It seems to me that if we're talking AR, then Ive is clearly right. An AR solution tethered (even wirelessly) to an external box is very limited.
But VR is a different animal. I don't know if Apple is interested in VR, but if they are, then requiring an external box isn't such a deal breaker.
I would be a little surprised if Apple were into VR, though. VR seems like something that would appeal to the kinds of reality-escaping, basement-dwelling, pale-faced, hard-core gamers that Apple has always seemed to shun.
Thank goodness he stuck around to keep it headed in the right direction as long as he did. The way this was written sounds like most of the sourcing came from those opposing Sir Ive, but despite that it’s clear they were way out of their depth if they thought a tethered Apple VR glasses project wouldn’t damage the Apple brand.
It seems to me that if we're talking AR, then Ive is clearly right. An AR solution tethered (even wirelessly) to an external box is very limited.
But VR is a different animal. I don't know if Apple is interested in VR, but if they are, then requiring an external box isn't such a deal breaker.
I would be a little surprised if Apple were into VR, though. VR seems like something that would appeal to the kinds of reality-escaping, basement-dwelling, pale-faced, hard-core gamers that Apple has always seemed to shun.
AR, the user is physically able to move around in the real world. VR, the user is, generally, bringing a virtual world to his location, hence why an external box is a dealbreaker for AR, and not an issue for VR. His quality, high frame rate AR is less compute intensive than the same for VR. so it is easier to create practical mobile products for AR. At some point in the future, AR/VR will be fully merged and mobile.
When Apple becomes technology-led rather than design-led we'll know that the spirit of Apple — of Steve — has finally left. Apple has always been about excellence in human-centred design.
What is human-centered [sic] about the puck mouse?
"human-centered" doesn't mean "perfect." I would argue that the design of iMac mouse was undoubtedly human centered. It certainly wasn't technology-led. It was ultimately a design that failed in the marketplace, but the thinking was likely that moving something shaped like a large, smooth pebble was more ergonomic than gripping a narrower shape with your thumb and pinkie. Unfortunately for the design, most of us had already ingrained the latter expectation in our muscle memory. Oh well.
What rando said. The mouse was a one button mouse when there were multi-button devices abounding. So no tech-led product there.
The puck was meant to be move by laying your fingers, upper palm, or palm across the puck, and gentle pressure actuated the click without changing the position of the hand one iota. There was no need to grasp anything. No hand cramps, easy for children, the elderly, or just someone with some injury or debilitation to use. Definitely human-centric. But people didn't get that.
"Unfortunately for the design, most of us had already ingrained the latter expectation in our muscle memory."
This. The hockey puck was a failed product but not a failed design. It was brilliant in its simple elegance and ease of use. It was the failure of users' ability to recognize and appreciate it for what it was. Instead they whined about what it wasn't.
Thank goodness he stuck around to keep it headed in the right direction as long as he did. The way this was written sounds like most of the sourcing came from those opposing Sir Ive, but despite that it’s clear they were way out of their depth if they thought a tethered Apple VR glasses project wouldn’t damage the Apple brand.
Always untethered VR glasses would require a significantly sized battery to be on the glasses. This is the case with the Oculus Quest:
That has a ~3600mAh battery, larger than an iPhone XS Max on the front. Google Glass had a 570mAh battery on one of the legs.
Ideally it would be completely wireless but it's more practical with current technology for VR products to have a larger battery in a pocket or attached to a belt. This is like the evolution of audio from wired with the iPod in the pocket to wireless.
The most important part of the user experience for glasses is the quality of the video being produced. If the glasses had an uncomfortable weight or weight distribution due to a battery or poor battery life and low quality visuals, there wouldn't be much reason to buy or wear them. For these to be worthwhile as a product at all, they need to offer a compelling visual experience. Dynamic tinting would be nice too so they can be sunglasses outdoors but clear indoors:
I expect there would be a mix of power options with say 250mAh batteries on each side and a connector (possibly magnetic) that attaches to the iPhone for extra power and for charging. This way lower quality AR for things like visual overlays would work without tethering and more immersive experiences can tether or maybe use wireless video transmission if the bandwidth is high enough. It's not easy to transmit Retina quality graphics around 90FPS or more wirelessly without hitching in a power efficient way.
The obvious comparison for this product is to VR but it could easily be primarily an alternative wearable to the Apple Watch. It can do fitness apps, notifications, music control, TV control, Siri, answer calls, maps using a depth sensor. It would miss out on digital passes for some things and payments and some biometrics so an iPhone or Watch would have to be used for that but it allows contextual visuals like health info on products bought in stores, it can probably let you try on clothes in the mirror virtually, makeup too but they'd have to digitally remove the glasses for eye makeup. It can have a camera sensor but not one that allows the user to record.
If Oakley can sell sunglasses for $400, Apple can sell digital eyewear that has Apple Watch components for the same price and better value.
Comments
Haha.
Are you new here? (I know the answer).
But VR is a different animal. I don't know if Apple is interested in VR, but if they are, then requiring an external box isn't such a deal breaker.
I would be a little surprised if Apple were into VR, though. VR seems like something that would appeal to the kinds of reality-escaping, basement-dwelling, pale-faced, hard-core gamers that Apple has always seemed to shun.
The puck was meant to be move by laying your fingers, upper palm, or palm across the puck, and gentle pressure actuated the click without changing the position of the hand one iota. There was no need to grasp anything. No hand cramps, easy for children, the elderly, or just someone with some injury or debilitation to use. Definitely human-centric. But people didn't get that.
"Unfortunately for the design, most of us had already ingrained the latter expectation in our muscle memory."
This. The hockey puck was a failed product but not a failed design. It was brilliant in its simple elegance and ease of use. It was the failure of users' ability to recognize and appreciate it for what it was. Instead they whined about what it wasn't.
https://forums.oculusvr.com/community/discussion/89283/how-front-heavy-is-the-oculus-quest
That has a ~3600mAh battery, larger than an iPhone XS Max on the front. Google Glass had a 570mAh battery on one of the legs.
Ideally it would be completely wireless but it's more practical with current technology for VR products to have a larger battery in a pocket or attached to a belt. This is like the evolution of audio from wired with the iPod in the pocket to wireless.
The most important part of the user experience for glasses is the quality of the video being produced. If the glasses had an uncomfortable weight or weight distribution due to a battery or poor battery life and low quality visuals, there wouldn't be much reason to buy or wear them. For these to be worthwhile as a product at all, they need to offer a compelling visual experience. Dynamic tinting would be nice too so they can be sunglasses outdoors but clear indoors:
I expect there would be a mix of power options with say 250mAh batteries on each side and a connector (possibly magnetic) that attaches to the iPhone for extra power and for charging. This way lower quality AR for things like visual overlays would work without tethering and more immersive experiences can tether or maybe use wireless video transmission if the bandwidth is high enough. It's not easy to transmit Retina quality graphics around 90FPS or more wirelessly without hitching in a power efficient way.
The obvious comparison for this product is to VR but it could easily be primarily an alternative wearable to the Apple Watch. It can do fitness apps, notifications, music control, TV control, Siri, answer calls, maps using a depth sensor. It would miss out on digital passes for some things and payments and some biometrics so an iPhone or Watch would have to be used for that but it allows contextual visuals like health info on products bought in stores, it can probably let you try on clothes in the mirror virtually, makeup too but they'd have to digitally remove the glasses for eye makeup. It can have a camera sensor but not one that allows the user to record.
If Oakley can sell sunglasses for $400, Apple can sell digital eyewear that has Apple Watch components for the same price and better value.