'Apple Glass' details leaked, will cost $499 and work with prescriptions

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 95
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member
    I've always been against leakers and I have even suggested strip searching all workers before when many leaks were coming out of Chinese suppliers.

    It's pretty obvious that there has to be some inside source or a mole that this leaker is getting their very detailed information from. How else would they be able to have seen an actual prototype of it? How many people would even have access to such a prototype?

    The guy in the video said that Apple had shadow banned their podcast and that Phil Schiller had blocked him on Twitter, so I'm not buying the theory that this is Apple leaking it through a third party source. Apple would like to announce this in one of their events in my opinion.

    Having said that, these glasses seem to be very interesting and the price seems to be quite reasonable too. A regular pair of glasses costs many hundreds of dollars. Apple glasses with built in tech for $499 seems to be very cheap. 

    I don't know much about AR or virtual reality, but I'm not going to dismiss these glasses, because past history has shown that those who doubt Apple's new products end up looking like complete fools and slobbering morons, almost every single time without fail.

    I look forward to seeing Apple actually announcing these things and hearing more details about it, but not from any leakers.

    This is a whole new product category for Apple. This is big. Look at how mad Steve Jobs got when there was that huge iPhone leak a while back, when some Apple employee forgot their unreleased iPhone in a bar. I want to see Tim Cook get equally mad about all of these current leaks that we've been seeing.

    I want to see raids on homes, I want to see police and the tech police busting down doors of the homes of the leakers. I want to see prison time. I want to see action.


    edited May 2020 SpamSandwich
  • Reply 62 of 95
    tobiantobian Posts: 135member
    If this is true, Apple will dominate AR glass market! Jeez I'm so excited!! This form of glasses cures all my concerns about todays concepts - eyes visible, no camera, yet LiDAR sensing.. this would be marvelous product I would like to buy! : )
  • Reply 63 of 95
    JapheyJaphey Posts: 1,432member
    apple ][ said:
    I've always been against leakers and I have even suggested strip searching all workers before when many leaks were coming out of Chinese suppliers.

    It's pretty obvious that there has to be some inside source or a mole that this leaker is getting their very detailed information from. How else would they be able to have seen an actual prototype of it? How many people would even have access to such a prototype?

    The guy in the video said that Apple had shadow banned their podcast and that Phil Schiller had blocked him on Twitter, so I'm not buying the theory that this is Apple leaking it through a third party source. Apple would like to announce this in one of their events in my opinion.

    Having said that, these glasses seem to be very interesting and the price seems to be quite reasonable too. A regular pair of glasses costs many hundreds of dollars. Apple glasses with built in tech for $499 seems to be very cheap. 

    I don't know much about AR or virtual reality, but I'm not going to dismiss these glasses, because past history has shown that those who doubt Apple's new products end up looking like complete fools and slobbering morons, almost every single time without fail.

    I look forward to seeing Apple actually announcing these things and hearing more details about it, but not from any leakers.

    This is a whole new product category for Apple. This is big. Look at how mad Steve Jobs got when there was that huge iPhone leak a while back, when some Apple employee forgot their unreleased iPhone in a bar. I want to see Tim Cook get equally mad about all of these current leaks that we've been seeing.

    I want to see raids on homes, I want to see police and the tech police busting down doors of the homes of the leakers. I want to see prison time. I want to see action.


    Damn. Why not order a drone strike while you’re at it? Or maybe send in a wet team. Joking aside, I agree with everything you said. 
  • Reply 64 of 95
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 1,947member
    Apple iGlasses all the old people will call them I can hear it now.

    curious this sounds like it will be Apple first handed product well assuming the liar placement biases the product functionality.  So lefties will need the gesture in their main field of vision while righties get to sideline them. 
  • Reply 65 of 95
    firelockfirelock Posts: 232member
    jd_in_sb said:
    I can’t imagine a use for this. I wish they would leak that info. 
    The same thing was said in these very forums during the rumor seasons leading to the original iPhone, for the iPad, and for the Apple Watch.

    We'll see how it goes together.
    I’m old enough to remember when cell phones first became widely available in the 90’s. Nearly everyone I knew said the same thing: “Why would I want to carry a phone with me all of the time?” And “I don’t want to be bothered with calls when I’m out.”
    cornchipStrangeDays
  • Reply 66 of 95
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 2,834member
    JinTech said:
    lkrupp said:
    Let’s see if a killer app emerges that will jump start sales. In addition people are very particular about their eyewear in terms of styling. It’s very personal and I hope Apple offers different styles. If it’s a one-style-size-fits-all that could be a hinderance to adoption.
    I don't think there needs to be a killer app to jump start sales. I mean five, almost six generations into the Watch, there really isn't a killer app, just the actual hardware. Sure the health apps but that is really just taking advantage of the OS and the hardware feature set. I can see (no pun intended) the same thing happening with Glass.

    I totally agree. Or put another way, Watch, AirPods, and Glass are themselves "killer apps" for the Apple meta-platform / ecosystem.

    Another way to think of Glass is as a HUD for your iPhone. You can read a text message without taking out your phone or even raising your wrist.

    Having said that, I suspect the uses that will be most compelling are navigation, health/exercise, measurement, and finding lost stuff.  
    SpamSandwichJinTechcornchip
  • Reply 67 of 95
    cyberzombiecyberzombie Posts: 257member
    This is going to be one of those Apple products that belongs in a list along with the G4 Cube, Pippin, Newton (etc...). Well, let's hope it does because I can already see this thing making car accident rates hit new levels.
    An Apple Glasses product that is able to selectively block specific areas on the glass (requires glasses made with very fast phase change material) would be great for driving. No need to reduce glare via polarized lenses - just black out that direct spot. Stare at the sun without issues... you see a small black spot where it should be.
    edited May 2020
  • Reply 68 of 95
    JinTechJinTech Posts: 948member
    blastdoor said:
    JinTech said:
    lkrupp said:
    Let’s see if a killer app emerges that will jump start sales. In addition people are very particular about their eyewear in terms of styling. It’s very personal and I hope Apple offers different styles. If it’s a one-style-size-fits-all that could be a hinderance to adoption.
    I don't think there needs to be a killer app to jump start sales. I mean five, almost six generations into the Watch, there really isn't a killer app, just the actual hardware. Sure the health apps but that is really just taking advantage of the OS and the hardware feature set. I can see (no pun intended) the same thing happening with Glass.

    I totally agree. Or put another way, Watch, AirPods, and Glass are themselves "killer apps" for the Apple meta-platform / ecosystem.

    Another way to think of Glass is as a HUD for your iPhone. You can read a text message without taking out your phone or even raising your wrist.

    Having said that, I suspect the uses that will be most compelling are navigation, health/exercise, measurement, and finding lost stuff.  
    Absolutely.

    I am eager to see how Apple will implement health into this product. It's my hope that they get into the vision sector of health. I have a friend who works at a Warby Parker store, and even though it's retail, they are still required to become opticians...which is a huge process and requires a large amount of technical eye/vision knowledge. 
  • Reply 69 of 95
    thrangthrang Posts: 943member
    jd_in_sb said:
    I can’t imagine a use for this. I wish they would leak that info. 
    I've always throught the initial thrust would be more vertical markets - things like manufacturing, healthcare, law enforcement, retail, etc. Things were augmenting live visuals with data sources would be of the greatest benefit.  
  • Reply 70 of 95
    thrang said:
    jd_in_sb said:
    I can’t imagine a use for this. I wish they would leak that info. 
    I've always throught the initial thrust would be more vertical markets - things like manufacturing, healthcare, law enforcement, retail, etc. Things were augmenting live visuals with data sources would be of the greatest benefit.  
    Yeah. So far I have yet to see much that is particularly compelling for the consumer market. That could certainly change, of course, and I’m at least interested to see where it goes. Personally, I wouldn’t have much interest in a $500 product that allows me to see Mickey Mouse on the sidewalk near me or lets me view virtual furniture in my living room. For me it would need to be much more than that.

    Along those AR lines, though, I was recently at Disney World and in the new Star Wars Land. It’s easy enough to imagine Disney adding laser blasts, flying debris, enhanced explosions, that sort of thing, that would only be seen while wearing AR glasses and would be cool way to enhance an outdoor show. Again, that would have to be a use that was on top of whatever the primary thrust of the product would be.
    stoneygcgWerksrossb2
  • Reply 71 of 95
    stoneygstoneyg Posts: 43member
    With how Apple used replaceable bands to allow personalization of Apple Watch, I could see them having a few standard frame styles/colors, with the ability to easily swap out the arms with a number of options. Possibly some type of magnetic connector/hinge to make that easy and also less prone to breaking. It would be amazing if you could get battery in there as well to add to your run time for the display.

    Although if all the radios and processing are housed there then that makes replacing those unlikely.
  • Reply 72 of 95
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,843member
    fastasleep said:
    ... why? All of this falls in line with previous rumors for the last few years.
    Because at least there is some hope of people putting down/away their damn phones once in a while. The last thing we need is for everyone to be directly distracted by their glasses.

    boxcatcher said:
    Why? Because I have a very hard time believing that a small LiDAR sensor would be capable of much, especially at ranges >5 feet.
    Well, I suppose it depends on the goal. You don't need a camera to pop up alerts or location-based notifications and data, or stuff like that.
    Also, it could be a v1 Trojan Horse to get the basic concept popularized, and THEN start adding the creepy stuff later.

    firelock said:
    I’m old enough to remember when cell phones first became widely available in the 90’s. Nearly everyone I knew said the same thing: “Why would I want to carry a phone with me all of the time?” And “I don’t want to be bothered with calls when I’m out.”
    I'm old enough too... and I don't recall that. Could be my memory going, though, I suppose. :wink: 

    ihatescreennames said:
    Yeah. So far I have yet to see much that is particularly compelling for the consumer market. ... Personally, I wouldn’t have much interest in a $500 product that allows me to see Mickey Mouse on the sidewalk near me or lets me view virtual furniture in my living room. For me it would need to be much more than that. ...
    Hopefully it would be more than the kind of stuff they use to show it off. It reminds me of all the time wasted showing how you can send animated hearts between Apple Watches. Made for a pretty demo, and was probably cool the first time two new Apple Watch owners did it, but it took a while for actual useful stuff to start appearing. And, did Apple even have some of it in mind when they introduced it?
  • Reply 73 of 95
    XedXed Posts: 1,516member
    cgWerks said:
    firelock said:
    I’m old enough to remember when cell phones first became widely available in the 90’s. Nearly everyone I knew said the same thing: “Why would I want to carry a phone with me all of the time?” And “I don’t want to be bothered with calls when I’m out.”
    I'm old enough too... and I don't recall that. Could be my memory going, though, I suppose. :wink: 
    I recall that. That obviously wasn't everyone's sentiment, and clearly not a general sentiment that stuck, but it was touted. Even now I certainly don't want to be bothered by random calls when I'm out, so I'm glad that I can push unknown callers to VM, so it's possible I may have said or at least thought the same thing until such time as the cost-benefit tipped in my favor to make it a worthwhile solution.
    cgWerks
  • Reply 74 of 95
    JinTech said:
    wattouk said:
    I’m excited for this product, it would be handy with directions and other things.

    Surely the only thing they can name it is iSight???
    iGlasses. You’re welcome. I take checks.
    um Prosser already said Apple were going to call them Glass. 
    That's a detail about which I'm skeptical for the moment.  The rest is at least plausible (if only because I WANT THEM NOW DAMNIT), but "Apple Glass" is too reminiscent of "Google Glass" and I think Apple will try to avoid comparisons as much as possible.

    I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

    I suppose it's too much to hope for ball lenses, or lenses that can change prescription. 🤪
    edited May 2020
  • Reply 75 of 95
    hentaiboy said:
    Can’t respect leaks from someone that sounds like Fozzie Bear 🐻 
    Are you kidding me!? That increases his respect from where I sit. Fozzie was the bomb growing up (well, him and Beeker)!!
    Animal.
    cgWerks
  • Reply 76 of 95
    Wait... $499 for AR glasses vs. $2500 MS Hololens?  When has AAPL been cheaper than MS?
  • Reply 77 of 95
    jdb8167jdb8167 Posts: 624member
    Japhey said:
    sabos said:
    Did Apple learn nothing from the Google “glass-hole” debacle? The issue with these isn’t technical, it’s social. The backlash against people wearing cameras on their faces in public spaces was a genuine phenomenon and a notable Internet meme. These will get banned by businesses and in many public places where people will fear being recorded and photographed. And wearing them will create an “us against them” dynamic that will undoubtedly boil over into physical altercations. When combined with the complexity of providing multiple styles, and the high replacement cost, I think these thing have a limited future. No better than Apple Watch, and probably much, much worse.
    “ Phenomenon”? 
    Did Google actually sell that many pairs of those things to warrant a phenomenon? Or did it really happen only a few times, then get artificially magnified by every journalist and blogger in the tech sphere?
    Quick poll here: how many people here ever actually saw a pair of Google Glass in the wild? I consider the members of this forum with more than a 1 post history to be way above average when it comes to tech knowledge and savvy. So, if more than a couple of them have actually seen them in person, then I will buy your phenomenon theory. 
    I’ve seen a coworker who had a pair of Google Glasses. He didn’t use them as far as I know but did bring them into work once. I played with them for about 10 minutes. The display was not impressive. Of course, this was in a group of software developers and he bought a pair hoping to find the next big thing. I think he realized that Google Glass wasn’t it after he received his pair.
    rossb2
  • Reply 78 of 95
    jdb8167jdb8167 Posts: 624member
    firelock said:
    jd_in_sb said:
    I can’t imagine a use for this. I wish they would leak that info. 
    The same thing was said in these very forums during the rumor seasons leading to the original iPhone, for the iPad, and for the Apple Watch.

    We'll see how it goes together.
    I’m old enough to remember when cell phones first became widely available in the 90’s. Nearly everyone I knew said the same thing: “Why would I want to carry a phone with me all of the time?” And “I don’t want to be bothered with calls when I’m out.”
    I bought a relatively early version of the Motorola microTac in the early-90’s. I had no intention of using it as a phone but I was hopeful that I could use it as wireless modem. This is back in the days when cell phones were still analog radios and it didn’t work at all. On the few times that I was able to get a connection it was about 110 baud which even for 1992-1994 was incredibly slow. But I discovered that always having a cell phone with me was very useful.

    When Sprint PCS came out around 1995 with included US long distance without extra fees, I dumped my home phone and have been wireless ever since. Young people probably have no idea that back then calling beyond your local area code and sometimes just beyond your local exchange could cost upwards of $1/minute. Being always available from anywhere in the US for one price was the killer app for cell phones.
    edited May 2020
  • Reply 79 of 95
    MisterKitMisterKit Posts: 460member
    I don’t understand how a product like this will accommodate people with varying degrees of vision. I wear contact lenses for distance but use readers for up close vision. There is no way I could see something on a screen a half inch away from my pupil. I would need the readers or have to take out my contact lenses because I have pretty good nearsighted ability.
    cgWerks
  • Reply 80 of 95
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,177member
    MisterKit said:
    I don’t understand how a product like this will accommodate people with varying degrees of vision. I wear contact lenses for distance but use readers for up close vision. There is no way I could see something on a screen a half inch away from my pupil. I would need the readers or have to take out my contact lenses because I have pretty good nearsighted ability.
    You don't focus a half inch away. You focus on things in the distance and the AR imagery appears as if it's, say a few meters in front of you along with whatever else you're looking at. Focusing a half inch away would cancel out the "reality" part of "augmented reality" as you'd basically be crosseyed. :) AR lenses use prisms and mirrors to project images from a microLED to your eyes.

    Here's a good example product that is probably similar to what Apple is developing:
    https://www.kura.tech

    See section on "Novel Structured Geometric Waveguide Eyepiece":
    https://www.kura.tech/technology

    and the note on DOF at the bottom of the page:
    Depth of Field: Typical AR headsets relay the image to one or two discrete focal planes. This results in what is called “accommodation-vergence mismatch” - for example, depth cues and parallax may suggest that a virtual object is six feet away, but the wearer’s eyes are need to focus 1 foot away to see a sharp image. Accommodation-vergence mismatch can lead to eyestrain and discomfort after prolonged periods of usage. A select few technologies (our’s and Letinar’s pin mirrors) have unlimited depth of field - the in-focus regions extends from a few centimeters in front of the wearer all the way to infinity.

    avon b7Rayz2016MisterKitcgWerkspalegolas
Sign In or Register to comment.