasses in there? As I remember it the camera simply being there in the first place was the issue being promoted to fear Google Glass even tho it gave clear indication when it was in use. Why would folks accept an iWear camera, especially a hidden one?

    If Apple is developing a similar product to be used on the street and in public I think that's the PR problem that needs to be solved. 

    Because Apple isn't an advertising company. Google is.
    Sorry, but that's not what garnered the Glasshole moniker, with even threats of bodily harm to some folks if they were to walk into bars, restrooms, theaters or perhaps simply looking at someone while wearing them. Ads had zero to do with it. 

    Snap Spectacles are now being worn by a lot of people and I don't see them getting any derogatory nicknames or people threatening violence against them. Why do you think Google Glass was derided and Snap Spectacles aren't?
    I had no idea a lot of people used 'em. I've never seen a single set in public. And yes, the ones that are out and about are garnering privacy concerns, so that part of your argument is butkus. You just didn't look. Search up snap spectacles privacy concerns

    But Snap Spectacles do have two advantages. The landscape has changed a bit since 2012, and folks are a little more comfortable with everywhere video cameras. A little.

    Secondly, with a few years to work on it since GG was introduced Snap came up with a quirky, fun and in-your-face design. They scream "here's the camera, smile".

    Google Glass might have gotten there eventually considering the third parties who had begun designing frames, but I don't think fun was the primary consumer-facing goal for Google. It should have been. Four years ago it might still not have saved it, but it would have been better to try IMHO. 

    One more thing you apparently missed: You said "Google makes its living on advertising" as tho that made them evil and an outlier.  How do you think Snap makes it's living?
    http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/snapchat-beginning-use-machine-learning-improve-ad-targeting-175330

    I didn't search for Snap Spectacles privacy. I searched for "violence" and "threats" to see what the public reaction has been. And there really isn't anything out there. The articles about privacy are from news sites and tech blogs, and aren't an accurate indicator of public perception.

    The fact Snap makes their money off advertising is irrelevant. They aren't know for that, but Google is. They aren't also known for vacuuming up reams of data on people even though they do collect their share.

    The bottom line is Apples reputation regarding privacy is far better than Google. Coupled with what would undoubtedly be a superior product will completely differentiate Apples version from the failure Glass was.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 55
    calicali Posts: 2,909member
    cali said:
    If Apple enters the market I expect one MAJOR change:

    iPhone-less glasses.

    hooking up an android to bulky glasses is the past. I expect Apple's glasses to be more expensive and non goofy.
    Not sure if that would work. You would still need the phone hooked up to the glasses somehow. Only option would be a cable. That's more cumbersome than hooking up phone directly into the glasses. 
    You're too stuck in NOW and not thinking forward enough.

    I'm thinking iPhone-less COMPLETELY.

    williamh said:
    cali said:
    If Apple enters the market I expect one MAJOR change:

    iPhone-less glasses.

    hooking up an android to bulky glasses is the past. I expect Apple's glasses to be more expensive and non goofy.
    Not sure if that would work. You would still need the phone hooked up to the glasses somehow. Only option would be a cable. That's more cumbersome than hooking up phone directly into the glasses. 
    We can ignore some of the limitations of current technology. Let's dream a little and assume the stuff in the works will be better.  Why would the only option be a cable?  Why wouldn't the glasses connect with a video version of the W1 chip?  The AirPods demonstrate an ability to stuff battery and whatnot into a very small package.  Many fashionable eyeglasses have very thick temples.  I think you could make a fashionable frame with plenty of stuff hidden. The trick will be to hide a camera in the bridge and it will have to be hidden very effectively to avoid the glass hole effect and so the wearer doesn't look like a freaky minotaur. 
    As of now, you would need the cable since the phone would be essentially the processor for games. Maybe Apple is developing a good wireless solution, but I think that is still years away. The biggest hurdle for wireless VR is latency. No one has come up with a viable solution yet. The technology isn't there yet.

    Again, why do you NEED an iPhone for it to work???

    williamh said:
    cali said:
    If Apple enters the market I expect one MAJOR change:

    iPhone-less glasses.

    hooking up an android to bulky glasses is the past. I expect Apple's glasses to be more expensive and non goofy.
    Not sure if that would work. You would still need the phone hooked up to the glasses somehow. Only option would be a cable. That's more cumbersome than hooking up phone directly into the glasses. 
    We can ignore some of the limitations of current technology. Let's dream a little and assume the stuff in the works will be better.  Why would the only option be a cable?  Why wouldn't the glasses connect with a video version of the W1 chip?  The AirPods demonstrate an ability to stuff battery and whatnot into a very small package.  Many fashionable eyeglasses have very thick temples.  I think you could make a fashionable frame with plenty of stuff hidden. The trick will be to hide a camera in the bridge and it will have to be hidden very effectively to avoid the glass hole effect and so the wearer doesn't look like a freaky minotaur. 
    The glasshole problem can be easily fixed by not allowing the user to record or take pics. We already have iPhone for that. Playback is fine.


  • Reply 27 of 55
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 108member
    Hopefully Apple can make something useful - most if not all of the VR stuff I've seen so far has been neat, gee wiz stuff with little real world use. AR might change that.
    cali
  • Reply 28 of 55
    I think Apples focus is on AR more so than VR.  AR is the next step. In "evolution"  driving directions communicated via your windshield.  You walk or drive and Starbucks shows you which Of your friends are inside or what specials they have available. AR is essentially what's already happening with your smartphone. Except its eliminated the need to stare at a phone to achieve it.  AR combined with the ability to interact via gestures is the future of communications.  It's where the smartphone is heading.   
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 29 of 55
    qwweraqwwera Posts: 162member
    I do t believe any of this.
  • Reply 30 of 55
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 1,598member
    The theory is that Apple muzzled the company until the supposed tie-up is announced —or falls through.

    The standard pundit get-out clause.
    caliwatto_cobra
  • Reply 31 of 55
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 1,598member
    gatorguy said:
    williamh said:
    cali said:
    If Apple enters the market I expect one MAJOR change:

    iPhone-less glasses.

    hooking up an android to bulky glasses is the past. I expect Apple's glasses to be more expensive and non goofy.
    Not sure if that would work. You would still need the phone hooked up to the glasses somehow. Only option would be a cable. That's more cumbersome than hooking up phone directly into the glasses. 
    We can ignore some of the limitations of current technology. Let's dream a little and assume the stuff in the works will be better.  Why would the only option be a cable?  Why wouldn't the glasses connect with a video version of the W1 chip?  The AirPods demonstrate an ability to stuff battery and whatnot into a very small package.  Many fashionable eyeglasses have very thick temples.  I think you could make a fashionable frame with plenty of stuff hidden. The trick will be to hide a camera in the bridge and it will have to be hidden very effectively to avoid the glass hole effect and so the wearer doesn't look like a freaky minotaur. 
    So if others couldn't SEE the camera on the man in the bar restroom then they'd be OK with Apple glasses in there? As I remember it the camera simply being there in the first place was the issue being promoted to fear Google Glass even tho it gave clear indication when it was in use. Why would folks accept an iWear camera, especially a hidden one?

    If Apple is developing a similar product to be used on the street and in public I think that's the PR problem that needs to be solved. 

    No, what was behind the fear of Google Glass was Google itself. 

    If Apple is thinking of putting a camera into a pair of glasses then that would explain why they have spend so much time and effort cultivating an image of trust, even going so far as taking on the FBI over the issue. This is why Apple has deliberately limited itself in what it does with users' data to ensure that your private information doesn't go flying around to third parties.

    Google, we know, is a company that cannot be trusted with privacy. If the company is prepared to illegally run roughshod over their users' requests for privacy, then it's not surprising that people feel uneasy when confronted with a pair of Google-branded camera specs. 

    https://gigaom.com/2012/08/09/ftc-hits-google-with-22-5-million-fine-over-safari-hacks/

    It all comes down to trust, and for one reason or another, people don't trust Google.



    watto_cobraStrangeDays
  • Reply 32 of 55
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 1,598member
    asdasd said:
    jungmark said:
    VR is a fad like 3D. Don't do it. 
    VR isn't AR. 

    That said I wrote AR apps for the iPhone in 2008. And they were somewhat useful too. But that died down (Also they are no more useful than maps really). 

    Here is the problem. People don't wear glasses. Even the myopic don't in general wear glasses. They get lazik or wear contacts. So why get your eyes fixed to then go back to glasses, non prescription? 

    Maybe cyclists. Or skiing. Or motor bike helmets. Maybe joggers will be persuaded to wear sports glasses with their calorie count etc. Joggers look ridiculous anyway. 

    But for normal workday - can't see it. 

    And VR is just useful for games 

    That's odd, because I see plenty of people wearing glasses. I can name about ten outlets in my local town centre alone where I can buy spectacles. Everyone who has contact lenses also has a pair of glasses. The missus wears glasses, her parents wear glasses, I wear glasses.

    Our postman wears glasses (though you wouldn't believe it judging by the amount of mail I get that should have gone to the neighbours). 

    Sorry, I think the notion that people don't wear glasses is ridiculous.

    The real problem is how is Apple going to deal with millions of potential customers who need prescription lenses.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 33 of 55
    Gosh I thought Tim Cook said people only wear glasses because they have to. Anyway this report sounds like BS and the source doesn't have a track record of accurately predicting anything Apple but CES was boring so tech sites will lap it up because they need something for people to click on.
    canukstorm
  • Reply 34 of 55
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,097member
    cali said:
    cali said:
    If Apple enters the market I expect one MAJOR change:

    iPhone-less glasses.

    hooking up an android to bulky glasses is the past. I expect Apple's glasses to be more expensive and non goofy.
    Not sure if that would work. You would still need the phone hooked up to the glasses somehow. Only option would be a cable. That's more cumbersome than hooking up phone directly into the glasses. 
    You're too stuck in NOW and not thinking forward enough.

    I'm thinking iPhone-less COMPLETELY.

    williamh said:
    cali said:
    If Apple enters the market I expect one MAJOR change:

    iPhone-less glasses.

    hooking up an android to bulky glasses is the past. I expect Apple's glasses to be more expensive and non goofy.
    Not sure if that would work. You would still need the phone hooked up to the glasses somehow. Only option would be a cable. That's more cumbersome than hooking up phone directly into the glasses. 
    We can ignore some of the limitations of current technology. Let's dream a little and assume the stuff in the works will be better.  Why would the only option be a cable?  Why wouldn't the glasses connect with a video version of the W1 chip?  The AirPods demonstrate an ability to stuff battery and whatnot into a very small package.  Many fashionable eyeglasses have very thick temples.  I think you could make a fashionable frame with plenty of stuff hidden. The trick will be to hide a camera in the bridge and it will have to be hidden very effectively to avoid the glass hole effect and so the wearer doesn't look like a freaky minotaur. 
    As of now, you would need the cable since the phone would be essentially the processor for games. Maybe Apple is developing a good wireless solution, but I think that is still years away. The biggest hurdle for wireless VR is latency. No one has come up with a viable solution yet. The technology isn't there yet.

    Again, why do you NEED an iPhone for it to work???
    AR needs a lot of processing power, and processing power needs a lot of battery.  Doubtful you could fit that onto a pair of glasses that anyone would buy for a while yet.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 35 of 55
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 1,598member
    Gosh I thought Tim Cook said people only wear glasses because they have to. Anyway this report sounds like BS and the source doesn't have a track record of accurately predicting anything Apple but CES was boring so tech sites will lap it up because they need something for people to click on.
    I think there is something to it, but I'm just not so sure about the specs. I was thinking more along the lines of car windshields. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 36 of 55
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 4,506member
    Rayz2016 said:
    asdasd said:
    jungmark said:
    VR is a fad like 3D. Don't do it. 
    VR isn't AR. 

    That said I wrote AR apps for the iPhone in 2008. And they were somewhat useful too. But that died down (Also they are no more useful than maps really). 

    Here is the problem. People don't wear glasses. Even the myopic don't in general wear glasses. They get lazik or wear contacts. So why get your eyes fixed to then go back to glasses, non prescription? 

    Maybe cyclists. Or skiing. Or motor bike helmets. Maybe joggers will be persuaded to wear sports glasses with their calorie count etc. Joggers look ridiculous anyway. 

    But for normal workday - can't see it. 

    And VR is just useful for games 

    That's odd, because I see plenty of people wearing glasses. I can name about ten outlets in my local town centre alone where I can buy spectacles. Everyone who has contact lenses also has a pair of glasses. The missus wears glasses, her parents wear glasses, I wear glasses.

    Our postman wears glasses (though you wouldn't believe it judging by the amount of mail I get that should have gone to the neighbours). 

    Sorry, I think the notion that people don't wear glasses is ridiculous.

    The real problem is how is Apple going to deal with millions of potential customers who need prescription lenses.

    Of course I said that people don't in general wear glasses. At least out and about. Many will wear them at home of course. 

    You can also buy contact lenses at the ten outlets in your town, the point of which is to not wear glasses even if you need to.  And you yourself admit that you wear contacts. Looking around an office of 40 people I see four people wearing glasses. Thats less that the rate of myopia. so people try not to wear glasses. Thats clear.

    To make something that "replaces the iPhone" we will need something that most people will use. Same with the watch. 
    edited January 10
  • Reply 37 of 55
    asdasd said:
    jungmark said:
    VR is a fad like 3D. Don't do it. 
    ...
    And VR is just useful for games 
    Not yet. Games must be completely re-written for VR.
  • Reply 38 of 55
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,097member
    asdasd said:

    Here is the problem. People don't wear glasses. Even the myopic don't in general wear glasses. 
    People don't use smartphones. Even the tech savvy don't use smartphones.

    People don't wear watches. Even people who want to know the time don't wear watches.

    If Apple make compelling eyewear, people will wear them.  Besides which, plenty of people wear glasses. I'm wearing them right now, outside.
  • Reply 39 of 55
    I think it is funny that there are those that ripped Google Glass and now are "this is a great idea". Anyways if they can pull this off with glasses that look "normal" (whatever that means) I think it would be great. I often wear computer glasses to reduce eye fatigue so wouldn't mind wearing them to augment my life. The key is they need to look good for the masses to accept them. Then there is the tricky part about privacy and recording video and taking pictures...I see this as a short term hang up because it already happens with phones to a certain extent.
  • Reply 40 of 55
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 15,817member
    Rayz2016 said:
    gatorguy said:
    williamh said:
    cali said:
    If Apple enters the market I expect one MAJOR change:

    iPhone-less glasses.

    hooking up an android to bulky glasses is the past. I expect Apple's glasses to be more expensive and non goofy.
    Not sure if that would work. You would still need the phone hooked up to the glasses somehow. Only option would be a cable. That's more cumbersome than hooking up phone directly into the glasses. 
    We can ignore some of the limitations of current technology. Let's dream a little and assume the stuff in the works will be better.  Why would the only option be a cable?  Why wouldn't the glasses connect with a video version of the W1 chip?  The AirPods demonstrate an ability to stuff battery and whatnot into a very small package.  Many fashionable eyeglasses have very thick temples.  I think you could make a fashionable frame with plenty of stuff hidden. The trick will be to hide a camera in the bridge and it will have to be hidden very effectively to avoid the glass hole effect and so the wearer doesn't look like a freaky minotaur. 
    So if others couldn't SEE the camera on the man in the bar restroom then they'd be OK with Apple glasses in there? As I remember it the camera simply being there in the first place was the issue being promoted to fear Google Glass even tho it gave clear indication when it was in use. Why would folks accept an iWear camera, especially a hidden one?

    If Apple is developing a similar product to be used on the street and in public I think that's the PR problem that needs to be solved. 

    No, what was behind the fear of Google Glass was Google itself.

    You've been here long enough to know that's not all that it was about. :/
    No sir, it was apprehension of having what you were doing recorded by someone without your express permission to do so. Using a camera or smartphone is generally fairly obvious unless the person using it goes out of their way to hide it.  Camera glasses are not and there's the privacy problem.

    Put on a pair of Apple iWear glasses with recording capabilities and walk into a strange bar, or worse look at someone in there the "wrong way" (in their opinion). Many folks wouldn't let you take out your phone and take pictures or video of their better half, or take pics of your little ones on the playground and the fear that you might be doing that same thing with those iWear glasses on your face is going to be a PR problem...  IF they have recording capabilities. The fact they come from Apple won't automatically make it all good. How do I know that?

    I'm a photographer who often does street shots. Most folks are generally OK with it as long as I give them a heads-up, or at least acknowledgement. In the instances where someone thought I was trying to surreptiously photograph them  I've got reactions ranging from rolling eyes to firm requests to just stop and delete whatever I took. Fortunately no threats of violence. I'm no advertising company, anymore than the guy/girl wearing camera glasses would be no matter who built 'em.

    So it's not who makes the product that causes the apprehension in some circles. It's the person with them on and the situation they might be using them in. Don't you remember the fears posted about deviates filming your children, or the guy next to you in the restroom looking in the wrong direction? I do, along with some of those posters threatening a punch to the face if they see someone  with them.

    Either a lot of PR will be needed or better yet just don't allow recording/photographs with them. My personal guess is that if Apple does have an AR product in the works it's not eyewear but instead something for the car. That avoids the whole "what the heck are YOU looking at" issue.
    edited January 10
Sign In or Register to comment.