If the 8K per eye rumors are true then there will be. That is considered the holy grail of AR/VR. That resolution is near retina. At a minimum it could give you a movie theatre size screen anywhere. Current headsets are toys mainly because resolution prevents them from replacing existing tech.
I think using 8K would make this device way too expensive. Makes no sense when 4 or 5K is already the standard in the market. And as for current headsets, if you're referring to one such as the Vive as a toy, it's certainly not. I've tried it out two years ago when someone was demo-ing it at an art event and it impressed me with the immersion while I was playing a game. I could even see myself and the crowd behind me with external cameras that track my body movements. The screen resolution was not an issue for me at the time and I'm sure they have improved on it by now. By the time, Apple's Goggles are out, I'll probably be using the Tilt Brush app for VR to do digital 3D sculpting and painting which is what professionals are already using out there now.
Goro Fujita, one of the big name illustrators and Art Directors in the field, is already using it for his work using the Quill app.
I highly doubt the AR Goggles or iOS device combined is going to be able to process something like this. More likely, the AR Goggles are going to be used for simple apps/games and function that are already on the App Store to transition to. Even with hand detection, that would probably take up more battery juice if the Goggles require recharging which will be a pain in the neck. That thing better have hand detection or interacting with a 3D object with your hands will be a moot point and massive fail. Using a 2D plane like iPhone's screen to interact with a 3D environment/polygons is ridiculous. It's one reason why I have never, EVER seen anyone locally in my area do that for this reason.
Microsoft is right about the AR/VR or Mixed Reality as the next computing OS paradigm. They have the right idea regarding HoloLens even though it's expensive, it's a good start towards that direction.
How can anything be ‘the standard’ in a market which has failed to launch. Apple are looking at wearables as the next step in computing and have been for a while. Microsoft just tried to stick Windows in the air just like they tried to stick Windows on a touch tablet. Lack of concept of commitment, take your pick.
AR is exciting but your enthusiasm for the current, lacklustre, misguided attempts is disturbing.
This whole AR/VR adventure/direction on Apple's part is unsettling along with News subscriptions and original content production. IMHO.
It’s not an adventure, it’s business as usual for Apple. They consumerised 1st (CLI), 2nd (GUI) & 3rd (TouchUI) generation personal computing platforms and this is just the next one.
As for content, watching Netflix is a depressing, unhappy content experience.
If the 8K per eye rumors are true then there will be. That is considered the holy grail of AR/VR. That resolution is near retina. At a minimum it could give you a movie theatre size screen anywhere. Current headsets are toys mainly because resolution prevents them from replacing existing tech.
I think using 8K would make this device way too expensive. Makes no sense when 4 or 5K is already the standard in the market. And as for current headsets, if you're referring to one such as the Vive as a toy, it's certainly not. I've tried it out two years ago when someone was demo-ing it at an art event and it impressed me with the immersion while I was playing a game. I could even see myself and the crowd behind me with external cameras that track my body movements. The screen resolution was not an issue for me at the time and I'm sure they have improved on it by now. By the time, Apple's Goggles are out, I'll probably be using the Tilt Brush app for VR to do digital 3D sculpting and painting which is what professionals are already using out there now.
Goro Fujita, one of the big name illustrators and Art Directors in the field, is already using it for his work using the Quill app.
I highly doubt the AR Goggles or iOS device combined is going to be able to process something like this. More likely, the AR Goggles are going to be used for simple apps/games and function that are already on the App Store to transition to. Even with hand detection, that would probably take up more battery juice if the Goggles require recharging which will be a pain in the neck. That thing better have hand detection or interacting with a 3D object with your hands will be a moot point and massive fail. Using a 2D plane like iPhone's screen to interact with a 3D environment/polygons is ridiculous. It's one reason why I have never, EVER seen anyone locally in my area do that for this reason.
Microsoft is right about the AR/VR or Mixed Reality as the next computing OS paradigm. They have the right idea regarding HoloLens even though it's expensive, it's a good start towards that direction.
How can anything be ‘the standard’ in a market which has failed to launch. Apple are looking at wearables as the next step in computing and have been for a while. Microsoft just tried to stick Windows in the air just like they tried to stick Windows on a touch tablet. Lack of concept of commitment, take your pick.
AR is exciting but your enthusiasm for the current, lacklustre, misguided attempts is disturbing.
If you think VR is a failure, I suggest you think twice. Apple's attempts at VR is going to be too late. In fact, too tiny from my understanding that there were supposedly less than 3 to 5 VR apps on the Steam store for the Mac platform. FIVE. That's not good. They may think it's not about being first and getting it right, but it's also getting it out there first and ahead of the competition. Just because Apple's approach to waiting until the last minute works for them doesn't mean it'll work for every product they make, especially the services sector.
AR is OLD news. It has been around for years now which got its start, around 2007-2008 (?), with QR codes on books and toys. There is nothing revolutionary about it, even if Apple tries really hard to BS the customers into thinking otherwise because people will catch on to the history of that tech. I'm not misguided but rather I already know what's out there. I do graphic design/illustration work for a living and I know my industry well enough to be aware that professional creatives are already using the VR devices. That's not being misguided. That's a FACT.
Even the Navy used VR tech to design a ship a few years ago to prepare it for production. Did you know that? IF you think Apple's AR Glasses are going to do something like that, keep on dreaming. Apple would have to build an actual VR unit if they want to compete in the realm or forget it. To do that on an AR device would take up so much processing power and battery juice, one would practically have to buy an extra Anker battery pack or two for this.
There is a difference between LOOKING at wearables and making it happen already right now. If you think VR is dead, it's certainly not. The VR units are already being used in various industries whether you like it or not. AR and VR are NOT quite the same thing which people keep confusing them with preconceived notions of insular/introverted behavior versus 'outgoing' public wear. VR is an immersive tool for interacting with a virtual environment with controllers and hand detection to play games, build out 3D models, chat with others ( HoloLens is already doing that ), etc. It's not designed to be dragged outside but hooked to a PC or Mac ( if Apple ever get moving to Nvidia, that is ). AR is a heads up display that interacts with the real world environment, not to dissimilar from what you see with military pilots in their HUD helmets, or on plane dashboard, or navigation GPS on car windshields ( they're already out there in the niche market ).
VR and AR are not better or worse than each other. People need to get over themselves and get educated on those technological differences. It's like arguing digital art is better than traditional art. That's how ridiculous it is. VR is here and not going away. It's no longer a fad or trend. 20 years ago, they couldn't get it right due to tech limitations. But now? The industry has what it needs to make it work.
And if you think AR glasses are going to be acceptable in the mainstream, don't be surprised if public places, restaurants, and so on will crack down on them for privacy reasons with restrictions. If you think Apple AR glasses are going to rule the market, I have doubts. Their wearable Watch device was designed to focus on health ( a lot lately ), communicate, notify and keep track of things. The Apple AR glasses are going to have limitations.
Let me reiterate. AR from Apple's stance is not that great. There was an AR app that lets you download 3D models and place them on a surface. You could only interact on a 2D screen but if you attempt to reach out to the model, there is NO effect. Your hand simply shows up behind the model in front of the camera. IF this is the best Apple can do with AR, this is embarrassing. Every time I use an AR app, it drains the battery fast and heats up the iPhone/iPad. I know what I'm talking about because that's been my experience. These two things should NOT be happening with AR and Apple probably knew about it without mentioning it. The Goggles should've come out in the first place for this reason. There was an AR game for iOS which was like a war game of sorts with monster fighters, like a chess game, and all you can do is touch the screen and walk around the table. Seriously!?? Had the glasses come out originally with hand detection, you would've been able to 'touch' the 3D models and move them around without holding up the iOS device. But noooo, Cook wants to sit it out without having the guts to move forward. This baby steps approach to AR is very insulting.
I grew up watching Tron, Lawnmower Man, or anything related to CGI way back in the 80s, and am also a gamer. I know Apple can do much better than that and guess what? HTC Vive, Oculus, Playstation VR and other manufacturers made it a reality ( no pun intended ).
Also, as a deaf person, I know that using ASL with AR Glasses is not going to work. Why? Because some people on certain forums assume or think that's going to solve communication problems using the AR Glasses. Deaf people rely on being able to SEE each other on screen, such as FaceTime or any video chat application like a videophone that's utilized by Sorenson ( those products are free and subsidized by the government ) with relay call operators or one on one calls. The operators mediate the conversation between a deaf and hearing person, if needed. Heck, there are people out there, on other forums like here, who think an Apple Watch is going to replace the phone. They're sadly mistaken. A deaf person cannot just sign with one hand and talk to the Watch screen, holding the arm up. Do you realize how ridiculous that idea is? Now, however, if this was something similar to HoloLens and interacting in a virtual environment with avatars using sign language, then that might work but that requires an external camera.
I don't make phone calls anymore so I just mainly text or email. I read lips and hardly using ASL ( even though I know some of it, having been taught in an audist environment ). That's it. Why would I want to do that on my Glasses or Watch? That's a distraction. Especially one wouldn't be wearing them while doing work. Don't even go there with AirPods and Glasses as the next gen OS input method ( I know one user who blindly suggested it ). That's insulting because if that ever happens, deaf people can't use AirPods and Apple's proclamation on human rights and accessibility goes out the window, painting the company as a hypocrite.
(No, the AirPods do NOT replace hearing aids. Not the same thing. If you're deaf or hard of hearing, you use a hearing aid or cochlear implant, not an AirPod. A professional audiologist would say the same thing )
My point is that AR Goggles are not going to solve the problem because two deaf people need a screen to see each other. The Glasses ain't it. A smartphone, tablet, or computer does the job. The only and ONLY exception is if a hearing person uses the Glasses to 'interpret' the deaf person's sign language ( by literally standing in front of them or a short distance ), although there are people are there already working on camera technology and software to detect hand signs. Like I said, FACT. I know this demographic well enough.
The point is that Apple's AR Goggles are going to be marketed around the App Store. It's all dollar signs in Tim Cook's eyes. That's the 'potential' he was talking about despite how hard he sells that Apple wants to change the world with their products, something that Steve Jobs would NEVER say.
It would be like a photographer saying " I want to change the world with my images ". WTF? Who talks like that? You don't talk about your products, you let them speak for themselves. An artist does not talk or make excuses for their portfolio when presenting the work to an employer, exhibition or whatnot in person. The work has to speak for itself. And what does Cook and his executives do? Open their mouths before the products can speak for themselves, especially on their keynotes over the last several years now.
And lastly, this isn't the Steve Ballmer era anymore. He's GONE. It's now Satya Nadella's show. And no, the Windows in a phone argument doesn't work in this frame. Microsoft is doing a very good job these days whether you like it or not. Even if HoloLens 2 is expensive, their view on the next computing paradigm with Mixed Reality is on point. If you have never seen Ghost in the Shell or read the original manga, there's a scene where the cyborg jacks herself into a virtual network as a 'deep dive' to operate around. This is similar to what's going to happen in the future. I would rather use a VR device to make 3D sculpt/model/paintings done on Tilt Brush or Quill than screw around on Apple's AR Glasses that may have no hand detection unless they manage to put it in there which will make it more expensive and battery draining.
Apple would go for AR route instead of VR, judging from Cook's comments regarding the matter (which could be the opposite for all we know). But to design a lightweight wearable glasses, AR is the only way. Less power and data transfer will be required. All the software needs to do will be transmitting information from iPhone to the glasses and adding them as an interactive layer on top of whatever we're looking at. Obviously Apple needs a robust visual recognition first for this to work flawlessly. As for the physical design, anything that looks simple like Airpods and Apple Watch would be just fine.
AR is OLD news. It has been around for years now which got its start, around 2007-2008 (?), with QR codes on books and toys. There is nothing revolutionary about it, even if Apple tries really hard to BS the customers into thinking otherwise because people will catch on to the history of that tech. I'm not misguided but rather I already know what's out there. I do graphic design/illustration work for a living and I know my industry well enough to be aware that professional creatives are already using the VR devices. That's not being misguided. That's a FACT.
What exactly Apple excel at is to make 'something old and seemingly useles / gimmicky (see mobile phone, wireless headset, smart watch)' into 'something commercially useful and attractive (see iPhone, Airpods, Apple Watch).
If the 8K per eye rumors are true then there will be. That is considered the holy grail of AR/VR. That resolution is near retina. At a minimum it could give you a movie theatre size screen anywhere. Current headsets are toys mainly because resolution prevents them from replacing existing tech.
I think using 8K would make this device way too expensive. Makes no sense when 4 or 5K is already the standard in the market. And as for current headsets, if you're referring to one such as the Vive as a toy, it's certainly not. I've tried it out two years ago when someone was demo-ing it at an art event and it impressed me with the immersion while I was playing a game. I could even see myself and the crowd behind me with external cameras that track my body movements. The screen resolution was not an issue for me at the time and I'm sure they have improved on it by now. By the time, Apple's Goggles are out, I'll probably be using the Tilt Brush app for VR to do digital 3D sculpting and painting which is what professionals are already using out there now.
Goro Fujita, one of the big name illustrators and Art Directors in the field, is already using it for his work using the Quill app.
I highly doubt the AR Goggles or iOS device combined is going to be able to process something like this. More likely, the AR Goggles are going to be used for simple apps/games and function that are already on the App Store to transition to. Even with hand detection, that would probably take up more battery juice if the Goggles require recharging which will be a pain in the neck. That thing better have hand detection or interacting with a 3D object with your hands will be a moot point and massive fail. Using a 2D plane like iPhone's screen to interact with a 3D environment/polygons is ridiculous. It's one reason why I have never, EVER seen anyone locally in my area do that for this reason.
Microsoft is right about the AR/VR or Mixed Reality as the next computing OS paradigm. They have the right idea regarding HoloLens even though it's expensive, it's a good start towards that direction.
How can anything be ‘the standard’ in a market which has failed to launch. Apple are looking at wearables as the next step in computing and have been for a while. Microsoft just tried to stick Windows in the air just like they tried to stick Windows on a touch tablet. Lack of concept of commitment, take your pick.
AR is exciting but your enthusiasm for the current, lacklustre, misguided attempts is disturbing.
If you think VR is a failure, I suggest you think twice. Apple's attempts at VR is going to be too late. In fact, too tiny from my understanding that there were supposedly less than 3 to 5 VR apps on the Steam store for the Mac platform. FIVE. That's not good. They may think it's not about being first and getting it right, but it's also getting it out there first and ahead of the competition. Just because Apple's approach to waiting until the last minute works for them doesn't mean it'll work for every product they make, especially the services sector.
…
AR/VR should be a game-changer but 6-digit shipments spells failure. The fact that MS is reaching into niche markets so soon demonstrates their typical lack of vision. Like they & Google did before, they’ll wait until Apple nails it, they’ll copy it, then claim prior art.
Apple would go for AR route instead of VR, judging from Cook's comments regarding the matter (which could be the opposite for all we know). But to design a lightweight wearable glasses, AR is the only way. Less power and data transfer will be required. All the software needs to do will be transmitting information from iPhone to the glasses and adding them as an interactive layer on top of whatever we're looking at. Obviously Apple needs a robust visual recognition first for this to work flawlessly. As for the physical design, anything that looks simple like Airpods and Apple Watch would be just fine.
AR is OLD news. It has been around for years now which got its start, around 2007-2008 (?), with QR codes on books and toys. There is nothing revolutionary about it, even if Apple tries really hard to BS the customers into thinking otherwise because people will catch on to the history of that tech. I'm not misguided but rather I already know what's out there. I do graphic design/illustration work for a living and I know my industry well enough to be aware that professional creatives are already using the VR devices. That's not being misguided. That's a FACT.
What exactly Apple excel at is to make 'something old and seemingly useles / gimmicky (see mobile phone, wireless headset, smart watch)' into 'something commercially useful and attractive (see iPhone, Airpods, Apple Watch).
That may be the case relating to AR as the direction they're taking, however I'm concerned about the narrative to convince consumers to use the glasses. If 'something useless/gimmicky into something useful', then holding up the iOS device with the hands was gimmicky when the glasses should've been the obvious solution in the first place. However, the glasses would've been an alternative option besides holding the devices up so that consumers don't feel trapped or forced to use it. The problem is that as a creative myself, I have the instinct to reach out and touch similar to what "Minority Report" has shown or how the iPhone 'trained' use for more than a decade that to the point we should be past that phase of interactivity.
Even if the Apple Glasses have to exert low power, it has to be less graphically intensive, letting the iPhone/iPad do the work which most likely requires Bluetooth to transmit the data, therefore still continuing to drain the battery ( that is, IF it's not graphically intensive ). Mind you, I wear glasses because due to astigmatism so I can do my work on screen, read, draw, etc. I take them off when I don't do any work and wear my shades all the time when going outside to protect the eyes. I didn't have any issues using the HTC Vive, from a demo about two years ago, without my glasses, even though with AR glasses, I expect some custom settings adjustment to create the right depth for our eyes.
So, I doubt the AR glasses will be what I want to use. Unless Apple manages to build into 'hand detection' to allow us to virtually touch objects and move/manipulate them, then maybe there is a market for the creative industry, otherwise I prefer holding an actual controller in a virtual environment to paint/sculpt. I'm expecting to attend a new AR/VR demo next month in my state here sponsored by AIGA ( American Institute for Graphic Artists ) which a guy I know locally is going to be the host speaker. This will give me a much better idea of what's coming around the corner and test out the painting apps. I'm more likely to get an Oculus, run off from a PC when and if I plan to get one ( and IF Apple drops the ball again on the desktop front ) within the next 1-2 years because Tilt Paint/Quill is a new media for me to experiment with.
I'll reiterate what I mentioned in posts in the past that I have never, EVER seen anyone locally hold up an iOS device to use a AR app. Never. If this is something Apple tried too hard to 'sell', then something is clearly not working. Do I see Apple Watches? Sure, but not everyone is using them. Not only am I an artist, I'm a competitive fencer and use a Garmin Vivosmart watch to track my HR and calories burned, besides the basic notifications with vibration. It's cheap and provides the data I need without getting distracted during practice drills or tournaments. My fencing coach wear the more recent Fitbit, but one other fencer I know has an AW. So clearly, not everyone uses the AW. It's a mixed bag. The AW is also flawed because it CANNOT see what the other hand is doing, such as my right hand holding the epee blade, or the entire body but that's a debate for another time.
In the end, it comes down to how Apple is going to frame the narrative with the AR glasses without making themselves look bad. It has to reflect the price point and provide practicality.
If the 8K per eye rumors are true then there will be. That is considered the holy grail of AR/VR. That resolution is near retina. At a minimum it could give you a movie theatre size screen anywhere. Current headsets are toys mainly because resolution prevents them from replacing existing tech.
I think using 8K would make this device way too expensive. Makes no sense when 4 or 5K is already the standard in the market. And as for current headsets, if you're referring to one such as the Vive as a toy, it's certainly not. I've tried it out two years ago when someone was demo-ing it at an art event and it impressed me with the immersion while I was playing a game. I could even see myself and the crowd behind me with external cameras that track my body movements. The screen resolution was not an issue for me at the time and I'm sure they have improved on it by now. By the time, Apple's Goggles are out, I'll probably be using the Tilt Brush app for VR to do digital 3D sculpting and painting which is what professionals are already using out there now.
Goro Fujita, one of the big name illustrators and Art Directors in the field, is already using it for his work using the Quill app.
I highly doubt the AR Goggles or iOS device combined is going to be able to process something like this. More likely, the AR Goggles are going to be used for simple apps/games and function that are already on the App Store to transition to. Even with hand detection, that would probably take up more battery juice if the Goggles require recharging which will be a pain in the neck. That thing better have hand detection or interacting with a 3D object with your hands will be a moot point and massive fail. Using a 2D plane like iPhone's screen to interact with a 3D environment/polygons is ridiculous. It's one reason why I have never, EVER seen anyone locally in my area do that for this reason.
Microsoft is right about the AR/VR or Mixed Reality as the next computing OS paradigm. They have the right idea regarding HoloLens even though it's expensive, it's a good start towards that direction.
How can anything be ‘the standard’ in a market which has failed to launch. Apple are looking at wearables as the next step in computing and have been for a while. Microsoft just tried to stick Windows in the air just like they tried to stick Windows on a touch tablet. Lack of concept of commitment, take your pick.
AR is exciting but your enthusiasm for the current, lacklustre, misguided attempts is disturbing.
If you think VR is a failure, I suggest you think twice. Apple's attempts at VR is going to be too late. In fact, too tiny from my understanding that there were supposedly less than 3 to 5 VR apps on the Steam store for the Mac platform. FIVE. That's not good. They may think it's not about being first and getting it right, but it's also getting it out there first and ahead of the competition. Just because Apple's approach to waiting until the last minute works for them doesn't mean it'll work for every product they make, especially the services sector.
…
AR/VR should be a game-changer but 6-digit shipments spells failure. The fact that MS is reaching into niche markets so soon demonstrates their typical lack of vision. Like they & Google did before, they’ll wait until Apple nails it, they’ll copy it, then claim prior art.
The problem with that MS is already doing an AR/VR device and it's in select markets. It's out there now. They're already on HoloLens 2, their second product iteration which is a bit smaller than the former. MS is not stopping because eventually one day, the HoloLens will likely have a cheaper version for the mass market. But for now, it's for the professional industries and not the mainstream customers to play with because....it's NOT a toy. MS has no reason to copy Apple's AR Glasses when they're already on HoloLens and ahead of that curve. It needs to be understood that they're NOT trying to compete with Apple Glasses since they have a different approach with Mixed Reality. Their goals are a bit different.
AR/VR is a game changer, yes and it will come to the mainstream eventually. Google messed up on that side while MS did a great job with it ( I saw a youtube video demo of their recent HoloLens 2 keynote. I was stunned at how far along they are ). On the VR side, Apple needs to get their stuff together and let Nvidia in the door for the desktop so that there is a wider variety of options. Otherwise, one would have to blow off at least $4,000 for an iMac Pro or Mac Pro to use the VR ready machines whereas with the Windows or Linux PC, you spend up to no more than $1,500 for a set up, approximately, as the base minimum. The new base iMacs ( not Pro version ), to my understanding, supposedly can do VR at $1099 and then up, but I'm concerned about the specs on these machines do it justice since they use an Intel Iris Plus Graphics 640 and Radeon Pro 560 at the max. Mind you, I still use my mid-2010 iMac but it's getting long in the tooth which is why I'm getting close to a crossroads here to either going PC to jump into the VR experiment and continue using my graphic design/illustration apps, or spend more on a new all in one iMac, although I want to migrate away from all-in-ones so I can use a bigger external monitor ( at least 25 inches or more ) for better image viewing and splitting image document panels.
But anyways, I like what MS is doing with HoloLens and think it's going to do something amazing in the next 2-5 years while Oculus VR is much cheaper now dropping to about $325 for a set that works for either Mac/Windows. And Apple's AR glasses is something that concerns me in terms of narrative and execution as I'm very confident that they're going to tie the Glasses to the App Store. Every hardware they release is tied to the App Store. So don't be surprised that any current AR app used on the iOS devices will most likely work on the Glasses unless resolution size changes and re-formatting is required of developers to rebuild from scratch.
Comments
AR is exciting but your enthusiasm for the current, lacklustre, misguided attempts is disturbing.
As for content, watching Netflix is a depressing, unhappy content experience.
AR is OLD news. It has been around for years now which got its start, around 2007-2008 (?), with QR codes on books and toys. There is nothing revolutionary about it, even if Apple tries really hard to BS the customers into thinking otherwise because people will catch on to the history of that tech. I'm not misguided but rather I already know what's out there. I do graphic design/illustration work for a living and I know my industry well enough to be aware that professional creatives are already using the VR devices. That's not being misguided. That's a FACT.
Even the Navy used VR tech to design a ship a few years ago to prepare it for production. Did you know that? IF you think Apple's AR Glasses are going to do something like that, keep on dreaming. Apple would have to build an actual VR unit if they want to compete in the realm or forget it. To do that on an AR device would take up so much processing power and battery juice, one would practically have to buy an extra Anker battery pack or two for this.
There is a difference between LOOKING at wearables and making it happen already right now. If you think VR is dead, it's certainly not. The VR units are already being used in various industries whether you like it or not. AR and VR are NOT quite the same thing which people keep confusing them with preconceived notions of insular/introverted behavior versus 'outgoing' public wear. VR is an immersive tool for interacting with a virtual environment with controllers and hand detection to play games, build out 3D models, chat with others ( HoloLens is already doing that ), etc. It's not designed to be dragged outside but hooked to a PC or Mac ( if Apple ever get moving to Nvidia, that is ). AR is a heads up display that interacts with the real world environment, not to dissimilar from what you see with military pilots in their HUD helmets, or on plane dashboard, or navigation GPS on car windshields ( they're already out there in the niche market ).
VR and AR are not better or worse than each other. People need to get over themselves and get educated on those technological differences. It's like arguing digital art is better than traditional art. That's how ridiculous it is. VR is here and not going away. It's no longer a fad or trend. 20 years ago, they couldn't get it right due to tech limitations. But now? The industry has what it needs to make it work.
And if you think AR glasses are going to be acceptable in the mainstream, don't be surprised if public places, restaurants, and so on will crack down on them for privacy reasons with restrictions. If you think Apple AR glasses are going to rule the market, I have doubts. Their wearable Watch device was designed to focus on health ( a lot lately ), communicate, notify and keep track of things. The Apple AR glasses are going to have limitations.
Let me reiterate. AR from Apple's stance is not that great. There was an AR app that lets you download 3D models and place them on a surface. You could only interact on a 2D screen but if you attempt to reach out to the model, there is NO effect. Your hand simply shows up behind the model in front of the camera. IF this is the best Apple can do with AR, this is embarrassing. Every time I use an AR app, it drains the battery fast and heats up the iPhone/iPad. I know what I'm talking about because that's been my experience. These two things should NOT be happening with AR and Apple probably knew about it without mentioning it. The Goggles should've come out in the first place for this reason. There was an AR game for iOS which was like a war game of sorts with monster fighters, like a chess game, and all you can do is touch the screen and walk around the table. Seriously!?? Had the glasses come out originally with hand detection, you would've been able to 'touch' the 3D models and move them around without holding up the iOS device. But noooo, Cook wants to sit it out without having the guts to move forward. This baby steps approach to AR is very insulting.
I grew up watching Tron, Lawnmower Man, or anything related to CGI way back in the 80s, and am also a gamer. I know Apple can do much better than that and guess what? HTC Vive, Oculus, Playstation VR and other manufacturers made it a reality ( no pun intended ).
Also, as a deaf person, I know that using ASL with AR Glasses is not going to work. Why? Because some people on certain forums assume or think that's going to solve communication problems using the AR Glasses. Deaf people rely on being able to SEE each other on screen, such as FaceTime or any video chat application like a videophone that's utilized by Sorenson ( those products are free and subsidized by the government ) with relay call operators or one on one calls. The operators mediate the conversation between a deaf and hearing person, if needed. Heck, there are people out there, on other forums like here, who think an Apple Watch is going to replace the phone. They're sadly mistaken. A deaf person cannot just sign with one hand and talk to the Watch screen, holding the arm up. Do you realize how ridiculous that idea is? Now, however, if this was something similar to HoloLens and interacting in a virtual environment with avatars using sign language, then that might work but that requires an external camera.
I don't make phone calls anymore so I just mainly text or email. I read lips and hardly using ASL ( even though I know some of it, having been taught in an audist environment ). That's it. Why would I want to do that on my Glasses or Watch? That's a distraction. Especially one wouldn't be wearing them while doing work. Don't even go there with AirPods and Glasses as the next gen OS input method ( I know one user who blindly suggested it ). That's insulting because if that ever happens, deaf people can't use AirPods and Apple's proclamation on human rights and accessibility goes out the window, painting the company as a hypocrite.
(No, the AirPods do NOT replace hearing aids. Not the same thing. If you're deaf or hard of hearing, you use a hearing aid or cochlear implant, not an AirPod. A professional audiologist would say the same thing )
My point is that AR Goggles are not going to solve the problem because two deaf people need a screen to see each other. The Glasses ain't it. A smartphone, tablet, or computer does the job. The only and ONLY exception is if a hearing person uses the Glasses to 'interpret' the deaf person's sign language ( by literally standing in front of them or a short distance ), although there are people are there already working on camera technology and software to detect hand signs. Like I said, FACT. I know this demographic well enough.
The point is that Apple's AR Goggles are going to be marketed around the App Store. It's all dollar signs in Tim Cook's eyes. That's the 'potential' he was talking about despite how hard he sells that Apple wants to change the world with their products, something that Steve Jobs would NEVER say.
It would be like a photographer saying " I want to change the world with my images ". WTF? Who talks like that? You don't talk about your products, you let them speak for themselves. An artist does not talk or make excuses for their portfolio when presenting the work to an employer, exhibition or whatnot in person. The work has to speak for itself. And what does Cook and his executives do? Open their mouths before the products can speak for themselves, especially on their keynotes over the last several years now.
And lastly, this isn't the Steve Ballmer era anymore. He's GONE. It's now Satya Nadella's show. And no, the Windows in a phone argument doesn't work in this frame. Microsoft is doing a very good job these days whether you like it or not. Even if HoloLens 2 is expensive, their view on the next computing paradigm with Mixed Reality is on point. If you have never seen Ghost in the Shell or read the original manga, there's a scene where the cyborg jacks herself into a virtual network as a 'deep dive' to operate around. This is similar to what's going to happen in the future. I would rather use a VR device to make 3D sculpt/model/paintings done on Tilt Brush or Quill than screw around on Apple's AR Glasses that may have no hand detection unless they manage to put it in there which will make it more expensive and battery draining.
What exactly Apple excel at is to make 'something old and seemingly useles / gimmicky (see mobile phone, wireless headset, smart watch)' into 'something commercially useful and attractive (see iPhone, Airpods, Apple Watch).
Even if the Apple Glasses have to exert low power, it has to be less graphically intensive, letting the iPhone/iPad do the work which most likely requires Bluetooth to transmit the data, therefore still continuing to drain the battery ( that is, IF it's not graphically intensive ). Mind you, I wear glasses because due to astigmatism so I can do my work on screen, read, draw, etc. I take them off when I don't do any work and wear my shades all the time when going outside to protect the eyes. I didn't have any issues using the HTC Vive, from a demo about two years ago, without my glasses, even though with AR glasses, I expect some custom settings adjustment to create the right depth for our eyes.
So, I doubt the AR glasses will be what I want to use. Unless Apple manages to build into 'hand detection' to allow us to virtually touch objects and move/manipulate them, then maybe there is a market for the creative industry, otherwise I prefer holding an actual controller in a virtual environment to paint/sculpt. I'm expecting to attend a new AR/VR demo next month in my state here sponsored by AIGA ( American Institute for Graphic Artists ) which a guy I know locally is going to be the host speaker. This will give me a much better idea of what's coming around the corner and test out the painting apps. I'm more likely to get an Oculus, run off from a PC when and if I plan to get one ( and IF Apple drops the ball again on the desktop front ) within the next 1-2 years because Tilt Paint/Quill is a new media for me to experiment with.
I'll reiterate what I mentioned in posts in the past that I have never, EVER seen anyone locally hold up an iOS device to use a AR app. Never. If this is something Apple tried too hard to 'sell', then something is clearly not working. Do I see Apple Watches? Sure, but not everyone is using them. Not only am I an artist, I'm a competitive fencer and use a Garmin Vivosmart watch to track my HR and calories burned, besides the basic notifications with vibration. It's cheap and provides the data I need without getting distracted during practice drills or tournaments. My fencing coach wear the more recent Fitbit, but one other fencer I know has an AW. So clearly, not everyone uses the AW. It's a mixed bag. The AW is also flawed because it CANNOT see what the other hand is doing, such as my right hand holding the epee blade, or the entire body but that's a debate for another time.
In the end, it comes down to how Apple is going to frame the narrative with the AR glasses without making themselves look bad. It has to reflect the price point and provide practicality.
AR/VR is a game changer, yes and it will come to the mainstream eventually. Google messed up on that side while MS did a great job with it ( I saw a youtube video demo of their recent HoloLens 2 keynote. I was stunned at how far along they are ). On the VR side, Apple needs to get their stuff together and let Nvidia in the door for the desktop so that there is a wider variety of options. Otherwise, one would have to blow off at least $4,000 for an iMac Pro or Mac Pro to use the VR ready machines whereas with the Windows or Linux PC, you spend up to no more than $1,500 for a set up, approximately, as the base minimum. The new base iMacs ( not Pro version ), to my understanding, supposedly can do VR at $1099 and then up, but I'm concerned about the specs on these machines do it justice since they use an Intel Iris Plus Graphics 640 and Radeon Pro 560 at the max. Mind you, I still use my mid-2010 iMac but it's getting long in the tooth which is why I'm getting close to a crossroads here to either going PC to jump into the VR experiment and continue using my graphic design/illustration apps, or spend more on a new all in one iMac, although I want to migrate away from all-in-ones so I can use a bigger external monitor ( at least 25 inches or more ) for better image viewing and splitting image document panels.
But anyways, I like what MS is doing with HoloLens and think it's going to do something amazing in the next 2-5 years while Oculus VR is much cheaper now dropping to about $325 for a set that works for either Mac/Windows. And Apple's AR glasses is something that concerns me in terms of narrative and execution as I'm very confident that they're going to tie the Glasses to the App Store. Every hardware they release is tied to the App Store. So don't be surprised that any current AR app used on the iOS devices will most likely work on the Glasses unless resolution size changes and re-formatting is required of developers to rebuild from scratch.