Up close and hands on with Apple Vision Pro at Apple Park

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 95
    mobirdmobird Posts: 749member
    Someone needs to create a Vision Pro arcade(s). Would be located in high foot traffic areas (impulse & curiosity). May have 25 Vision Pro's to rent in the beginning and then scalng as appropriate . Businesses could rent out a whole facility for training, individuals for fun or whatever. Then they might have different rooms/studios in the arcade with different themes.
    Don't think I would pigeon hole the concept by calling it an "arcade".


    jas99watto_cobraAlex1N
  • Reply 62 of 95
    cg27cg27 Posts: 209member
    Seems it would be better to have the option to use the Digital Crown on an AppleWatch rather than raise your hand to the headset’s Digital Crown.  
    Mariner8watto_cobraAlex1N
  • Reply 63 of 95
    thttht Posts: 5,348member
    netrox said:
    Is Apple Vision Pro a see through glasses or is it a solid goggles with 2 4K displays? I cannot tell if the front is actually a display or a see through. Or is it transparent OLED? 


    They are not see-through. If it is off, you won’t see anything. 

    It has 6 outward looking video cameras: 2 front looking, 2 down looking and 2 side looking. It has LiDAR and IR flood illuminators to help construct the spatial world you are in. It looks like it takes those 6 camera views, combines them, distorts them for your eyeballs, and blits that image to the 2 4K+ microOLED displays in front of the users eyes. The testimony seem to say it is 98% like reality. You could walk around with them. 

    The front is likely a lower density OLED display with a lenticular layer in front of them. It seems to take the camera views from the inward facing cameras, melds that eye data into a 3D model of your eyes, and displays it in this outward facing OLED. The lenticular lens makes it appear 3D to people looking at. The direction, shapes of your eyes are all relayed in “real-time”. You blink, the display will have you blinking. 
    netroxjas99danoxwatto_cobraAlex1N
  • Reply 64 of 95
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 3,039member
    Gruber at daring fireball has a really good review.

    https://daringfireball.net/2023/06/first_impressions_of_vision_pro_and_visionos
    tmaydanoxwatto_cobraAlex1N
  • Reply 65 of 95
    thttht Posts: 5,348member
    eightzero said:
    Yup. Based on the testimony so far, Apple has nailed the UI design. That is, how a user interacts with objects being displayed. That is really the single most important thing to get right. Everything follows from that.

    I’d like to see a demo of the virtual keyboard. The videos had one floating in the air, and that’s crazy. It has to be on a table, and I’m assuming the hand recognition is good enough to determine text input at 100+ wpm.

    You can use a hardware keyboard, so, it’s probably moot, but if the VP can determine what the user is typing on a virtual keyboard at a very high wpm, it’s a very good sign.
    williamlondonAlex1Nwatto_cobra
  • Reply 66 of 95
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,823moderator
    cg27 said:
    Seems it would be better to have the option to use the Digital Crown on an AppleWatch rather than raise your hand to the headset’s Digital Crown.  
    Great idea. 
    Alex1Nwatto_cobra
  • Reply 67 of 95
    cjcoopscjcoops Posts: 108member
    fred1 said:
    I find it interesting that they announced a product that won’t be available for nine months at least. More importantly it won’t be released until after the Fall product announcements. Why didn’t they wait until then to announce it? Was it all the buzz going around? Or just wanting to get people excited so they won’t look at what others come up with between now and then? 
    It gives the porn and sex cam industry time to plan and prototype.

    From 8mm projectors to VCR and on… ‘twas ever thus.
    beowulfschmidtwilliamlondon
  • Reply 68 of 95
    beowulfschmidtbeowulfschmidt Posts: 2,077member
    danox said:
    At first I thought, good, I only use glasses for reading, not distance. So I shouldn’t need the Zeiss add-ons. Then I thought, wait, you’re not REALLY looking in the distance—just virtually. You’re really looking at something (a tiny screen) about an inch away from your eye. How can anybody focus on that? Guess I’ll have to wait for a try-on/fitting session at my local Apple Store next year to find out whether I’ll need the lenses or not. Wondering how much they’ll add to the cost. 
    I have the same problem, and it probably is going to cost the same as getting a new pair of glasses, however, I did notice some of the You Tubers, who got a chance to use the Vision pro wore glasses and had to take them off to test out the system.

    There are companies now that make prescription inserts for every major headset, and a few of the minor ones.  They almost all cost less than $100.  If Apple's cost significantly more than that, it will be because Apple has made it technically or legally hard to duplicate, so they don't have to worry about competition.  Unless there is something about such an insert that is patentable (I honestly don't know), I fully expect one of the existing companies to be producing inserts even before the device is released.
    williamlondonAlex1Nwatto_cobra
  • Reply 69 of 95
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 3,039member
    cjcoops said:
    fred1 said:
    I find it interesting that they announced a product that won’t be available for nine months at least. More importantly it won’t be released until after the Fall product announcements. Why didn’t they wait until then to announce it? Was it all the buzz going around? Or just wanting to get people excited so they won’t look at what others come up with between now and then? 
    It gives the porn and sex cam industry time to plan and prototype.

    From 8mm projectors to VCR and on… ‘twas ever thus.
    Finally - someone said the sleazy part out loud.....
    williamlondon
  • Reply 70 of 95
    stoneygstoneyg Posts: 55member
    omasou said:
    Wish the cord used a USB-C interface to connect to the battery. Then third-party batteries or multiple Apple batteries could be use.

    Or perhaps that's the point, maybe the battery has to meet certain specs?

    Either way seems strange to have a fixed cord length...yeah it may reach my pocket but can I put it on the desk? Actually, the more I think about it this would be a good use case for the magsafe charging connector on the battery side.
    MagSafe was my first thought, too. But the more I think about it (both connecting to the band and the battery pack), I think MagSafe is too easily separated with the amount of movement and stress that the headset connection, and especially having a battery in your pocket, would put on it.
    radarthekatAlex1Nwatto_cobra
  • Reply 71 of 95
    stoneygstoneyg Posts: 55member
    Xed said:
    h4y3s said:
    Remember folks, this is just an early prototype of the eventual "Apple iGlasses". This one built for programmers and developers to get their hands on something that works before they roll out the final product, which will look more like a pair of Ray-Ban's and you will wear all day!  Maybe in five or six years. 
    1) They've moved away from i-naming scheme.
    2) We are not 5 or 6 years away from getting an M-series chip (or any of the other HW) into something the size and weight of a pay of Ray-Bans.
    I think it's more likely to have two different devices. The Vision Pro (fully immersive, VR-capable) with all the computing done on the device. The second device will be Glasses that contain the necessary sensors (cameras, LiDAR, etc) that can transfer the data wirelessly to whatever is processing it (like iPhone) once wireless transfer technology gets to the point where this becomes feasible. It won't be fully immersive; much more AR than VR. But handles a different use case than the full goggles.

    Honestly, I just don't see how Apple could ever get everything that's in the Vision Pro (M2 chip, screens, AND battery) to ever fit in a form that would be acceptable as Glasses.
    Alex1Nwatto_cobra
  • Reply 72 of 95
    Does the front screen let you do this?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ccKPSVQcFk
    ߙ䠯 only Mr. Borat can; like la..;la etc..; 
    edited June 2023 williamlondon
  • Reply 73 of 95
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,882member
    Xed said:
    eightzero said:
    Xed said:
    h4y3s said:
    Remember folks, this is just an early prototype of the eventual "Apple iGlasses". This one built for programmers and developers to get their hands on something that works before they roll out the final product, which will look more like a pair of Ray-Ban's and you will wear all day!  Maybe in five or six years. 
    1) They've moved away from i-naming scheme.
    2) We are not 5 or 6 years away from getting an M-series chip (or any of the other HW) into something the size and weight of a pay of Ray-Bans.
    In 1963 we were not 5-6 years away from landing on the moon.
    Of course we were. Untess you're a conspiracy theorist, we landed there in 1969.

    In 2017 we were not 5-6 from this device or a Mac Pro like they showed yesterday.
    Clearly we were, and it was obvious since we already had the same SoC in a much smaller Mac Studio. All they did was effectively get PCIe slots in the chassis from the previous Mac Pro.

    Or a camera like what it on the iPhone 14.
    Sure it was as it's just a iteration.

    Come to think about it, Apple does still seem to see a lot of iMacs, iPhones, and iCloud services these days.
    Huh? Was that sentence suppose to say something?

    Outside of your beyond ridiculous comparisons the bottom line is that your suggestions that VR goggles could be the size and weight of a pair of Ray-Bans in half a decade without anything to back up that projection is not just silly, but downright stupid. These aren't stand-alone AR glasses like Google Glass, but offer a fully immersive VR experience. Even if the tech could reasonably shrink to fit everything inside of a pair of lightweight sunglasses in a handful of years (again, it can't), you're still missing the fundamental issue with making a VR headset that is open around the sides, top and bottom as is the case with a pair of Ray-Bans.
    Type "define irony" in your search box right this very minute!
    Alex1N
  • Reply 74 of 95
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,823moderator
    danox said:
    At first I thought, good, I only use glasses for reading, not distance. So I shouldn’t need the Zeiss add-ons. Then I thought, wait, you’re not REALLY looking in the distance—just virtually. You’re really looking at something (a tiny screen) about an inch away from your eye. How can anybody focus on that? Guess I’ll have to wait for a try-on/fitting session at my local Apple Store next year to find out whether I’ll need the lenses or not. Wondering how much they’ll add to the cost. 
    I have the same problem, and it probably is going to cost the same as getting a new pair of glasses, however, I did notice some of the You Tubers, who got a chance to use the Vision pro wore glasses and had to take them off to test out the system.

    There are companies now that make prescription inserts for every major headset, and a few of the minor ones.  They almost all cost less than $100.  If Apple's cost significantly more than that, it will be because Apple has made it technically or legally hard to duplicate, so they don't have to worry about competition.  Unless there is something about such an insert that is patentable (I honestly don't know), I fully expect one of the existing companies to be producing inserts even before the device is released.
    And for Apple that company's name is Zeiss.  Apple announced that partnership in the keynote.  
    edited June 2023 williamlondonAlex1Nwatto_cobra
  • Reply 75 of 95
    danoxdanox Posts: 2,671member
    This is another Apple buying opportunity, just that simple. Most people are still in the dark about the Apple Vision Pro……. But Zuckerberg isn’t he is slowly coming to the realization that the Quest is over.
    edited June 2023 Alex1Nwatto_cobra
  • Reply 76 of 95
    XedXed Posts: 2,457member
    danox said:
    This is another Apple buying opportunity, just that simple. Most people are still in the dark about the Apple Vision Pro……. But Zuckerberg isn’t he is slowly coming to the realization that the Quest is over.
    I don’t think Quest is over. Just as cheap Android phones and cheap Windows PCs have a place in the market, so will cheap VR solutions.

    Neither the Meta nor Quest branding will be what buyers look to for state of the art VR solutions, and Meta will now (likely) never be able to corner the market ifor high-end  VR or AR, bo matter how much money they throw at it while Apple gets a healthy profit from their investment and likely the only company making it a viable product, which will just further more advancements for Apple.

    if anything, Quest will get a sales boost BECAUSE of Apple Vision Pro as it puts a spotlight on VR. The same happened to the Blackberry. It was clearly the beginning of the end for them, but they had they had their best sales AFTER the iPhone was on the market. Partially because they were pushing their clearly inferior products to carriers almost nothing, but also because it put a spotlight on the smartphone market.
    edited June 2023 williamlondonAlex1Nwatto_cobra
  • Reply 77 of 95
    danoxdanox Posts: 2,671member
    stoneyg said:
    Xed said:
    h4y3s said:
    Remember folks, this is just an early prototype of the eventual "Apple iGlasses". This one built for programmers and developers to get their hands on something that works before they roll out the final product, which will look more like a pair of Ray-Ban's and you will wear all day!  Maybe in five or six years. 
    1) They've moved away from i-naming scheme.
    2) We are not 5 or 6 years away from getting an M-series chip (or any of the other HW) into something the size and weight of a pay of Ray-Bans.
    I think it's more likely to have two different devices. The Vision Pro (fully immersive, VR-capable) with all the computing done on the device. The second device will be Glasses that contain the necessary sensors (cameras, LiDAR, etc) that can transfer the data wirelessly to whatever is processing it (like iPhone) once wireless transfer technology gets to the point where this becomes feasible. It won't be fully immersive; much more AR than VR. But handles a different use case than the full goggles.

    Honestly, I just don't see how Apple could ever get everything that's in the Vision Pro (M2 chip, screens, AND battery) to ever fit in a form that would be acceptable as Glasses.
    The technology to put it all into a pair of glasses, obviously isn’t here yet, but if there is a company that will do it, Apple is probably the company, because you can’t do that type of stuff and not have control over the whole widget, in short, you have to be a vertical computer company to make that happen, the Vision Pro could not exist if Apple was still tied to those outside chip companies like Intel, AMD, Nvidia, IBM, and the late Motorola. Going forward only a vertical computer company can get to that future.

    Microsoft, Google, Meta, Qualcomm, AMD, and Nvidia, by noon Pacific time Monday, learned that when Apple said Neural Engine/Machine learning over the years. It really wasn’t just a marketing buzzword. Apple was quietly working in the background on something big.

    With Apple’s release of the Vision Pro, you can see why Apple was actively eliminating Qualcomm, AMD, and Nvidia out of their products. If Apple is actively working on getting to that miniature computer glasses future eventually, those companies can’t be on board, and to think this is all because Intel, Motorola and IBM said no.




    edited June 2023 Alex1Nwatto_cobra
  • Reply 78 of 95
    danoxdanox Posts: 2,671member
    Xed said:
    danox said:
    This is another Apple buying opportunity, just that simple. Most people are still in the dark about the Apple Vision Pro……. But Zuckerberg isn’t he is slowly coming to the realization that the Quest is over.
    I don’t think Quest is over. Just as cheap Android phones and cheap Windows PCs have a place in the market, so will cheap VR solutions.

    Neither the Meta nor Quest branding will be what buyers look to for state of the art VR solutions, and Meta will now (likely) never be able to corner the market ifor high-end  VR or AR, bo matter how much money they throw at it while Apple gets a healthy profit from their investment and likely the only company making it a viable product, which will just further more advancements for Apple.

    if anything, Quest will get a sales boost BECAUSE of Apple Vision Pro as it puts a spotlight on VR. The same happened to the Blackberry. It was clearly the beginning of the end for them, but they had they had their best sales AFTER the iPhone was on the market. Partially because they were pushing their clearly inferior products to carriers almost nothing, but also because it put a spotlight on the smartphone market.

     It’s really over see attached the Quest is dead.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjoE-6LdViQ
    edited June 2023 tmayAlex1Nwatto_cobra
  • Reply 79 of 95
    I think it’s an awesome product. Design, engineering, it’s all amazing not to mention the tech under the hood. I won’t be getting one given the price but Apple sure does know to do tech the right way despite all the criticism they get. 
    williamlondonAlex1Nwatto_cobra
  • Reply 80 of 95
    XedXed Posts: 2,457member
    danox said:
    Xed said:
    danox said:
    This is another Apple buying opportunity, just that simple. Most people are still in the dark about the Apple Vision Pro……. But Zuckerberg isn’t he is slowly coming to the realization that the Quest is over.
    I don’t think Quest is over. Just as cheap Android phones and cheap Windows PCs have a place in the market, so will cheap VR solutions.

    Neither the Meta nor Quest branding will be what buyers look to for state of the art VR solutions, and Meta will now (likely) never be able to corner the market ifor high-end  VR or AR, bo matter how much money they throw at it while Apple gets a healthy profit from their investment and likely the only company making it a viable product, which will just further more advancements for Apple.

    if anything, Quest will get a sales boost BECAUSE of Apple Vision Pro as it puts a spotlight on VR. The same happened to the Blackberry. It was clearly the beginning of the end for them, but they had they had their best sales AFTER the iPhone was on the market. Partially because they were pushing their clearly inferior products to carriers almost nothing, but also because it put a spotlight on the smartphone market.

     It’s really over see attached the Quest is dead.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjoE-6LdViQ
    Why don't you explain why you don't think Meta's sales have now dissolved into nothing instead of pushing a YouTuber's video without any explanation. I went into detail as to why I believe that Meta will now sell more Quest units than every before for a certain timeframe as a result of Apple Vision Pro, but you're saying they will no longer have sales or dissolve that entire department and product category, I guess.
    Alex1Nwatto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.