While Meta has announced a four-year plan and says it will release an updated Meta Quest 3 before the end of 2023, that headset is a Virtual Reality (VR) one. An AR headset requires a user to be able to see both digital content created in the headset, and the real world around the user -- just as Apple Vision Pro does.
Meta still expects to have an internal-only demonstration AR headset, codenamed Orion, for use in 2024. But The Information says that version will continue to use Plessey's failed microLED displays because Meta is too far along to alter the design.
For Artemis, the public AR headset now expected in 2027, Meta has cut back on components including switching to glass instead of the much more expensive silicon carbide. But a glass headset will have a reduced field of view compared to Meta's earlier headsets.
...
... The VP is also meant to be worn all day at your desk as a work a device, or a few hours while mobile. ...
... That really means driving users to wear it all day, like putting on work clothes is meant to be worn all day.
To be perfectly honest, that sounds quite horrible, dystopian even.
Why? What's dystopian about it?
Apple put in a lenticular front display, with something like 20 display angles, and are realtime simulating what your eyes are doing. You blink, the display shows you blinking. Your eyeballs are looking at one direction, the displays shows you looking at that direction. You don't do that if the device is only to be worn 1 to 2 hours a day while alone at your desk. It's meant to be worn all day, like a computer is used all day, in various environments where you will be interacting with people, eye-to-eye.
Oh, that's right. I forgot that Apple invented EyeSight™.
Anyway, thanks for reminding me about that. I can add "creepy" to the list.
So, why do you think it will be dystopian and creepy?
While Meta has announced a four-year plan and says it will release an updated Meta Quest 3 before the end of 2023, that headset is a Virtual Reality (VR) one. An AR headset requires a user to be able to see both digital content created in the headset, and the real world around the user -- just as Apple Vision Pro does.
Meta still expects to have an internal-only demonstration AR headset, codenamed Orion, for use in 2024. But The Information says that version will continue to use Plessey's failed microLED displays because Meta is too far along to alter the design.
For Artemis, the public AR headset now expected in 2027, Meta has cut back on components including switching to glass instead of the much more expensive silicon carbide. But a glass headset will have a reduced field of view compared to Meta's earlier headsets.
...
... The VP is also meant to be worn all day at your desk as a work a device, or a few hours while mobile. ...
... That really means driving users to wear it all day, like putting on work clothes is meant to be worn all day.
To be perfectly honest, that sounds quite horrible, dystopian even.
Why? What's dystopian about it?
Apple put in a lenticular front display, with something like 20 display angles, and are realtime simulating what your eyes are doing. You blink, the display shows you blinking. Your eyeballs are looking at one direction, the displays shows you looking at that direction. You don't do that if the device is only to be worn 1 to 2 hours a day while alone at your desk. It's meant to be worn all day, like a computer is used all day, in various environments where you will be interacting with people, eye-to-eye.
Oh, that's right. I forgot that Apple invented EyeSight™.
Anyway, thanks for reminding me about that. I can add "creepy" to the list.
So, why do you think it will be dystopian and creepy?
I just do.
The idea and image of people sitting or standing around with this thing strapped to their faces, especially if they are physically "with" other people in the same vicinity, and "looking" at each other through simulated/projected eyes. Just weird.
I like seeing people's faces (and their real eyes). There's something less than human about an intermediate device conveying their eyes. Yuck.
Maybe millions—even hundreds of millions—of people will be doing this. But, if so, I don't want to be around them.
It's sad (and dystopian) enough to see people with their faces buried in their phones while sitting in the sauna, on gym equipment, walking their dogs, at a restaurant with other people at their table, and much more. This is a whole new level.
Weird sure. It's not like a VR headset, headphones or shades though. Those things isolate wearers to varying degrees from the outside environment. A person wearing noise cancellation headphones can't hear you. You don't know if someone wearing shades is listening to you. Obviously, a VR headset w/o pass-through means the wearers can't see you.
The Vision Pro ostensibly is like a hat or rather huge eye glasses (ski googles), a big strange thing on someone's head where the wearer can hear you and see you while you can see that they are looking at you (or somewhere else) and you know that they can hear you. The front display has to do a very good job at showing a person's eyes. We will have to see it person to see how good it is, but it is the type of thing that can be improved with advances in technology, and could become indistinguishable from a wearer's actual eyes after of few rounds of tech improvements. So, weird, but it can become normalized if utility is there.
You have to be able to eat with them on for it to be something worn long term though. Not sure if the pass-through cameras will enable wearers to see their noses, and mostly in focus. The cameras are there for it, but it has to be able to focus and directionally accurate on something couple of inches away.
As for dystopian, well, there aren't any real negative consequences imo, and I think you have to have negative consequences to qualify as dystopian. If it is popular, it's just going to be different from what came before, I'm not sure what negative thing is going to happen. Some people will have RSI on their necks, and that's probably worse than your wrists.
It's interesting that you can't imagine any real negative consequences. Okay.
It would be more helpful if you actually described what negative consequences you think there are.
Your responses to my questions regarding what's dystopic about it haven't been very forthcoming. The only answer I got from you is that you won't like seeing them on people's faces, and want to see people's real eyes. A dystopia implies this behavior will have negative consequences to society. Not liking to see them on people's faces isn't saying anything about how it will hurt society.
Me? It's just going to be people around a table or hallway having a discussion with goggles on. They are communicating no different from before. Just like today where people are in a meeting, lunch today, or hallway with their headphones on or phones in hand. And just like in the past where people who don't want to be in the conversation are daydreaming or thinking about something else rather than paying attention.
They may be 3 years behind in technology, but they're ahead on price. Until a follow-up to the Vision Pro is significantly cheaper - like under $1k - it won't gain mass market appeal.
That's over-simplifying the situation. You're thinking about average consumers. What about hospitals, engineers, scientists, educators where buying equipment is a company expense, not a personal expense?
I've heard this from multiple people. It may play out this way. That said, Apple has always been a consumer company, not an enterprise company. These are very different worlds. If Apple makes this a foray into the various verticals and enterprise spaces like you've listed, great. But it's not been Apple's past nor, I would say, its strength.
Apple wasn’t a smartphone, tablet, watch, or CPU company until they were, getting into and disrupting the old guard in those areas is something a vertical company like Apple, can do at any time, and that is what makes them a great company to invest in.
I see that you missed the point. Nice.
Your examples fail. Phone, tablet, and watch are consumer products. Used in and by businesses? Sure. But fundamentally consumer products. Apple executed these very well as consumer products and some people use them in business. They are solidly within Apple's core competencies.
CPU/silicon...this is a bit different. Apple has been designing its own chips for decades. It's just part of their engineering and design skills no different than software and the motherboard designs and the physical hardware designs. This is not really anything new. They aren't in the CPU "business" or "company" per se. Not like AMD or Intel.
Consumer and business/enterprise are two completely different beasts. Apple has tried in enterprise before (remember Xserve or whatever it was called?) Consumer is Apple's "wheelhouse."
Could they play in the enterprise? Maybe. Will they? Doubtful. They've never led with this for sure. Phone is used that way largely because of the movement of companies toward BYOP (Bring Your Own Phone). People already had iPhones and started using them for their work also. Watch is still consumer. Tablet is being used in some more specialized enterprise applications. But again started as consumer.
You missed the point many on this site and many other tech sites said Apple can’t do anything with CPUs let Intel handle it, yet they do, many also said they can’t make smart phones but they do, when you control a OS your OS, and you have the ability to make design and engineer chips soc chips yes you can move into other areas if you so desire to do so, Apple is on the verge of creating a whole new ecosystem out of nothing, yes Apple can do servers if they choose to do so, that’s what being a vertical computing company means.
Intel, AMD, and Nvidia have been disrupted by Apple Silicon (which the Apple Vision Pro will clearly demonstrate again next year) and as time goes on being just a chip company without an in house operating system will leave them even further behind.
Silly comparison. Both will serve vastly different markets and applications. There are plenty of reasons Meta went with an affordable, easy to iterate on, design. I don't see Apple making a Vision headset for $800 - $1000 with the same specs & components it has now.
In addition to all the stuff discussed here -- with valid points on both sides -- Meta seems to be promoting little more than games and the Metaverse where "people" can wander around and do... I don't know what, actually. Apple has a vision of VR being useful in so many ways, and is laying a foundation for all kinds of uses most of us haven't even thought of yet. So I think Meta vs Apple is truly "apples to oranges".
They may be 3 years behind in technology, but they're ahead on price. Until a follow-up to the Vision Pro is significantly cheaper - like under $1k - it won't gain mass market appeal.
It doesn’t ever have to have mass market appeal to be a successful product. Ferrari is successful, but not mass market. This can be a luxury product for people who want it, or a practical product for engineers, technicians and business. I can certainly imagine this being used as an AR training tool for technicians and mechanics (something that Microsoft’s HoloLens was supposed to do). Architects and kitchen remodelers will use it to visualize what the new kitchen looks like. Windows and Mac 3D modeling software will output files that can be read by the VisionPro, for walkthroughs of buildings, chemical plants, amusement park rides, etc. These applications exist today, but the visual resolution, refresh rate and field of view have been lacking. The VisionPro seems to be way better at all of this than any other headset.
I’ve heard that the 3D videos and photos that are taken by the VisionPro have a profound emotional impact on people. This may make it a very compelling purchase for a lot of people, especially if 3rd parties build cameras that can take these 3D videos without needing the VisionPro on your face. And reviewers have said that this may become the BEST way to watch a movie while traveling.
The first version will be in short supply and Apple will sell out and be backlogged. People will see it in person at Apple stores and lust over it, vowing to save up to buy one. Will it be ubiquitous like an iPhone? No. But 5 yrs from now I bet we see at least 10% of air travelers using these on planes.
They may be 3 years behind in technology, but they're ahead on price. Until a follow-up to the Vision Pro is significantly cheaper - like under $1k - it won't gain mass market appeal.
How'd that work out for iPhone, being significantly more expensive than competitors' offerings?
Comments
The Vision Pro ostensibly is like a hat or rather huge eye glasses (ski googles), a big strange thing on someone's head where the wearer can hear you and see you while you can see that they are looking at you (or somewhere else) and you know that they can hear you. The front display has to do a very good job at showing a person's eyes. We will have to see it person to see how good it is, but it is the type of thing that can be improved with advances in technology, and could become indistinguishable from a wearer's actual eyes after of few rounds of tech improvements. So, weird, but it can become normalized if utility is there.
You have to be able to eat with them on for it to be something worn long term though. Not sure if the pass-through cameras will enable wearers to see their noses, and mostly in focus. The cameras are there for it, but it has to be able to focus and directionally accurate on something couple of inches away.
As for dystopian, well, there aren't any real negative consequences imo, and I think you have to have negative consequences to qualify as dystopian. If it is popular, it's just going to be different from what came before, I'm not sure what negative thing is going to happen. Some people will have RSI on their necks, and that's probably worse than your wrists.
Your responses to my questions regarding what's dystopic about it haven't been very forthcoming. The only answer I got from you is that you won't like seeing them on people's faces, and want to see people's real eyes. A dystopia implies this behavior will have negative consequences to society. Not liking to see them on people's faces isn't saying anything about how it will hurt society.
Me? It's just going to be people around a table or hallway having a discussion with goggles on. They are communicating no different from before. Just like today where people are in a meeting, lunch today, or hallway with their headphones on or phones in hand. And just like in the past where people who don't want to be in the conversation are daydreaming or thinking about something else rather than paying attention.
Intel, AMD, and Nvidia have been disrupted by Apple Silicon (which the Apple Vision Pro will clearly demonstrate again next year) and as time goes on being just a chip company without an in house operating system will leave them even further behind.