What is the point in developing something so expensive that nobody buys it?
Like sure it’s got some really cool tech in it but since literally no one has made any apps for it what’s the point.
Comment on There’s No Dancing Around It: Apple’s Vision Pro Was An Ugly Dud
Mbourgon@lemmy.world 5 days ago
I went and did the Apple demo. I was there for something else at the time, and they had an opening, so I jumped on it. I highly recommend doing the demo, it’s honestly really freaking impressive. I’m not positive what the killer app is for it yet, or if this is just a step in long term AR/MR, but what they’ve done is really impressive. Yes, it’s expensive as hell, and my suspicion is that long term the displays will be replaced with a waveguide (Stanford’s looks pretty good at this point), so it won’t need the external-facing display, but they’ve got the head and hand-tracking in a good spot, as well as the gestures needed for it.
Maybe, the killer app will be the overlay itself, where it uses a camera/location/audio to see what’s going on and present more context. Looking at a menu? Okay, I’ve had this and this and liked it, but their X I’m not a fan of. I need Y from the grocery store, where is it on the shelves… more than anything, I think that they saw what Google glass could become capable of, and thought that the phone as it is now (screen, etc) was going to become obsolete at some point, and they were terrified of losing that race.
echodot@feddit.uk 5 days ago
Mbourgon@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Some reasons.
- Apple needs new products - even something like this gives headlines, reminds people about the cool product, so maybe they choose a different one. Even if it doesn’t make money it keeps Apple as “new and innovative” and helps recruitment.
- Gets it out there for developers to try out, come up with use cases and killer apps.
- People (prosumers) come up with uses that Apple and Devs may not have thought of.
- Allows people from #4 to bring them to work - after all, that’s how Apple got big in the first place… People bringing their Apple ][ & visicalc, since their IT wasn’t responsive enough or people hated working on mainframes. It wouldn’t surprise me if one of the doctors brought it in himself thinking it might be useful.
- Allows Apple to come up with justification for the R&D money for the GUI, UX, hand gestures, etc that they’re going to need later. Gotta keep shareholders happy.
Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee 5 days ago
- Patent pool
The AR market is not just entertainment, Microsoft has been failing to build a viable AR helmet for soldiers for years now, after the latest-and-greatest fight jets got them.
Professional use too - think of how much simpler and safer ‘realistic’ training could be for deep sea commercial divers or oil rig workers. Live schematic overlays for aircraft technicians at work/in training.
Those are a few of the applications where an absurdly high unit cost/license fee would be gladly swallowed instead by governments or business.
cornshark@lemmy.world 5 days ago
What’s a waveguide?
Mbourgon@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Here’s a good article about this specific waveguide: theverge.com/…/stanford-ai-holographic-ar-glasses…
TLDR - they need special materials to allow small/thin glasses for XR goggles. This looks like it could be huge.
vulture_god@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 days ago
It appears to be related to fiber optics, here’s the best resource I found:
Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 5 days ago
Yes, it’s expensive as hell, and my suspicion is that long term the displays will be replaced with a waveguide (Stanford’s looks pretty good at this point), so it won’t need the external-facing display
Interesting; any more information on this? I tried a search but didn’t turn much up.
I think that they saw what Google glass could become capable of, and thought that the phone as it is now (screen, etc) was going to become obsolete at some point, and they were terrified of losing that race.
That’s very fair… I definitely think the only viable future here is lightweight AR glasses.
Mbourgon@lemmy.world 5 days ago
waveguide here’s a good article on it: theverge.com/…/stanford-ai-holographic-ar-glasses…
QuadratureSurfer@lemmy.world 5 days ago
For the specs of what it is and what else is out there, it’s actually a really good price.
People like to compare it to the cheapest headsets out there, but it has specs that beat the highest end headsets out there and it’s cheaper than those.
When the Apple Vision pro came out, the closest device sporting similar specs would be the Varjo XR-3 which was only available to Enterprise users. It cost $7k plus a $1500 yearly subscription, plus you needed a powerful computer to run it.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=REo1ugX5GSI
Basically, hardware wise, it’s good, but for it’s actual uses it’s not worth the $3500.
Warl0k3@lemmy.world 5 days ago
It’s got good hardware, but there’s nothing being done with that hardware. The pricepoint kept there from being any broad dev support, so its basically a gimmicky paperweight that costs $3500. At least Microsoft will directly work with industry partners for Hololens development, but there’s nothing like that with Apple to help pave over the notoriously rough super-early adoption era.
Mbourgon@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Yeah, I’ve seen where doctors are using it for surgery and I see all sorts of parallels to the portable computing movement of the 90s, which were about having tablets instead of a ton of manuals, and some of the AR/MR where it shows them where everything goes while looking at the part in question.
fpslem@lemmy.world 5 days ago
The article I’ve seen is once instance in Brazil (article in Brazilian Portuguese) for laparoscopic surgery, which makes a lot of sense. I don’t know how it compare to other displays, however, or if using a VR set rather than a monitor offers advantages, or if the Vision Pro did anything new or better. The same article mentions that doctors had done the same thing with a HoloLens VR headset some years before.
Mbourgon@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Several others, though a couple seem to be about a POC.