I would take Scoble with a grain of salt here. He's a bit obsessed with the idea of AR glasses and is always super optimistic about the prospects of a consumer AR product like this going mainstream. That said, Tim Cook has specifically mentioned AR on multiple occasions. I doubt he would do that if Apple didn't have an AR product in the works that has already moved beyond the initial R&D phase.
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
I can think of a few uses for AR. How about software that identifies the stars as you gaze up at them, or identifies plants as you stroll through the woods. Glasses that can zoom in on distant objects, perhaps at a sporting event, would be fantastic. Holding binoculars quickly becomes tiring.
So they might be heading in a more Google Glass direction than others. That'd be interesting.
Yup. But instead of releasing a half-baked product early to developers with inferior hardware and hoping they figure out uses for it, Apple will keep it under wraps and only release a finished version.
You are right. Apple would NEVER release a product like the iTunes Phone. Oh wait ... they did (in a partnership with Motorola).
Apple would NEVER release an iPad forerunner many years before processing power, networking advances and touchscreen/stylus tech made it practical. Oh wait: they did with the Newton and MessagePad.
Apple would NEVER release a half-baked poorly conceived social networking feature like Ping. Oh wait ... they did.
Apple would NEVER release a multi-platform blatant Firefox ripoff browser that would be buggy, have performance problems, slow updates only to quietly stop abandon it after years of non-support. Oh wait ... that was Safari for Windows, part of their "use iTunes and iPod and QuickTime hangers-on to lure Windows users into our ecosystem" strategy.
Apple would NEVER release a Frankenstein machine with a RISC-based CPU that runs multiple operating systems VERY SLOWLY. Oh wait, they did with the PowerPC.
Apple would NEVER release a wearable that lacked 3G/4G, GPS, Wi-Fi (but included NFC!) but had terrible battery life even though devices with 3G, GPS, Wi-Fi (and NFC/MST) and better battery life were already on the market. Oh wait, they did with the Apple Watch.
Apple would NEVER release a smart device that did not allow 3rd party apps and had very underpowered hardware. Oh wait ... that was the 1st generation iPhone!
Apple would NEVER release an underpowered, difficult to upgrade and underperforming machine as part of a failed attempt to get Windows users of iPhones and iPads - in other words the vast majority - to switch because of a misguided belief that they only reason why Windows users prefer their platform is cost, so of course they would stampede to a lower cost Apple machine even if it had much worse specs than similarly priced Windows hardware, right? Oh wait ... Mac Mini.
Apple would NEVER release a media streamer with spartan, baked-in functionality (impossible to add new apps/channels or even support bluetooth headphones) and go 6 years without updating it until competition from Google, Amazon and Roku forced their hand, and to this day only supports outdated UPnP-style screen mirroring instead of app streaming? Oh wait ... that's Apple TV.
Apple would NEVER release a buggy, problematic music streaming service that needed at least 2 major updates before it became competitive with multi-platform services that had existed for years? Oh wait ... that's Apple Music. (And that doesn't even mention the disaster that iTunes is for Windows that was hinted at on the Safari section earlier, or what a real problem iCloud was in its early stages.)
Long story short: you are just wrong here.
The main problem with Google Glass was the price: extremely high. Google went too far the other direction with Google Cardboard: too cheap and low quality. (And bizarrely, Google didn't even have the sense required to GIVE the things away to pretty much everyone who bought an Android phone or requested one via the Google Play Store to grow the platform even though the things literally only cost as little as 50 cents to make - and one company even used the box that the phone was sold in as a Google Cardboard device - to grow their own platform. Google's biggest problem isn't their flawed products but their horrible marketing ... if they had the same people who did Microsoft's brilliant ad campaigns from the 00s pushing those terrible products on people, who knows how successful they would be.) Samsung hit the sweet spot with a much better product that costs about $100 and so far has shipped 5 million of them. Yes, a good chunk of those are BOGO deals with their Galaxy S and Note phones, but thanks to doing that - which again Google should have done with their much cheaper Cardboard product - the Gear VR is the leading VR platform right now by a mile - though I suppose Playstation VR will soon catch it - and has a lot of developer support as a result.
If Robert Scoble said it, I don't believe a word of it until proven otherwise. He has a looooooooong track record of being consistently off the mark. He latches onto any bleeding edge device of the moment and makes irresponsible and unverifiable claims. Ignore him.
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.
This kind of argument is called a straw man. I never argued that people dont use smartphones - now or in the past. And when the iPhone was released I knew it would become popular beyond the then small number of "smartphone" users. Because smart phones have to replace dumb phones is all.
But both glasses and wearables are different. Compelling or not, the glasses change your look and face. Which is why many people get rid of them. And wearables seem to be not that popular.
There will be niche applications here as usual. I mentioned some. Fitness could well be one. I have sports\cycling glasses and that is exactly the kind of thing that would work as they are bulky and any HUD would make sense - tracking speed and calories, and a map.
For normal glasses not sure what I would use it for. It could be sinister, not just recordiing people but using face recognition to know who people are, and then -- what -- stalking them?
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.
This kind of argument is called a straw man. I never argued that people dont use smartphones - now or in the past. And when the iPhone was released I knew it would become popular beyond the then small number of "smartphone" users. Because smart phones have to replace dumb phones is all.
But both glasses and wearables are different. Compelling or not, the glasses change your look and face. Which is why many people get rid of them. And wearables seem to be not that popular.
There will be niche applications here as usual. I mentioned some. Fitness could well be one. I have sports\cycling glasses and that is exactly the kind of thing that would work as they are bulky and any HUD would make sense - tracking speed and calories, and a map.
For normal glasses not sure what I would use it for. It could be sinister, not just recordiing people but using face recognition to know who people are, and then -- what -- stalking them?
There's a difference between a straw man and a counter example fella.
And how do you propose using glasses for more advanced facial recognition than your own memory can provide? I don't think Apple are likely to provide access to a public database of faces and addresses.
Wearables are plenty popular. Apple already make a best selling one.
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.
This kind of argument is called a straw man. I never argued that people dont use smartphones - now or in the past. And when the iPhone was released I knew it would become popular beyond the then small number of "smartphone" users. Because smart phones have to replace dumb phones is all.
But both glasses and wearables are different. Compelling or not, the glasses change your look and face. Which is why many people get rid of them. And wearables seem to be not that popular.
There will be niche applications here as usual. I mentioned some. Fitness could well be one. I have sports\cycling glasses and that is exactly the kind of thing that would work as they are bulky and any HUD would make sense - tracking speed and calories, and a map.
For normal glasses not sure what I would use it for. It could be sinister, not just recordiing people but using face recognition to know who people are, and then -- what -- stalking them?
There's a difference between a straw man and a counter example fella.
And how do you propose using glasses for more advanced facial recognition than your own memory can provide? I don't think Apple are likely to provide access to a public database of faces and addresses.
Wearables are plenty popular. Apple already make a best selling one.
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.
Jeezuz don't be so thick, what do you think AirPods tech is about, and their own W1 chip.
AirPods aren't even comparable. You do realize VR needs a lot of processing power and a power source. With the processing power required, a wireless option wouldn't work at this point because of battery drain and the issue with latency.
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.
Again, why do you NEED an iPhone for it to work???
That's not even an option. As someone else mentioned, VR needs a lot of processing power. No battery will handle that right now. If you had no phone, games would have to be loaded onto the VR headset. I just can't see a VR headset able to fit in a hard drive, processor, battery, etc. Right now, there is a race to become first with a viable wireless solution for VR. No one has accomplished that yet. I can see in the future all in one VR headsets, but we are a ways off from that.
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.
This kind of argument is called a straw man. I never argued that people dont use smartphones - now or in the past. And when the iPhone was released I knew it would become popular beyond the then small number of "smartphone" users. Because smart phones have to replace dumb phones is all.
But both glasses and wearables are different. Compelling or not, the glasses change your look and face. Which is why many people get rid of them. And wearables seem to be not that popular.
There will be niche applications here as usual. I mentioned some. Fitness could well be one. I have sports\cycling glasses and that is exactly the kind of thing that would work as they are bulky and any HUD would make sense - tracking speed and calories, and a map.
For normal glasses not sure what I would use it for. It could be sinister, not just recordiing people but using face recognition to know who people are, and then -- what -- stalking them?
There's a difference between a straw man and a counter example fella.
And how do you propose using glasses for more advanced facial recognition than your own memory can provide? I don't think Apple are likely to provide access to a public database of faces and addresses.
Wearables are plenty popular. Apple already make a best selling one.
I don't think Apple is going to make glasses.
Inclined to agree. Even if they do, we'll probably see a car first.
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.
Jeezuz don't be so thick, what do you think AirPods tech is about, and their own W1 chip.
AirPods aren't even comparable. You do realize VR needs a lot of processing power and a power source. With the processing power required, a wireless option wouldn't work at this point because of battery drain and the issue with latency.
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.
This kind of argument is called a straw man. I never argued that people dont use smartphones - now or in the past. And when the iPhone was released I knew it would become popular beyond the then small number of "smartphone" users. Because smart phones have to replace dumb phones is all.
But both glasses and wearables are different. Compelling or not, the glasses change your look and face. Which is why many people get rid of them. And wearables seem to be not that popular.
There will be niche applications here as usual. I mentioned some. Fitness could well be one. I have sports\cycling glasses and that is exactly the kind of thing that would work as they are bulky and any HUD would make sense - tracking speed and calories, and a map.
For normal glasses not sure what I would use it for. It could be sinister, not just recordiing people but using face recognition to know who people are, and then -- what -- stalking them?
There's a difference between a straw man and a counter example fella.
And how do you propose using glasses for more advanced facial recognition than your own memory can provide? I don't think Apple are likely to provide access to a public database of faces and addresses.
Wearables are plenty popular. Apple already make a best selling one.
Your counter examples were strawman arguments because I didn't make them. Mister.
Wearables are niche. And glasses even more so. I think Cook might have said that.
There's nothing wrong with doing some of these things but I dispute the "next big thing rhetoric". Touch is here for a while. Might well be dominant in 50 years, with keyboards still around too.
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.
This kind of argument is called a straw man. I never argued that people dont use smartphones - now or in the past. And when the iPhone was released I knew it would become popular beyond the then small number of "smartphone" users. Because smart phones have to replace dumb phones is all.
But both glasses and wearables are different. Compelling or not, the glasses change your look and face. Which is why many people get rid of them. And wearables seem to be not that popular.
There will be niche applications here as usual. I mentioned some. Fitness could well be one. I have sports\cycling glasses and that is exactly the kind of thing that would work as they are bulky and any HUD would make sense - tracking speed and calories, and a map.
For normal glasses not sure what I would use it for. It could be sinister, not just recordiing people but using face recognition to know who people are, and then -- what -- stalking them?
There's a difference between a straw man and a counter example fella.
And how do you propose using glasses for more advanced facial recognition than your own memory can provide? I don't think Apple are likely to provide access to a public database of faces and addresses.
Wearables are plenty popular. Apple already make a best selling one.
Your counter examples were strawman arguments because I didn't make them. Mister.
Wearables are niche. And glasses even more so. I think Cook might have said that.
There's nothing wrong with doing some of these things but I dispute the "next big thing rhetoric". Touch is here for a while. Might well be dominant in 50 years, with keyboards still around too.
I never said you made those arguments. I used those arguments as a counterpoint to your structure, to show that blindly believing that taking what people currently do as an arbiter of what they will do in the future when new, unknown products are to be released is demonstrably problematic, and has been proven wrong in the past, not only generally, but specifically with Apple. See also "not one reads anymore" and "no one wants to watch video on a small device" - Steve Jobs (paraphrased) proving himself wrong on the same count.
I'm not sure you've really grasped the point of what a strawman argument is and why it's a problem if you're accusing me of making one here.
What are you talking about "next big thing rhetoric"? Nothing in the article suggested this will be a mega hit, just that it's an untapped area Apple is exploring, same as the Apple Watch, which is more niche that the iPhone for sure, but is still a major chunk of change. It's fairly unlikely that Apple will ever hit upon a product which explodes in the way the iPhone did again.
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.
You make a good point. It's another problem to solve. The fact that someone can be recording you is a problem. And the appearance of the camera is a problem (suggesting you can be recorded.) Suppose you include a camera/sensor that CANNOT be used for recording but could only be used for VR overlays, etc.? Some people will certainly assume it can record and will still be appalled, but that would at least partially address the issue.
These are great, especially the longer ver (per Slprescott's post). Features the AirPods but also puts gives some attention to iPhone, even Apple Music to a degree.
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.
There were a number of things wrong with Glass - the camera being but one of those things (e.g. poor battery life, clunky UI, uncomfortable to wear, looks nerdy, makes interaction awkward, expensive - approx. $1500 for beta ware, limited real world functionality, etc.). Check out the reviews on Youtube. Some are quite telling. I think it's worth noting that an Apple headset would have a couple of years to improve the design and technology, and would expect to see significant improvements in battery, processing power and efficiency, connectivity to devices like iPhone (for some shared computing power), and design (reduced component size, etc.).
Comments
But both glasses and wearables are different. Compelling or not, the glasses change your look and face. Which is why many people get rid of them. And wearables seem to be not that popular.
There will be niche applications here as usual. I mentioned some. Fitness could well be one. I have sports\cycling glasses and that is exactly the kind of thing that would work as they are bulky and any HUD would make sense - tracking speed and calories, and a map.
For normal glasses not sure what I would use it for. It could be sinister, not just recordiing people but using face recognition to know who people are, and then -- what -- stalking them?
And how do you propose using glasses for more advanced facial recognition than your own memory can provide? I don't think Apple are likely to provide access to a public database of faces and addresses.
Wearables are plenty popular. Apple already make a best selling one.
Wearables are niche. And glasses even more so. I think Cook might have said that.
There's nothing wrong with doing some of these things but I dispute the "next big thing rhetoric". Touch is here for a while. Might well be dominant in 50 years, with keyboards still around too.
I'm not sure you've really grasped the point of what a strawman argument is and why it's a problem if you're accusing me of making one here.
What are you talking about "next big thing rhetoric"? Nothing in the article suggested this will be a mega hit, just that it's an untapped area Apple is exploring, same as the Apple Watch, which is more niche that the iPhone for sure, but is still a major chunk of change. It's fairly unlikely that Apple will ever hit upon a product which explodes in the way the iPhone did again.