• takeda@lemmy.world
    602·
    10 months ago

    From what I understand the thing isn’t see through and the eyes are actually projected outside. Can somebody explain why they had to add tech to do it?

    • Mossy Feathers (She/They)@pawb.social
      572·
      10 months ago

      Because there are screens in the way? The choice was to either not have the viewer’s eyes be visible, or use a screen to display eyes (not even real eyes, you can supposedly have cat eyes for an example). Considering the device is meant to be AR (augmented reality) and not VR, it kinda makes sense to show the user’s eyes since they’re still “connected” to the outside world. Otherwise you’d have a bunch of blank visors walking around and then people can’t tell if you’re looking at them or your furry waifu.

        • ColdFenix
          7·
          10 months ago

          And it sucked, fov of the augmented area was tiny, the projected images were see-through and you still couldn’t really see the persons eyes because of the tinted glass. Vr headsets with cameras are currently by far the best way to do AR.

        • Robbsen1
          14·
          10 months ago

          Then go and buy Microsoft’s product. Nobody forces you to get a Vision Pro

          • No_@lemm.ee
            36·
            10 months ago

            Lmao look at this bozo defending the shittiest apple product.

            • Robbsen1
              13·
              10 months ago

              What? Where did I defend the Vision Pro? I just don’t get why people get so emotionally invested about something nobody ever forces them to buy or use.

    • qisope@lemmy.world
      43·
      10 months ago

      You actually remove your eyes before inserting the optical couplers into your sockets. You put your eyes in the storage compartment on the front giving the appearance that you’re looking out through the device.

    • Aatube@kbin.social
      361·
      10 months ago

      Achieving realistic, fast camera passthrough on both sides is harder than you think

      • takeda@lemmy.world
        154·
        10 months ago

        Yes, that’s my point. Why? Why make it extra more complicated and more expensive for no good benefit?

        • bandwidthcrisis@lemmy.world
          9·
          10 months ago

          Heavier, too. It’s about as heavy as the competitors despite having a separate battery.

          It’s not necessary to have the external screen.

          The Quest has passthrough cameras to allow you to see the world with stuff displayed over it too, but Apple has decided that simulating eye contact is important.

          It’s Apple’s unique selling point here, but they’d have what sounds like a high-quality headset without it.

        • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
          5·
          10 months ago

          To allow eye contact for social interactions. If you want ubiquitous AR in real life that is what you need. This is an attempt to achieve this with current technology and it “almost” works / near miss / fails spectacularly.

        • Aatube@kbin.social
          52·
          10 months ago

          For no good benefit? Try comparing the display to a HoloLens 2. There’s no current display technology that’s cheaper and allows you to see through while projecting the light at the same intensity. You can search it up.

            • saltesc@lemmy.world
              4·
              10 months ago

              Or anything for that matter.

              All I’d want is “Go away. Gaming.” But a Post-It would do just fine. Hell, I’d prefer googly eyes than my own projected, that’d be way cooler and more useful.

              • Krafty Kactus@sopuli.xyzEnglish
                6·
                10 months ago

                I accomplished everything I need by taping a piece of paper with sharpie eyes on my Quest 2 and it cost me $0 to do so!

            • Aatube@kbin.social
              3·
              10 months ago

              I’ll point to someone down this thread about eye contact in that case. It’s not like it costed much though, reviewers have noted that iSight’s display quality is quite horrible and it seems like all this features added was a small screen

    • xxd
      211·
      10 months ago

      I think this is kind of a temporary workaround. In Apples ideal world, the Vision Pro would actually be transparent and you could see the users eyes for real, but the tech isn’t ready to project what apple is doing on glasses. So they settled for a VR headset and put eyes on the outside. Eventually in however many years it takes, they will actually use glasses and won’t have to do the screen on the outside. They must believe, that being able to see Vision Pro users eyes is integral to the product, or at least important to the product being accepted by everyone.

    • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
      16·
      10 months ago

      What do you mean? They added the outside screen to a vr headset to try to make it more acceptable to wear around others.

    • ExLisper@linux.communityEnglish
      82·
      10 months ago

      Imagine you’re sitting in restaurant waiting for the waiter while doing some work on your Vision Pro. The waiter shows up and says ‘sir…’. You look at him and… there were two options:

      • it’s just a black screen so it’s not clear if you’re actually looking at him. Are you paying attention? Of are you still ‘inside’ and can’t hear/see anyone

      • you have this fake eyes indicating that you’re actually looking at him

      It’s a really stupid “solution” to a huge problem all VR/AR has The actual solution? Don’t buy it.

  • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
    19·
    10 months ago

    They made a VR headset… and put a holographic lightfield display… on the outside.

    Real fucking brain trust over at Cupertino.

    • Natanael@slrpnk.net
      2·
      10 months ago

      The lightfield part is harder do make in high DPI, but yes I had the exact same thought

      • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
        2·
        10 months ago

        More dots won’t make this tech catch on. I assume some PiMax product still has more dots than this. Closer or wider, I dunno, but those guys charge Apple prices for PC rates.

        VR has slumped because the right price point for mere stereo is a lot lower than it has been. Even for subsidized gizmos like Quest HMDs. (And not being glued to Facebook would help.) It needs to be too cheap not to own, or fancy enough to beat Virtual Boy plus color and head-tracking.

  • kingthrillgore@lemmy.ml
    19·
    10 months ago

    The one on the left holds up rich assholes who (sadly) have either all the impact on the world, or none of it

    The one on the right holds up furries and femboys, who have all the impact on the IT and telecom infrastructure in the western world, which hold up everyone.

    I respect the one on the right for obvious reasons.

  • MonkderZweite@feddit.ch
    71·
    10 months ago

    Btw, what happpened with the micro-mirrors and laser solution, projecting the image in your eyes? Sounds ideal for AR to me.

    Not related to Apple.

    • Natanael@slrpnk.net
      8·
      10 months ago

      Expensive and difficult to get high resolution (good quality precise microscopic mirrors). Apple went for higher DPI regular display because that’s a far more well known engineering problem