Apple Vision Pro can be used in public, but mind your manners

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 39
    thttht Posts: 5,450member
    thadec said:
    The difference between Google Glass and this is what exactly?
    A decade.

    A decade of people learning that they are continuously surveilled, be it video cameras, browsing habits, spending habits, etc, and at the same time, more and more people knowingly are sharing their lives, be it as a livelihood or to just let the world know, with everyone on social media.

    There's also the continuing non-localization of culture that all these technologies enable. Your community doesn't have to be your neighborhood or the office anymore. It can be distributed across the country and the world. With always available Internet and communication, this is only accelerating.

    There's the fact that Google Glass and Apple Vision Pro are different products, Some overlap, but they are different products.
    ronnwatto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 39
    arlorarlor Posts: 532member
    As for people recording in public goes, it is perfectly legal and you don’t need to get consent. 


    IANAL, but a quick Google search suggests this is not true in many states (outside of dressing rooms, bathrooms, and not peeping through people's windows, of course), unless you're taking care to record no sound. Be very careful with audio recording; there are a lot more laws and regulations governing it. 

    Sample link: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9781118810712.app5

    watto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 39
    tobian said:
    No matter how usable VP is in public space, since it is able to record the screen - thus to record me, but not giving a clue about it (you saw the video? the old guy seemed uncomfortable next to him, naturaly), I will be asking VP wearers to put the headset off the head. If they won’t comply and would continue pointing their head in inappropriate wide angle towards me (which is almost 180deg) I’ll put VP off their head myself.

    I don’t see public use of Vision Pro acceptable.
    That is what is called assault. 
    ronnroundaboutnowgrandact73watto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 39
    I’m just here to refute the entire premise. No, you shall not use a Vision Pro in public. It is somehow both invasive and oblivious at the same time. You have a choice. Don’t.
    You don’t get to dictate what other people do. 
    ronnroundaboutnowgrandact73watto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 39
    tht said:
    thadec said:
    The difference between Google Glass and this is what exactly?
    A decade.

    A decade of people learning that they are continuously surveilled, be it video cameras, browsing habits, spending habits, etc, and at the same time, more and more people knowingly are sharing their lives, be it as a livelihood or to just let the world know, with everyone on social media.

    There's also the continuing non-localization of culture that all these technologies enable. Your community doesn't have to be your neighborhood or the office anymore. It can be distributed across the country and the world. With always available Internet and communication, this is only accelerating.

    There's the fact that Google Glass and Apple Vision Pro are different products, Some overlap, but they are different products.
    The "different products" thing is neither here or there. Particularly since Vision Pro is a much better one than Google Glass, making it much more effective at doing what the Google Glass opponents feared. I agree about the decade thing, but only to a point. My guess is that the people who should be raising the same issues that they did about Google Glass are a bunch of iPhone, iPad and MacBook owners who simply like Apple products and want their products to succeed, and have the opposite opinion about Google, Microsoft and Facebook. These are the same people who gleefully proclaimed "Android is for poor people" when in all other contexts they would have recoiled at the classism - and racism when you consider that the vast majority of the world's nonwhite smartphone users rely on Android - in all other contexts. 

    Zuckerberg predicted that Vision Pro's taking off would mean his selling a lot more Facebook glasses. He may be right. The same way that the Apple Watch and AirPods making wearables mainstream was a boon to Samsung (absolutely no one bought the Gear IconX, true wireless earbuds that preceded AirPods and actually had A LOT more functionality, and people flat out laughed at the concept of a smartwatch - especially one with LTE - back then, but plenty of people buy Samsung earbuds and watches now). So Google and Samsung - working together this time instead of competing against each other - should give Google Glass 2.0 a shot since Apple has made the category legitimate with the "Android is for poor people" crowd. 
  • Reply 26 of 39
    longfang said:
    I’m just here to refute the entire premise. No, you shall not use a Vision Pro in public. It is somehow both invasive and oblivious at the same time. You have a choice. Don’t.
    You don’t get to dictate what other people do. 
    This was the consensus opinion with Google Glass. He is just being consistent instead of "it is bad when Google does it but good when we do it."
    tobiangatorguy
  • Reply 27 of 39
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 3,198member
    I'm imagining a display like LG's just-announced transparent OLED will be used in a later VP generation, such that we won't need to have cameras and computation for pass-through viewing of the real world. Transparent OLED will be paired with another filter/display layer that selectively, pixel-by-pixel, dims or completely obscures the real world, so the imagery displayed on the transparent OLED can be seen by itself or overlayed to a varying degree on the real world.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 39
    tobiantobian Posts: 151member
    As for people recording in public goes, it is perfectly legal and you don’t need to get consent. Further, removing a Vision Pro from someone would be considered assault. So, y you might want to reconsider your plan unless you want a criminal record. 


    Here in Europe we have this GDPR (general data protection regulation), and sure you need to get consent. But even in America, I’m pretty sure you won’t just let it be “perfectly legal”, when some stranger comes to you, pointing his iPhnoe on you with rised arms. Just imagine, you immediately realize you’re being recorded and naturally, defending your privacy. You still have a choice to step out of the angle.
    And that’s the difference! VP is pointing where your head do, but you can’t really tell, if you’re being actively observed or not. And your choice of stepping out the view is also compromised, since it’s an array of cameras with wide angle overall.

    Wow, dude. Do you push people off wheelchairs if they take too much time going through a door? There may be very legit medical and accessibility uses for VP in the very near future. Do you carry a can of spray paint to blot out all the security cameras that see you on the roads, in elevators, in stores, in pubic places, etc? Do you duct tape the mouths of people whose voices you don't want to hear? Going out in public is the very definition of giving up a bit of privacy so as to be a part of the world around us. Asking people to not focus on you is one thing, but the threat of physically attacking someone is, well... you might want to seek help. You can ASK people not to record you, and you can also get up and walk away. But you don't own that public space any more than the guy wearing the VP.
    You’re trying to compare uncomparable here. Of course I don’t offend people on wheelchairs, but seriously, even your security camera example. It has another funcition, than *publicizing*. Also the social reach of security camera is near zero, in compare with some strangers youtube channel “I’m staring at people in the subway, come stare at them with me!”. Going out is giving up a bit of privacy.. yes, before a couple of eyes around you, and just in time, memorized abstractly as human brain do, non-transferable.
    Going thru all your arguments about spray, voices, etc.. I’m realizing you don’t understand deeply the privacy issue here. Or more, you don’t want to understand. Still I’m Apple tech fan like you.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 29 of 39
    Is it legal to drive a car or motorcycle wearing this?
    Are you serious?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 30 of 39
    arlor said:
    As for people recording in public goes, it is perfectly legal and you don’t need to get consent. 


    IANAL, but a quick Google search suggests this is not true in many states (outside of dressing rooms, bathrooms, and not peeping through people's windows, of course), unless you're taking care to record no sound. Be very careful with audio recording; there are a lot more laws and regulations governing it. 

    Sample link: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9781118810712.app5

    I’m not sure if you read the document you linked to but it clearly states video recordings are legal when there isn’t an expectation of privacy. Public spaces don’t come with an expectation of privacy. 


    ronnroundaboutnowwatto_cobra
  • Reply 31 of 39
    arlor said:
    As for people recording in public goes, it is perfectly legal and you don’t need to get consent. 
    IANAL, but a quick Google search suggests this is not true in many states (outside of dressing rooms, bathrooms, and not peeping through people's windows, of course), unless you're taking care to record no sound. Be very careful with audio recording; there are a lot more laws and regulations governing it. 

    Sample link: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9781118810712.app5
    I’m not sure if you read the document you linked to but it clearly states video recordings are legal when there isn’t an expectation of privacy. Public spaces don’t come with an expectation of privacy. 
    It will depend on where you are.  Opinions on expectation of privacy vary, as does the legality of filming people without their consent.
    muthuk_vanalingamtobianwatto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 39
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,213member
    arlor said:
    As for people recording in public goes, it is perfectly legal and you don’t need to get consent. 


    IANAL, but a quick Google search suggests this is not true in many states (outside of dressing rooms, bathrooms, and not peeping through people's windows, of course), unless you're taking care to record no sound. Be very careful with audio recording; there are a lot more laws and regulations governing it. 

    Sample link: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9781118810712.app5

    I’m not sure if you read the document you linked to but it clearly states video recordings are legal when there isn’t an expectation of privacy. Public spaces don’t come with an expectation of privacy. 


    Recording and publicizing are on different ethical levels AFAIC. If I don't want my image recorded and broadcast by you and verbally or otherwise make you aware, then it would simply be wrong for you to do it anyway. Just because a thing is "legal" does not make it OK. Show up alone at a public children's playground wearing Vision Pro and the adults will happily (!) explain it to you. 
    edited February 5 muthuk_vanalingamtobianwatto_cobra
  • Reply 33 of 39
    jdwjdw Posts: 1,339member
    What does the TITLE of this article even mean?  Makes zero sense.  To some people, the mere act of wearing such googles outside is considered bad manners.  So how can one "mind one's manners" and please everyone?  ANSWER: You can't unless you only wear it indoors.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 34 of 39
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,372member
    Xed said:
    dewme said:
    Simply wearing headphones reduces ones situational awareness. I'd imagine wearing a headset with augmented video and sound would be worse than using headphones alone.
    That depends on what you're doing with the headset. Whether you're talking about a modern automobile or a fighter jet helmet, a heads up display can be very useful for increasing situational awareness. I don't think AVP allows for this, but it could. Adding more sensors that go around the sides and back could help even further.
    Of course it could. But the Vision Pro is a far cry from a F35 Gen III Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS) which I think is somewhere in the $400K per unit price range with a fitting process that takes more than a day. It’s also tightly integrated into an elaborate multi-sensor platform and fire control system that’s built into a $100M per unit aircraft.

    But I agree that technology developed for the military often filters down in some form into consumer products that have far fewer requirements and development costs compared to what the military and DOD is currently spending. For example, radar, sonar, and LiDAR technology developed for military applications have found their way into many consumer products from cameras to automobiles and of course to the iPhone. It’s just a matter of time, technology innovation, manufacturing and fabrication innovation, engineering, materials science, cost reduction, and identifying a broad enough consumer market to drive the technology into affordable consumer products. There is still a large gap between what the current Vision Pro can do versus what a current HMDS system can do. I think there will eventually be a combination of the lower end products like the Vision Pro moving up in capability and the higher end products like HMDS moving down in affordability.

    As amazing as the Vision Pro is today in the markets it serves, I believe it still has a net negative impact on situational awareness for its wearers. It’s probably perfectly suitable for more cocooned environments like the home or office work, not factory work, but I’d still be wary of walking around in public, riding a bicycle, or driving a car with the Vision Pro strapped to my face. Of course the Vision Pro is not alone in this regard because smartphones also negatively impact people’s situational awareness and may actually be worse because smartphones don’t have a pass through mode. People walking, biking, or driving with a smartphone are actively time-slicing their focus and attention between the task at hand and their smartphone. Bad things can happen when the smartphone gets too much of the available focus and attention bandwidth.
    muthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 35 of 39
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,694member
    Everything is relative and context dependent and regulations will have to navigate some murky waters and clear them up a bit.

    Here in Europe, a scenario with lots of people moving around with visors that can record what is 'seen' will very probably be scrutinised with the result being favorable to the people in the recording. 

    That could happen in all manner of ways and technology may even be able to play a part here too. 

    Imagine some kind of signaling system (open standard of course!) that could tell the recording device to eliminate the subject on the fly. That sounds like a good task for AI. 

    Right now if I take a photo of a crowded train and want to complain to the rail company about capacity problems on X, I should really manually blur the faces on the photos first.

    Having AI do the job for me at the source would be nice. 

    The lines between 'private' and 'public' can also get blurred too. 

    Like with the train example, being in public doesn't eliminate my right to privacy even if that definition of privacy may be less than that afford to my home definition of privacy. 

    An alternative solution would be an outright ban on head-mounted recording or a geofenced solution which could turn it off. 

    The problem with an indicator light is that it is one way communication. I know I'm being recorded but the onus is on me to deal with It, where perhaps, it should be permission-based and the person recording should ask first. 

    Impractical in most cases. 

    Just like with electric scooters though, numbers count. 

    When there were just a few on the road it wasn't an issue. Strong legislation only became a need when they became a plague and started causing problems. 

    I doubt occasionally crossing paths with a person wearing a headset will be a major issue but, again, context is important. 

    As things stand, the GDPR will probably already provide a decent baseline of protection but will need updating at some point. 


    tobian
  • Reply 36 of 39
    danoxdanox Posts: 2,869member

    Xed said:
    FaceTime is cringe. Too uncanny valley for those on the other end.
    The persona thing is a train wreck. I tried several times and eventually gave up. 
    That depends on how good you look.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGCaDu88uYM

    ronnwatto_cobra
  • Reply 37 of 39
    thttht Posts: 5,450member
    thadec said:
    tht said:
    thadec said:
    The difference between Google Glass and this is what exactly?
    A decade.

    A decade of people learning that they are continuously surveilled, be it video cameras, browsing habits, spending habits, etc, and at the same time, more and more people knowingly are sharing their lives, be it as a livelihood or to just let the world know, with everyone on social media.

    There's also the continuing non-localization of culture that all these technologies enable. Your community doesn't have to be your neighborhood or the office anymore. It can be distributed across the country and the world. With always available Internet and communication, this is only accelerating.

    There's the fact that Google Glass and Apple Vision Pro are different products, Some overlap, but they are different products.
    The "different products" thing is neither here or there. Particularly since Vision Pro is a much better one than Google Glass, making it much more effective at doing what the Google Glass opponents feared. I agree about the decade thing, but only to a point. My guess is that the people who should be raising the same issues that they did about Google Glass are a bunch of iPhone, iPad and MacBook owners who simply like Apple products and want their products to succeed, and have the opposite opinion about Google, Microsoft and Facebook. These are the same people who gleefully proclaimed "Android is for poor people" when in all other contexts they would have recoiled at the classism - and racism when you consider that the vast majority of the world's nonwhite smartphone users rely on Android - in all other contexts. 

    Zuckerberg predicted that Vision Pro's taking off would mean his selling a lot more Facebook glasses. He may be right. The same way that the Apple Watch and AirPods making wearables mainstream was a boon to Samsung (absolutely no one bought the Gear IconX, true wireless earbuds that preceded AirPods and actually had A LOT more functionality, and people flat out laughed at the concept of a smartwatch - especially one with LTE - back then, but plenty of people buy Samsung earbuds and watches now). So Google and Samsung - working together this time instead of competing against each other - should give Google Glass 2.0 a shot since Apple has made the category legitimate with the "Android is for poor people" crowd. 
    I think they have aged out and the past decade of video and surveillance everywhere has made criticism of people filming in public spaces has made those issues much less controversial to the public. A decade's worth of difference. Mind that there are people who don't like the theoretical anti-social qualities of headsets and the media will find them and broadcast their opinion. Probably won't be the anti Google Glass folks, but there will be others out there, and the media will broadcast their opinions to try to create controversy, if they can.

    Whether this will put a negative drag on AVP sales, who knows? I don't think so. The ubiquity of cameras everywhere and the ubiquity of being able to see video of anything at all the times has made filming in public a "normal" thing, or perhaps, accepted grudgingly. The public won't mind so much anymore. How a person looks while wearing a headset will be a negative drag. The wearability is an issue. The market will determine whether the features it has can overcome that.

    They are different products and they are different products from different companies. Did Google ever push through and make Glass available to consumers. It was available to developers, and then as a business product, but was it available to consumers? On a side note, Snap and Meta "smart" glasses are the successors of Google Glass? And the concept (glasses with cameras and Internet/WiFi) lives on through them?

    The AVP is a consumer product through and through. No tentativeness with selling it for business applications. Expensive, but available to anyone who can afford it. Apple will iterate it, assuming their usual practice for most of their product lines, and try to find a market on the consumer end. Notionally, the AVP is primarily an in-home and in-office product, not a product to be out in public with. It has to live or die based on the features it provides and overcome all its negatives.
    ronnwatto_cobra
  • Reply 38 of 39
    hexclockhexclock Posts: 1,256member
    hexclock said:
    tobian said:
    No matter how usable VP is in public space, since it is able to record the screen - thus to record me, but not giving a clue about it (you saw the video? the old guy seemed uncomfortable next to him, naturaly), I will be asking VP wearers to put the headset off the head. If they won’t comply and would continue pointing their head in inappropriate wide angle towards me (which is almost 180deg) I’ll put VP off their head myself.

    I don’t see public use of Vision Pro acceptable.
    The Vision Pro flashes white when recording. So there is a visual queue that you are being recorded. That said isn’t intuitive and suitable should be something like red since that is already what people already associate with a camera recording. 

    As for people recording in public goes, it is perfectly legal and you don’t need to get consent. Further, removing a Vision Pro from someone would be considered assault. So, y you might want to reconsider your plan unless you want a criminal record. 

    Don’t worry, no bail laws will make sure he spends no time in jail. It’s ok to assault cops now, or haven’t you heard?
    I’m sorry you have to navigate life while being so ignorant, it can’t be easy. 
    Didn’t you just see the beat down of the cops in NYC by migrants who were all release with NO bail? Open you friggin eyes. 
  • Reply 39 of 39
    hexclockhexclock Posts: 1,256member
    Xed said:
    hexclock said:
    tobian said:
    No matter how usable VP is in public space, since it is able to record the screen - thus to record me, but not giving a clue about it (you saw the video? the old guy seemed uncomfortable next to him, naturaly), I will be asking VP wearers to put the headset off the head. If they won’t comply and would continue pointing their head in inappropriate wide angle towards me (which is almost 180deg) I’ll put VP off their head myself.

    I don’t see public use of Vision Pro acceptable.
    The Vision Pro flashes white when recording. So there is a visual queue that you are being recorded. That said isn’t intuitive and suitable should be something like red since that is already what people already associate with a camera recording. 

    As for people recording in public goes, it is perfectly legal and you don’t need to get consent. Further, removing a Vision Pro from someone would be considered assault. So, y you might want to reconsider your plan unless you want a criminal record. 
    Don’t worry, no bail laws will make sure he spends no time in jail. It’s ok to assault cops now, or haven’t you heard?
    You can't possibly believe that. ߤ榺wj;♂️
    First off, it’s sarcasm. Secondly, here’s a partial list of crimes no longer bail eligible in NYS, courtesy of cbsnews.com. 

    Here Are All The Crimes That Now Fall Under The Bail Reform Law:

    • 2nd degree Burglary of a residence
    • 2nd degree Burglary as a Hate Crime
    • 3rd degree Burglary of a commercial building
    • 3rd degree Burglary as a Hate Crime
    • 2nd degree Robbery aided by another person
    • 2nd degree Robbery as a Hate Crime
    • 3rd degree Robbery
    • Criminal sale of a controlled substance (multiple counts)
    • Using a child to commit a controlled substance crime
    • Criminal possession of a controlled substance (multiple counts)
    • Criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near a school
    • Criminal injection of a controlled substance into another person
    • Criminal sale of a controlled substance to a child
    • Criminal sale of a prescription for a controlled substance by a pharmacist
    • Criminal possession or creation of Methamphetamines
    • 3rd degree Assault
    • 3rd degree Assault as a Hate Crime
    • Reckless Assault of a child by a day care provider
    • Reckless Assault of a child
    • Stalking (multiple counts)
    • Stalking as a Hate Crime (multiple counts)
    • Vehicular Assault (multiple counts)
    • Aggravated Vehicular Assault
    • Aggravated Assault on a child under 11 years-old
    • Aggravated Assault on a child under 11 years-old as a Hate Child
    • Menacing (multiple counts)
    • Menacing as a Hate Crime (multiple counts)
    • Reckless Endangerment (multiple counts)
    • Promoting a suicide attempt
    • 1st degree Stalking while committing a sex offense
    • Criminal Obstruction of Breathing
    • Criminally Negligent Homicide
    • 2nd degree Vehicular Manslaughter
    • Aggravated Vehicular Manslaughter
    • 2nd degree Manslaughter
    • Unlawful Imprisonment (multiple counts)
    • Unlawful Imprisonment as a Hate Crime (multiple counts)
    • Aggravated Labor Trafficking
    • Custodial Interference (multiple counts)
    • Substitution of children
    • Coercion (multiple counts)
    • Coercion as a Hate Crime (multiple counts)
    • Criminal Trespass (multiple counts)
    • Criminal Trespass as a Hate Crime (multiple counts)
    • Possession of burglar's tools
    • Unlawful possession of a police scanner
    • Criminal Mischief (multiple counts)
    • Criminal Mischief as a Hate Crime (multiple counts)
    • Criminal Tampering (multiple counts)
    • Cemetery Desecration (multiple counts)
    • Aggravated Cemetery Desecration (multiple counts)
    • Obstructing governmental administration (multiple counts)
    • Obstructing governmental administration with a self-defense spray device
    • Killing a Police Dog or Police Horse
    • Obstructing emergency medical services
    • Obstructing governmental services with a bomb
    • Escape (multiple counts)
    • Promoting prison contraband (multiple counts)
    • Resisting arrest
    edited February 21
Sign In or Register to comment.