this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
594 points (94.1% liked)
Technology
60123 readers
2697 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
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 an AR iPad. It’s not that deep.
I would love to walk around with a video playing in a fixed hud while I go around doing chores. I'm constantly finding places to put my phone down every time I move to another station.
I'm not paying $3500 for that, though.
That was the idea of Google glasses but it was too early and tech wasn't ready. It was gonna give you just enough useful info and get out of the way.
Plus Google haters made "glass-holes" viral.
I'm not sure whether it would work better today.
What seems odd about the glasses is that they're essentially bodycams, but just unobtrusive enough not to be identified as such from a distance.
Someone walking around with an AR headset makes it very clear they're wearing a tech device, someone holding up a phone in front of them signals "I might be filming", but someone wearing slightly unusual glasses won't catch any attention. And that seems very weird to a lot of people.
I thought Google Glass was a really cool idea. I actually liked Google back then.
God, I still dream of a device that works like we saw in the OG Glass concept video as opposed to the glorified Google Plus browser we got
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
OG Glass concept video
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
To be fair, that product was crazy expensive. It was basically exclusively for wealthy people. If it was cheaper, and easy to develop for, it would have been a huge success.
Look at what Apple has done here by comparison... This bullshit is even more expensive.
I'm working on an open source version of an AR OS that can run on any Android phone, so you (will be) in luck!
Post it on Lemmy when you get something running, very interested!
This is like 20€
The windows don’t come with you, you’d have to look at the corner and pinch to carry it around, then when you let go it anchors wherever you left it
If you weren't aware https://youtube.com/shorts/zhXLC7n62YQ?si=TSu1p-WixFcbSxb2
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/shorts/zhXLC7n62YQ?si=TSu1p-WixFcbSxb2
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Get a pair of Viture glasses then, it's about $500
It's not even AR... Didn't they back down from that? Isn't it mixed reality or something?
How is augmented reality different from mixed reality? Genuine question. They sound like the same thing.
I believe AR overlays information about the real world where as mixed reality just shows you the real world with a few apps floating about
Yes, AR analyses your world and you and gives you more info about the reality, Mixed Reality just has your screens attend into the world without interacting with it. The only thing I saw that was really AR was the use with a MacBook as a screen.
You're describing the difference between "passthrough" AR, and "look through" (or "optical") AR.
AR and MR or more pretty much interchangeable.
I don't think so. For example with true AR you could look at something like a bus and have it tell you information like the schedule, route, if it's running on time etc. This is done automatically and without user interaction. What the Vison Pro does is give you floating apps you can interact with
There is nothing about the Vision Pro that prevents that from happening other than they haven't implemented it.
The ~~ability~~ feature to automatically give you information about arbitrary things you're looking at isn't a requirement for "true AR".
I'm not really defending vision pro, it seems pretty limited. But that doesn't make it "not true AR" and MR doesn't mean "crappy/inferior AR"
I didn't see anyone mention this, but while this headset depicts the outside world when you are wearing it, you are viewing a camera feed of that world. True AR would be like google glass where it is a piece of glass with data projected onto it. Apples thing recreates the world around you and then adds in the applications, you are viewing the world through a filter.
It could also just be marketing too because it seems like they are trying really hard to not make this look like some nerd shit.
They are the same thing. I think that they're confusing it with the difference between "passthrough" AR (you watch an opaque display showing video of the outside world) and "see through" AR (which uses a transparent display that you look through to see the outside world).
We don't have mixed reality yet. The difference is that AR adds a data overlay on the physical world while MR is more like a hologram that you can interface with and everyone can see the same thing without needing additional goggles or display over the eyes.
We don't have true MR yet. Apple is marketing the vision pro as spatial computing and it's a mix between VR and AR.
Where are you getting that definition from? Oxford's is "a medium consisting of immersive computer-generated environments in which elements of a physical and virtual environment are combined."
"visitors will be able to watch a tennis match broadcast in mixed reality"
Eh. It's a bit more handwavey than that. It's whatever you want it to be.
Virtual reality was supposed to be simulated, but "actual still science fiction" levels of simulated. seamless 3d environment, intercepting nerve signals to look and intuitively control an avatar or ready player one had a haptic suit.
AR stems from that and was supposed to be "the real world, but cyber". Or "VR, but with real world elements". In the novel "virtual light", it's supposed to overlay that "datasturce of cyberspace" on the real world. Even then it was never really clear what purpose cyberspace as a 3d world would have, what data looks like or should look like, and what the advantage of that visualization would be. Or why would rather see that than what the world looks like.
Mixed reality is also that. Imo. It sounds the same to me too.
The whole thing is like hand gesture control. It looked great in minority report, but we had it since one of the 2010s xboxs and it went absolutely nowhere.
Virtual reality: everything you see is virtual.
Augmented reality: adds a HUD on top of what you see in reality.
Mixed reality: has virtual objects behind real objects, mixing both real and virtual
That's because it's just marketing bullshit.
The worst person you've ever met came up with it in a very upscale cube farm over a chai latte, don't think too hard about it.
I hate Hate HATE that I'm going to say this: the iPad was just a bigger iPhone, yet here we are. It's the perfect device for consumption and light work, yet people had no idea about what to do with it at first.
I'm more irked about that thing being gigantic and strapped to your face, thought. It's the next level of social isolation, in a level even higher that the one cause by smartphones, and I'm not ok with that. Companies actually want to hijack and sell your reality back to you.
I’m with you. AR and VR has potential, absolutely, but companies are not our friends and they’ll find ways to exploit these things to the detriment of us. They always do.
We all know that these companies aren’t above lying straight to our faces. They’re even undermining the concept of ownership so they can milk us even further.
It’s sad, but I don’t see a reality where this kind of tech being closed off and proprietary will ever end well.
I think part of the "what do I do with this" factor for the iPad was that Apple (and other companies still to this day) were so hell bent on making everything smaller and more compact that releasing a larger product was marketing whiplash. Not to mention that smartphones were being pitched as this "do everything device" so why would you need anything else?
After you get over that marketing sugarcoating, it becomes pretty obvious what you'd use an iPad for. Internet and media consumption at a larger scale than your phone, easier on your eyes than a phone, but retains at least some of the lightweight smaller form factor that separates it from a regular laptop. Sure you didn't have the stick it in your pocket advantage of a phone or the full keyboard and computational power of a laptop, but there was this in-between that for a modest fee, you could have the conveniences if you can live with/ignore the sacrifices.