• Mossy Feathers (She/They)@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

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

        • No_@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          10 months ago

          Lmao look at this bozo defending the shittiest apple product.

          • Robbsen1
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            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.