flaneur

bluefire1 said:

While I’m a huge Apple fan, I’m not a fan of wearing glasses other then for vision. Period.

“And you won’t catch me holding one of those gol-danged cellular telephones to my ear, ever. Period.”

flydog said:

Given the lack of enthusiasm in the developer community to embrace and incorporate Force Touch, AR, Files, multitasking, Apple Watch, etc into their apps, I don't see this gaining much traction. The problem is Apple generally dumps this stuff out there in hopes that developers will find a use case.   

The difference between AR glasses and all other tech ever is that the view in the glasses will amplify the wiring in the brain used for binocular stereo vision, i.e., depth perception.

The screens will fill the field of view and hijack the normal tendency to “search” via saccadic eye movements, thus fixing and focusing the gaze on what the two cameras are picking up. This will result in a novel hyperstimulation of the depth perception circuits of the visual system, leading to a kind of ultrastereo, analogous to listening to music through stereo headphones. This will probably prove to be quite compelling, especially to those individuals with divided cerebral faculties, such as those for example who are “too left-brained” in their orientation to the world. Also, with precise eye-tracking, the binocular point of regard in the depth field will allow for precise selecting of any object that might have a data cloud associated with it. Maybe this will be even more compelling.

Anyway, I predict along with Tim Cook that this will be bigger than the iPhone as a business.

Malcolm, thanks for the roundup. Not an easy story to write.

I had missed that March 2018 patent on 3D editing, so I’m glad you brought it up again in this context.

I have long believed that 3D text, i.e., the words hanging in space by means of binocular stereo vision, will be a new form of reading, because it will be processd differently in the brain from the  “flat” 2D text that we’re conditioned to reading. Stereo text may help people with dyslexia, or it may make text more memorable, to cite two examples of possible unforeseen benefits.

trackeroz said:

As as much as I like Apple I can’t see this patent withstanding prior art. Anyone who has read Daniel Suarez’s “Daemon” and “Freedom TM” will know that he has explored this and SO much more. I only hope Apple gets it close to that!

 Have to check Suarez out. Thanks

dysamoria said:

As for AR glasses... Meh. I’m not interested in this product type from Google, Microsoft, or Apple. I’m not interested in it from anyone. I barely even put up with wearing glasses to correct my vision in my own house, let alone wearing some tech nonsense on my face that doesn’t need to be there.

I’m sure a few tech geeks and rich kids will buy whatever comes out, but I just don’t see the culture being there for this to be a mass market product (there sure isn’t the economy, since most people struggle just to pay for phones at this point).

Nobody’s interested in what you’re not interested in. 

rainmaker said:

StrangeDays said:

tmopheavy

entropys said:

Great Tim, where is my next iMac?

Wait, I thought the chief whine was "Yeah but where's the new Mac mini!" lol...folks will just keep rotating it based on what's not out yet

True, and yet the iMac was one of the first products released when Steve Jobs returned to Apple. The product that put them on the path to profitability after Apples dark days. To go as long as it has without an update is uncharacteristic of the iconic product.

You might have noticed that lately they don’t so much update as redesign. For Apple, that’s an expensive proposition, especially in engineering resources, because details matter so much to this company. Other companies not so much. 

You’re free to judge Apple as sluggish and plodding in their methodology, but they’re not making PCs in a conventional Asian beehive of engineering and production turnaround. And that’s the way it should be for an American post-industrial design company that aims its products at the art-as-technology market. Or is it technology as art?