this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2024
96 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37747 readers
203 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's not 150 unique apps. The article says:
You can watch Netflix on the Vision Pro in a browser but they didn't create a specific app for it like for example for iOS. 150 other apps were updated to run on the device. We're not talking about apps that run only on Vision Pro, just apps that have specific Vision Pro version. It's like if when Apple released the iPad only 150 apps were tested, maybe slightly adapted and marked in AppStore as iPad compatible.
150 is nothing. There are millions of apps in the AppStore, all (if not all, most) of them could be updated to run on the VisionPro and developers of only 150 bothered to do it. That's terrible result.
150 apps that has been explicitly updated to support a device that's so expensive that's guaranteed that nobody would actually buy it is a lot. And it's not even on sale yet!
For comparison look at the Microsoft hololens. Similar concept and similar price, announced 8 years ago, can only dream of having 150 useful apps. If i go on the hololens store page it says "Showing 1 - 90 of 321 items" and you can see that are mostly demos or proof of concepts.
8 years after the launch has just over double the apps for a device that will launch next month
You don't know what effort is needed to update an app for Vision Pro. For most apps it's probably just marking a checkbox in the XCode and releasing an update. What special features will you add to PCalc? It will just float in front of you like every other app. Do you need to write any special code to make it work on Vision Pro?
Most of those millions of apps are crap that hasn't been updated in years, and they don't have millions of users (not the kind of users who would by a Vision Pro at launch, anyway). I haven't read the list but I'm betting the 150 that are here are much more popular and useful for this platform -- the kinds of apps that would actively benefit from this technology and that the users actually want and will use.
Pre-installed apps optimized for Vision Pro:
Here’s a full list of third-party apps confirmed for VisionOS so far:
Yeah, because when I use Safari, Notes and Word what I REALLY need is augmenter reality.
I'm just trying to surf spreadsheets in the metaverse man
Excel seems interesting with the Vision Pro. Imagine infinite 3D spreadsheets!
Gonna hack the Gibson!
You may not realize it, but you actually want AR for everything: pick up some coffee, read some news, take some notes, write them into a document... while still sipping your coffee, and no computers in sight.
AR is not the tiny dancing characters you see through your phone's camera, that's a silly gimmick. AR is the equivalent of picking a bunch of sheets of paper, and having them display the different apps, except without any paper, or taking any physical space, or buying more devices to fill your workspace.
Because I cannot sip at my coffee while looking at my monitor? What a strange idea.
As strange as looking at your monitor, instead of buying a newspaper that you can take to the bathroom then reuse it when you're done.
Having monitors, screens, and other displays scattered around, will be as backwards as the newspaper thing. Why even buy a monitor, when you have all the virtual monitors you might ever want, right there on your head?
Sure as long as 'all the virtual monitors you might ever want' is exactly one monitor. You do know that Vision Pro can only simulate one display when working with a Mac? We're talking about specific device not some imaginary thing Apple will release 10 years from now. Jesus, Mac fanboys are just the worst...
I was talking about AR, not a specific device.
Right... thanks, but no thanks.
Ok, I see how you could get confused and think we're talking about some non-existing, future product instead of the device this post is actually about. No problem, this happens.
When it comes to AR in general Magic Leap was pushing it hard for a very long time and after they released actual device their value quickly dropped. AR for general public is a gimmick, it doesn't solve any problems, no one wants it. It has very interesting applications in some very specific fields and definitely will find it uses with professionals but when it comes to your dream of looking at 15 4k screens while sitting on a toilet most people are happy with just their phones.
Magic Leap fell for the same trap as many VR/AR projects before it: let the marketing department overpromise, then have clients disappointed when they underdeliver. Don't get mistaken, I also think this Apple Vision Pro is overpromising, and that they'll get hit hard for it.
Still, most people would jump at the opportunity of shitting in the woods, or on the moons of Jupiter, or in their favorite fantasy porn den... it's part of why making appealing marketing for this stuff is so easy: people love to get carried away by gimmicks.
And yet again, none of that changes the actual utility of AR, which, if implemented correctly, goes far beyond a gimmick and becomes life changing.
It just needs to pass a single filter: human capabilities. In particular, vision and balance perception.
Vision
Vision is ironically a pretty low and high bar at the same time: the optical nerve only has 1M signals going through it, that's about 640x480x3, a VGA display could fool it. At the same time, the eye can scan its surroundings with a fovea with an equivalent 60 pixels per degree, with about 135° horizontal × 180° vertical.
The Magic Leap 2 has a 45°×55° FOV (70° diagonal), with a 1440×1760 display, giving it a 30PPD, or about 1/4 (square) of human vision, and a very limited viewing area.
The Apple Vision Pro claims a 110° FOV (presumably diagonal) with 4K displays or 2160×3840... for around a 40PPD, or about 1/2 (square) of human vision, with still a quite small viewing area.
Human vision with a 135°×180° FOV at 60PPD, would require something in the range of 8100×10800px static displays.
Balance
Balance perception has to do with visual feedback, and the vestibulo-ocular reflex... which is informed on one side by the vestibular system, that barely reacts at more than 10Hz, and the retina cones that are capable of reacting at up to 400Hz!
The idea of pre-scanning the environment in the Magic Leap and Apple Vision Pro, looks like a step in the right direction, allowing the system to pre-render images into the future, adapted to the probable environment... but I think they'll still get smashed against the 400Hz barrier.
Meaning, a static display system would need a couple of 16K HDR screens running at 480Hz... which is way above anything being sold or even planned right now. There have been alternative technical solutions, like eye tracking while projecting directly onto the retina, but they seem to still have most of the same limitations.
So... 10 years into the future you said? Maybe. I got an Oculus DK1 about 10 years ago... then promptly went part blind in one eye... but still had a chance at seeing what 640x800 per eye at below 10PPD and 250Hz looked like (like crap, and made a lot of people vomit).
10 years sounds like the timeframe for a wide adoption where people go around with their AR goggles onto the street, some in groups with their virtual friends, some on a peaceful meadow with no one in sight, some with their IRL families or friends and any mix of the aforementioned.
You're mixing AR and VR all the time. VR has a lot of entertainment potential that will be realized once the tech gets better and cheaper, probably fairly soon. For AR to be useful for normal users it will have to replace phones, not PCs. I can see people using it on the subway to browse isntagram or while walking for navigation and answering calls. For this it will have to become super small and light, just like normal glasses. Vision pro is 600g + battery pack. We're decades away from something that will be able to compete with phones.
I don't think I'm mixing anything, buy just in case:
Oculus is VR, Magic Leap is AR, Vision Pro is PVR.
Regardless of mode, any head mounted display has to overcome user sensory input capabilities to fool them properly and not induce explosive vomiting.
Vision Pro is less likely to be used on the exterior, because unlike Magic Leap or HoloLens which let you see everything outside of the rendered area, the Vision Pro may record more, but will only show the rendered display area.
Yet going back to the "walking with headphones" example, some people seem pretty happy to put 400g on their heads just to not hear oncoming traffic, so I wouldn't be surprised if someone put 600g on their head just to see all people rendered as sheep (just an idea).
Yeah it's like the early days of the iPad, when devs could make their iPhone apps available for the iPad as a scaled up version. They weren't iPad apps, but they were on the store marked as such (and were wildly unusable like that), so the numbers were incredibly misleading.