Unlikely rumor claims development of Steve Jobs-inspired 'Apple Glass' edition

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited May 2020
Serial leaker Jon Prosser claims Apple is prototyping a special "Steve Jobs Heritage Edition" of its hotly rumored "Apple Glass" augmented reality headset, supposedly styled after the late tech guru's trademark frameless spectacles.

Jobs


Prosser aired the latest "Apple Glass" gossip on the Cult of Mac podcast on Thursday.

"They are also working on a prototype, a Steve Jobs Heritage Edition," Prosser said, saying the device is "similar to how we had an Apple Watch Edition, like that ridiculous $10,000 gold one when it first came out."

He went on to say the design will borrow from the round, rimless spectacles Jobs was keen to wear. Towards the end of his life, Jobs purchased those glasses from German company Lunor.

"Some like tribute to Steve Jobs, obviously just a pure marketing ploy at this point," Prosser said.

When asked how Apple intends to cram the electronics necessary for AR functionality into such a slim design, the leaker was less than succinct.

"So the transparent lenses. So, I have no idea how it actually works, but I know traditionally -- I say traditionally -- with current versions of AR glasses or anything like that, there's like a little thing projected into the corner of a lens," he said. "This is both lenses have displays, they're integrated displays that show you information."

Though he doesn't know it, Prosser could be describing waveguide technology, which routes graphics from an output source to one or more transparent display planes positioned in front of a user's eyes. Magic Leap uses similar hardware in its mixed reality headset. Apple holds dozens of patents covering waveguide tech (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and in fact filed a piece of related IP with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office today. Representatives from Cupertino have in the past two years met with AR suppliers that market working waveguide solutions, signaling intent to acquire technical know-how that would result in a consumer product.

Alternatively, Apple's "transparent lens technology," as Prosser calls it, could be based on assets gleaned from the company's purchase of Akonia Holographics. An AR lens specialist, Akonia was developing a technology called HoloMirror prior to its acquisition, touting the hardware as better than waveguides because it utilizes a single layer of "volume holographic media" instead multiple planes.

Whether a waveguide system or one based on Akonia's inventions can fit into a Jobs-style rimless frame is unknown. What is known, however, is the physics of modern batteries, communications equipment, interconnects and other parts necessary to realize a working AR headset. Short of revolutionary breakthroughs in multiple sciences, Apple will be unable to manufacture components small enough to fit with Prosser's claims, and almost certainly not at commodity pricing.

Moving beyond design specs, it is highly unlikely that Apple would leverage the name of its founder -- an idolized figure -- to move product. Turning Jobs into a marketing ploy would undoubtedly rile the company's fan base (and unnecessarily besmirch his name if "Apple Glass" flops) for no material gain.

In response to this week's deluge of "Apple Glass" rumors, Bloomberg's Mark Gurman in a series of tweets on Thursday called Prosser's claims "fiction."

According to Gurman, Apple plans to announce a "mixed AR and VR" headset, dubbed "N301," as early as 2021 ahead of a release in 2022. A subsequent and presumably more advanced "pure AR" device referred to internally as "N421" will launch in 2022 or 2023, Gurman said. Word of Apple's head-mounted hardware strategy -- the launch of a basic model followed by a more advanced specification -- first surfaced in a report from The Information last year.

Prosser in a recent video posted to his YouTube channel Front Page Tech warned viewers to mute their Apple Glass expectations, suggesting current concepts of what Apple plans to bring to the table are far-fetched.

Recent rumors relayed by Prosser regarding Apple's AR project include the "Apple Glass" name, integration of LiDAR technology, gesture input, prescription support and a $499 price tag.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 20
    boboliciousbobolicious Posts: 889member
    I recently went through an exhaustive design process to fabricate what would have seemed easy (round) lenses with the Silhouette frame makers. It seemed toughest to make something so simple - is less still more...? Unexpectedly strangers have offered unsolicited compliments in seeming justification of the team effort involved... That being said I have no desire for distracting AI messages being flashed in my view, let alone the potential privacy implications - the design directive in this case was in essence to make the 'glass' disappear - at what point does all this tech become self servng and 'over the top'...?

    Did Steve have a sense of what was simply obvious? Are round lenses both aesthetically/geometrically pure, and optically/historically efficacious?

    Last time I checked, human iris are round...

    edited May 2020
  • Reply 2 of 20
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member
    This sounds kind of weird and strange in my opinion.

    Would Apple really release something like this? Is it going to come with a bonus black turtle neck?

    Steve Jobs was cool, but that doesn't mean that I would want to walk around with the same kind of glasses that he was known for.

    And it doesn't sound very Apple-like to do something like this, but I could be wrong of course.

    I remember some years ago, when some company (I think it was a Hong Kong company) was going to release an extremely realistic and cool looking Steve Jobs doll/minifigure that cost over $100. I don't remember the exact cost. I actually pre-ordered one and paid for it, because I was going to display it next to my small collection of vintage Macs. Apple's lawyers ended up sending a cease and desist order to the company I believe, and the whole release ended up being cancelled. I eventually got my pre-order money back.

    And now Apple is going to have a Steve Jobs edition round glasses? Hmmmm.
    edited May 2020
  • Reply 3 of 20
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    apple ][ said:
    This sounds kind of weird and strange in my opinion.

    Would Apple really release something like this? Is it going to come with a bonus black turtle neck?

    Steve Jobs was cool, but that doesn't mean that I would want to walk around with the same kind of glasses that he was known for.

    And it doesn't sound very Apple-like to do something like this, but I could be wrong of course.

    I remember some years ago, when some company (I think it was a Hong Kong company) was going to release an extremely realistic and cool looking Steve Jobs doll/minifigure that cost over $100. I don't remember the exact cost. I actually pre-ordered one and paid for it, because I was going to display it next to my small collection of vintage Macs. Apple's lawyers ended up sending a cease and desist order to the company I believe, and the whole release ended up being cancelled. I eventually got my pre-order money back.

    And now Apple is going to have a Steve Jobs edition round glasses? Hmmmm.
    Yeah, I don’t see this happening. Apple is long past the cult of personality. It’s bad business. 
  • Reply 4 of 20
    JapheyJaphey Posts: 986member
    Nope.
    I fully expect these to be available in different finishes similar to the Apple Watch with $499 being the starting price. But there is no way they will exploit Jobs by naming a product after him. 
  • Reply 5 of 20
    digitoldigitol Posts: 246member
    Ahhh. Uh-huh... i-See.  :D 
  • Reply 6 of 20
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 1,686member
    How are they going to get that much kit into wire thin arms?

    Lets be generous any arm less then 6mm round is pure magic for a first generation product.
    But any bigger can't be even remotely similar to that design. 
    edited May 2020 apple ][
  • Reply 7 of 20
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member
    mattinoz said:
    How are they going to get that much kit into wire thin arms?

    Lets be generous any arm less then 6mm round is pure magic for a first generation product.
    But any bigger can't be even remotely similar to that design. 
    That's a good point. I hadn't even considered the tech aspects behind it.

    There's no way that they can manage to cram tech into something as thin as the arms on those glasses that SJ is wearing in the pic.

    And I'm assuming that these glasses will also have to be charged? Are they going to have a battery life of 5 minutes with that frame?

    Will they come with their own charging case, like Airpods?

    The trend these days seems to be towards thicker, plastic glasses anyway, so I am assuming that Apple will be going that route, but we shall see soon enough.
  • Reply 8 of 20
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 5,840member
    I recently went through an exhaustive design process to fabricate what would have seemed easy (round) lenses with the Silhouette frame makers. It seemed toughest to make something so simple - is less still more...? Unexpectedly strangers have offered unsolicited compliments in seeming justification of the team effort involved... That being said I have no desire for distracting AI messages being flashed in my view, let alone the potential privacy implications - the design directive in this case was in essence to make the 'glass' disappear - at what point does all this tech become self servng and 'over the top'...?

    Did Steve have a sense of what was simply obvious? Are round lenses both aesthetically/geometrically pure, and optically/historically efficacious?

    Last time I checked, human iris are round...

    I swear every one of your posts projects FUD about privacy and the overreach. Why not go off the grid already?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 20
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    I recently went through an exhaustive design process to fabricate what would have seemed easy (round) lenses with the Silhouette frame makers. It seemed toughest to make something so simple - is less still more...? Unexpectedly strangers have offered unsolicited compliments in seeming justification of the team effort involved... That being said I have no desire for distracting AI messages being flashed in my view, let alone the potential privacy implications - the design directive in this case was in essence to make the 'glass' disappear - at what point does all this tech become self servng and 'over the top'...?

    Did Steve have a sense of what was simply obvious? Are round lenses both aesthetically/geometrically pure, and optically/historically efficacious?

    Last time I checked, human iris are round...

    I swear every one of your posts projects FUD about privacy and the overreach. Why not go off the grid already?

    Weird that someone would ask "is less still more?" in a post that uses the phrase "aesthetically/geometrically pure, and optically/historically efficacious"



    fastasleepwatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 20
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 5,840member
    Rayz2016 said:
    I recently went through an exhaustive design process to fabricate what would have seemed easy (round) lenses with the Silhouette frame makers. It seemed toughest to make something so simple - is less still more...? Unexpectedly strangers have offered unsolicited compliments in seeming justification of the team effort involved... That being said I have no desire for distracting AI messages being flashed in my view, let alone the potential privacy implications - the design directive in this case was in essence to make the 'glass' disappear - at what point does all this tech become self servng and 'over the top'...?

    Did Steve have a sense of what was simply obvious? Are round lenses both aesthetically/geometrically pure, and optically/historically efficacious?

    Last time I checked, human iris are round...

    I swear every one of your posts projects FUD about privacy and the overreach. Why not go off the grid already?

    Weird that someone would ask "is less still more?" in a post that uses the phrase "aesthetically/geometrically pure, and optically/historically efficacious"
    Indeed. So many grammatical flourishes yet so little clarity as to wtf they're actually talking about. 
    edited May 2020 watto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 20
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 1,686member
    apple ][ said:
    mattinoz said:
    How are they going to get that much kit into wire thin arms?

    Lets be generous any arm less then 6mm round is pure magic for a first generation product.
    But any bigger can't be even remotely similar to that design. 
    That's a good point. I hadn't even considered the tech aspects behind it.

    There's no way that they can manage to cram tech into something as thin as the arms on those glasses that SJ is wearing in the pic.

    And I'm assuming that these glasses will also have to be charged? Are they going to have a battery life of 5 minutes with that frame?

    Will they come with their own charging case, like Airpods?

    The trend these days seems to be towards thicker, plastic glasses anyway, so I am assuming that Apple will be going that route, but we shall see soon enough.
    I guess Apple caught the leaker after this rumour or maybe got it down to a much smaller group of people. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 20
    esummersesummers Posts: 953member
    Japhey said:
    Nope.
    I fully expect these to be available in different finishes similar to the Apple Watch with $499 being the starting price. But there is no way they will exploit Jobs by naming a product after him. 
    I could see an unspoken tribute, but they would clearly need to be different to fit batteries
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 20
    boboliciousbobolicious Posts: 889member
    Rayz2016 said:
    I recently went through an exhaustive design process to fabricate what would have seemed easy (round) lenses with the Silhouette frame makers. It seemed toughest to make something so simple - is less still more...? Unexpectedly strangers have offered unsolicited compliments in seeming justification of the team effort involved... That being said I have no desire for distracting AI messages being flashed in my view, let alone the potential privacy implications - the design directive in this case was in essence to make the 'glass' disappear - at what point does all this tech become self servng and 'over the top'...?

    Did Steve have a sense of what was simply obvious? Are round lenses both aesthetically/geometrically pure, and optically/historically efficacious?

    Last time I checked, human iris are round...

    I swear every one of your posts projects FUD about privacy and the overreach. Why not go off the grid already?

    Weird that someone would ask "is less still more?" in a post that uses the phrase "aesthetically/geometrically pure, and optically/historically efficacious"
    Indeed. So many grammatical flourishes yet so little clarity as to wtf they're actually talking about. 
    To help you out - why go to all the effort to make glasses that to me suggest minimalism, clarity & invisibility and then bombard a wearer with data...?
    In terms of privacy this may be a new public realm and consumer access threshold... Do the risks outweigh the benefits ?
    A loose yet perhaps concerning portrait of the future:  https://www.netflix.com/ca/Title/80195964

    Did the use of big data and social media (Cambridge Analytica?) arguably and to many presumably unknowingly affect and effect the current political landscape, and while there are pros and cons to most outcomes, are there some stats that would seem to raise legitimate 'great' questions:
    • Number of mass shootings in the U.S. 1982-2020 | Statista

    ...and once the data horse has left the building or the genie has escaped the bottle so to speak, can it ever be recalled...? 
    edited May 2020
  • Reply 14 of 20
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,408member
    Now this sounds like disinformation leaked to someone internally to suss out the leaker.
    watto_cobrabeowulfschmidt
  • Reply 15 of 20
    iqatedoiqatedo Posts: 1,733member
    mattinoz said:
    apple ][ said:
    mattinoz said:
    How are they going to get that much kit into wire thin arms?

    Lets be generous any arm less then 6mm round is pure magic for a first generation product.
    But any bigger can't be even remotely similar to that design. 
    That's a good point. I hadn't even considered the tech aspects behind it.

    There's no way that they can manage to cram tech into something as thin as the arms on those glasses that SJ is wearing in the pic.

    And I'm assuming that these glasses will also have to be charged? Are they going to have a battery life of 5 minutes with that frame?

    Will they come with their own charging case, like Airpods?

    The trend these days seems to be towards thicker, plastic glasses anyway, so I am assuming that Apple will be going that route, but we shall see soon enough.
    I guess Apple caught the leaker after this rumour or maybe got it down to a much smaller group of people. 

  • Reply 16 of 20
    iqatedoiqatedo Posts: 1,733member
    IF it could be done, employing perhaps hearing-aid-like modules behind the ears, those glasses would be unbeatable. John Lennon had similar taste in eyewear. They could be labelled the 'Free Thinker' edition. (Lennon would be 80 in December this year. He was assassinated 40 years ago in October - how time flies.) (Edit: My original post had Lennon being assassinated 40 wars ago in October - if only that was true!)

    edited May 2020
  • Reply 17 of 20
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 5,840member
    Rayz2016 said:
    I recently went through an exhaustive design process to fabricate what would have seemed easy (round) lenses with the Silhouette frame makers. It seemed toughest to make something so simple - is less still more...? Unexpectedly strangers have offered unsolicited compliments in seeming justification of the team effort involved... That being said I have no desire for distracting AI messages being flashed in my view, let alone the potential privacy implications - the design directive in this case was in essence to make the 'glass' disappear - at what point does all this tech become self servng and 'over the top'...?

    Did Steve have a sense of what was simply obvious? Are round lenses both aesthetically/geometrically pure, and optically/historically efficacious?

    Last time I checked, human iris are round...

    I swear every one of your posts projects FUD about privacy and the overreach. Why not go off the grid already?

    Weird that someone would ask "is less still more?" in a post that uses the phrase "aesthetically/geometrically pure, and optically/historically efficacious"
    Indeed. So many grammatical flourishes yet so little clarity as to wtf they're actually talking about. 
    To help you out - why go to all the effort to make glasses that to me suggest minimalism, clarity & invisibility and then bombard a wearer with data...?
    In terms of privacy this may be a new public realm and consumer access threshold... Do the risks outweigh the benefits ?
    A loose yet perhaps concerning portrait of the future:  https://www.netflix.com/ca/Title/80195964

    Did the use of big data and social media (Cambridge Analytica?) arguably and to many presumably unknowingly affect and effect the current political landscape, and while there are pros and cons to most outcomes, are there some stats that would seem to raise legitimate 'great' questions:
    • Number of mass shootings in the U.S. 1982-2020 | Statista

    ...and once the data horse has left the building or the genie has escaped the bottle so to speak, can it ever be recalled...? 
    I really don't understand what you're talking about. Do you really not understand the difference between the outward appearance of an appliance you wear on your face and the data that it displays to the user which is invisible to the outside observer?

    And how is anything relating to this data any different than a smartphone screen or your watch which is an extension of that just as these would be? How does it affect privacy any differently than anything else — what risks exactly are you even talking about? Not sure how this has anything to do with that Netflix movie or Cambridge Analytica which is wholly unrelated to this subject, or mass shootings (WTF?). 

    We get it. You clearly fear data and technology and advancements in these areas prompt you to make seemingly endless slippery slope fallacies and allegories of dystopian doom. So, again, why do you use these things?
  • Reply 18 of 20
    boboliciousbobolicious Posts: 889member
    Rayz2016 said:
    I recently went through an exhaustive design process to fabricate what would have seemed easy (round) lenses with the Silhouette frame makers. It seemed toughest to make something so simple - is less still more...? Unexpectedly strangers have offered unsolicited compliments in seeming justification of the team effort involved... That being said I have no desire for distracting AI messages being flashed in my view, let alone the potential privacy implications - the design directive in this case was in essence to make the 'glass' disappear - at what point does all this tech become self servng and 'over the top'...?

    Did Steve have a sense of what was simply obvious? Are round lenses both aesthetically/geometrically pure, and optically/historically efficacious?

    Last time I checked, human iris are round...

    I swear every one of your posts projects FUD about privacy and the overreach. Why not go off the grid already?

    Weird that someone would ask "is less still more?" in a post that uses the phrase "aesthetically/geometrically pure, and optically/historically efficacious"
    Indeed. So many grammatical flourishes yet so little clarity as to wtf they're actually talking about. 
    To help you out - why go to all the effort to make glasses that to me suggest minimalism, clarity & invisibility and then bombard a wearer with data...?
    In terms of privacy this may be a new public realm and consumer access threshold... Do the risks outweigh the benefits ?
    A loose yet perhaps concerning portrait of the future:  https://www.netflix.com/ca/Title/80195964

    Did the use of big data and social media (Cambridge Analytica?) arguably and to many presumably unknowingly affect and effect the current political landscape, and while there are pros and cons to most outcomes, are there some stats that would seem to raise legitimate 'great' questions:
    • Number of mass shootings in the U.S. 1982-2020 | Statista

    ...and once the data horse has left the building or the genie has escaped the bottle so to speak, can it ever be recalled...? 
    I really don't understand what you're talking about. Do you really not understand the difference between the outward appearance of an appliance you wear on your face and the data that it displays to the user which is invisible to the outside observer?

    And how is anything relating to this data any different than a smartphone screen or your watch which is an extension of that just as these would be? How does it affect privacy any differently than anything else — what risks exactly are you even talking about? Not sure how this has anything to do with that Netflix movie or Cambridge Analytica which is wholly unrelated to this subject, or mass shootings (WTF?). 

    We get it. You clearly fear data and technology and advancements in these areas prompt you to make seemingly endless slippery slope fallacies and allegories of dystopian doom. So, again, why do you use these things?

    If these are what I expect they will be - real time viewing monitors connected to Apple servers with live data stream - is this a quantum leap into personal behaviour and environments?  I actually find it hard to understand why so many don't seem to forsee the potential of this?  Would it be like keeping a live iPhone video streaming link to Apple servers everywhere one goes? If I walked down the street with my iPhone held up videoing the public would I be asked to stop? I have had people ask me not to take photos in the public realm while they walked by. The watch may give personal location and biometrics however does Apple Glass potentially redefine 'surveillance'...?

    A few links for consideration:

    While one can't obviously know what goes on behind the scenes and let's assume Apple is genuine in it's intent in representations, once the 'horse has left the building' what can truly be done to recall the data? Does it then become a prized target as suggested prior, and like face images that a friend put into their Apple Contacts app and then uploaded to iCloud without a contacts' knowledge become some grey zone that the Patriot Act and other less favourable foreign interlopers might find valuable?

    And you ask why do I use these things? Well I was told by a long time forend years ago 'you are the only person I know who doesn't have a cell phone' and urged to buy one. It is expected. In use almost all privacy settings are maxed out, and my phone is only on when needed. I have no watch, nor homepod, and am cautious. Yet does tech have the upper hand with so many not caring or perhaps understanding, giving up so much for eCommerce ? There is of course cash, registered domains, FTP, sync.com, VPN, encryption, S/MIME and avoiding social media (although perhaps would seem moot), and moving to open source where one can, although so many have adopted FB for commerce offering no other option - perhaps 'winning'... Are the short term attractions of 'web 2.0' not unlike the issue of risks in climate change? Pay now or pay later? Has eCommerce (eg. Amazon) been handed a big data gift in a pandemic lockdown environment ?

    Do you read the voluminous EULA you agree to ? Do you have your legal team review such to balance the corporate scale ?
    Does all of this in day to day terms redefine both 'freedom' and 'choice' ?

    In fact I sincerely hope you are correct...
    edited May 2020
  • Reply 19 of 20
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 5,840member
    Rayz2016 said:
    I recently went through an exhaustive design process to fabricate what would have seemed easy (round) lenses with the Silhouette frame makers. It seemed toughest to make something so simple - is less still more...? Unexpectedly strangers have offered unsolicited compliments in seeming justification of the team effort involved... That being said I have no desire for distracting AI messages being flashed in my view, let alone the potential privacy implications - the design directive in this case was in essence to make the 'glass' disappear - at what point does all this tech become self servng and 'over the top'...?

    Did Steve have a sense of what was simply obvious? Are round lenses both aesthetically/geometrically pure, and optically/historically efficacious?

    Last time I checked, human iris are round...

    I swear every one of your posts projects FUD about privacy and the overreach. Why not go off the grid already?

    Weird that someone would ask "is less still more?" in a post that uses the phrase "aesthetically/geometrically pure, and optically/historically efficacious"
    Indeed. So many grammatical flourishes yet so little clarity as to wtf they're actually talking about. 
    To help you out - why go to all the effort to make glasses that to me suggest minimalism, clarity & invisibility and then bombard a wearer with data...?
    In terms of privacy this may be a new public realm and consumer access threshold... Do the risks outweigh the benefits ?
    A loose yet perhaps concerning portrait of the future:  https://www.netflix.com/ca/Title/80195964

    Did the use of big data and social media (Cambridge Analytica?) arguably and to many presumably unknowingly affect and effect the current political landscape, and while there are pros and cons to most outcomes, are there some stats that would seem to raise legitimate 'great' questions:
    • Number of mass shootings in the U.S. 1982-2020 | Statista

    ...and once the data horse has left the building or the genie has escaped the bottle so to speak, can it ever be recalled...? 
    I really don't understand what you're talking about. Do you really not understand the difference between the outward appearance of an appliance you wear on your face and the data that it displays to the user which is invisible to the outside observer?

    And how is anything relating to this data any different than a smartphone screen or your watch which is an extension of that just as these would be? How does it affect privacy any differently than anything else — what risks exactly are you even talking about? Not sure how this has anything to do with that Netflix movie or Cambridge Analytica which is wholly unrelated to this subject, or mass shootings (WTF?). 

    We get it. You clearly fear data and technology and advancements in these areas prompt you to make seemingly endless slippery slope fallacies and allegories of dystopian doom. So, again, why do you use these things?

    If these are what I expect they will be - real time viewing monitors connected to Apple servers with live data stream - is this a quantum leap into personal behaviour and environments?  I actually find it hard to understand why so many don't seem to forsee the potential of this?  Would it be like keeping a live iPhone video streaming link to Apple servers everywhere one goes? If I walked down the street with my iPhone held up videoing the public would I be asked to stop? I have had people ask me not to take photos in the public realm while they walked by. The watch may give personal location and biometrics however does Apple Glass potentially redefine 'surveillance'...?

    A few links for consideration:

    While one can't obviously know what goes on behind the scenes and let's assume Apple is genuine in it's intent in representations, once the 'horse has left the building' what can truly be done to recall the data? Does it then become a prized target as suggested prior, and like face images that a friend put into their Apple Contacts app and then uploaded to iCloud without a contacts' knowledge become some grey zone that the Patriot Act and other less favourable foreign interlopers might find valuable?

    And you ask why do I use these things? Well I was told by a long time forend years ago 'you are the only person I know who doesn't have a cell phone' and urged to buy one. It is expected. In use almost all privacy settings are maxed out, and my phone is only on when needed. I have no watch, nor homepod, and am cautious. Yet does tech have the upper hand with so many not caring or perhaps understanding, giving up so much for eCommerce ? There is of course cash, registered domains, FTP, sync.com, VPN, encryption, S/MIME and avoiding social media (although perhaps would seem moot), and moving to open source where one can, although so many have adopted FB for commerce offering no other option - perhaps 'winning'... Are the short term attractions of 'web 2.0' not unlike the issue of risks in climate change? Pay now or pay later? Has eCommerce (eg. Amazon) been handed a big data gift in a pandemic lockdown environment ?

    Do you read the voluminous EULA you agree to ? Do you have your legal team review such to balance the corporate scale ?
    Does all of this in day to day terms redefine both 'freedom' and 'choice' ?

    In fact I sincerely hope you are correct...
    The first half of this sounds like you think there are cameras on this headset, which if you read the article is not the case.

    The rest ... well, yeah we get it — you're very skeptical of data and privacy and technology, hence my question as to why you use it or are even here when most of your comments are speculative fear mongering. I use technology because I enjoy it and it improves my quality of life, and I'm not particularly paranoid about these issues. If you have a state-sponsored actor interested in you, you have far bigger problems to worry about.
  • Reply 20 of 20
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,602member
    apple ][ said:

    I remember some years ago, when some company (I think it was a Hong Kong company) was going to release an extremely realistic and cool looking Steve Jobs doll/minifigure that cost over $100. I don't remember the exact cost. I actually pre-ordered one and paid for it, because I was going to display it next to my small collection of vintage Macs. Apple's lawyers ended up sending a cease and desist order to the company I believe, and the whole release ended up being cancelled. I eventually got my pre-order money back.

    And now Apple is going to have a Steve Jobs edition round glasses? Hmmmm.
    That's not quite the same thing.  People retain their own image rights even after death, although I'm a little surprised that Apple had the legal right to stop it.  It seems to me that Laurene Powell Jobs would of had to imitate legal proceedings, although when Apple's lawyers go after a small company, they have no choice but to concede because defending the lawsuit would cost a fortune.  

    But Apple could not stop anyone from making black turtlenecks and they can't stop anyone from making eyeglasses similar to Jobs' because those things have nothing to do with Jobs' image rights.   Aren't Jobs' glasses very similar to what John Lennon wore much of the time?   They're "granny glasses" - quite common actually.   Personally, I love the look of granny glasses, but they don't look good on my face.  

    In any case, I can't even stand the interruptions that appear on my iPhone, even though I've asked for most of them.   When people, even family members, send me messages and the phone beeps, I instinctively think, "leave me alone!"   I certainly wouldn't want to see those things in my field of vision.   On the other hand, having glasses that could do instantaneous translation of signs, etc., would be great when doing international traveling.   I also think there could be some safety issues if people use such glasses while driving.  I also have to wonder how well they work for people who wear progressive lenses,  bi-focals or trifocals.   
Sign In or Register to comment.