Paywall

[deleted]

Good decision!

Just yesterday I was watching a video about the Virtual Boy… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9FhIZkm4cw …and I was surprised to learn that Nintendo rushed it. Maybe it wouldn't have flopped (at least not so bad) if Nintendo gave it more time and resources.

But also, the iPhone has AR right now. I've played around with it, used it to view new Apple products, but it's not one of those features that I use a lot.

AR is the hardest device engineering problem in human history. The complexity is multiple orders of magnitude higher than the invention of smartphones both from a hardware and software standpoint.

It's this complexity that leads to a very long road ahead for the industry, but if/when the tech gets to a certain point, I am confident it will also be the most transformational device in human history. High risk, high rewards.

Didn't the American armed forces regect the military grade AR glasses due to hardened soldiers getting such severe motion sickness they stopped using them?

I think it could’ve worked if the release was in 2043

I think HoloLense has proven that FOV is king in AR

Edit: it has proven that having limited FOV is something consumers notice and do not want

Nobody has proven anything about AR.

they did, but they rejected by giving them more money for research and development.

HoloLense has shown that 75 degrees fov is underwhelming to most

Here you go.

I think it was hololens

I know it’s a fever dream but man the idea of having AR glasses and looking at an object like a bird and then it being able to identify it on the spot sounds both really cool and terrifying

What do you mean? There’s a pikachu in my bathroom!!

The very hardest?

Medical imaging? Microprocessors? Datacenter networking? Space travel?

I'm hoping that their MR headset will be good enough to spur competition in the space, like what happened with the iPhone. But I doubt it. We'll have to wait for the "if ever" AR glasses, I think.

I should have clarified consumer devices.

Though medical imagining, microprocessors, and datacenter networking are all a major part of AR glasses. For AR glasses to work well, they need cutting edge tech in each of those areas - Space travel, perhaps not.

Real time object classification isn't a fever dream, neural networks that classify objects can be run on very modest hardware today. The tricky part is making the glasses stylish and not having cords connecting them to your phone.

People got used to the annual product cycle that they forgot that it takes decades for new hardware products to enter the market and technology to be cheap enough to gain enough traction among the masses. I don't work with hardware AR or VR but I am sure the problems are not that complex that you make it out to be. I think the limited processing power is what is limiting it. Display technology has matured enough due to smartphones that they should not be the problem. Making the cpu small and powerful enough should be no problem with 3nm technology that we are getting next year. So I expect large gains in 2024.

> I don't work with hardware AR or VR but I am sure the problems are not that complex that you make it out to be. I think the limited processing power is what is limiting it. Display technology has matured enough due to smartphones that they should not be the problem.

AR can't use any existing displays in a consumer viable form, and the optics stack has to be invented mostly from scratch. Optics in particular are very difficult because light is so finnicky and difficult to deal with. Then you have to attain a wide field of view, without distortion, somehow produce pure black with 100% transparency, work dynamically at many focal lengths, with HDR in several tens of thousands of nits (even the world's best HDR TV doesn't go beyond 2000), on a all-day or decently long battery life in a pair of glasses without dissipating too much heat, while stabilizing overlayed content with high precision including high precision environment mapping.

And we haven't even gotten into the main input method for AR, which is likely a brain-computer interface (EMG), software complexity and UX design being much harder due to 3D being a much wider canvas for interactions than a 2D screen.

Oh, if you mean AR including a brain monitor than yes, that's a whole different beast. But aren't we still far away from that? Most people understand AR as a wearable headset screen like google glass or hololens.

But I get what you mean, the learning curve is much higher than in smartphone technology in certain aspects. But smartphones themselves were inherently difficult to build too. Not so much the hardware but more the software. They required a whole new operating system build from scratch. If it weren't for google or apple having the manpower, we could still be using clamshell phones even today.

[removed]

But the text is blurred and then you hear a little ding and renew your subscription to WorldFacts to see again.

Or what's truly terrifying is walking down High street and all the floating AR ads are generated and targeted just at you.

The same coffee shop-

"Come drink at Liberal Tears fuck dem commies am I right HU-RA"

"This is an LGBTQ-IE Coffee Haus, all beans are triple washed and ethically ground"

I doubt Apple will release any of this stuff until they have a breakthrough in input methods.

“Hardened soldiers” aren’t any less susceptible to motion sickness. A lot of VR games used to give motion sickness and it’s possible to improve to get rid of it or make people experience it less, they found a performance issue, now they need to go back to try and fix it then test it again.

If everything got scrapped because it didn’t work initially we would have nothing.

They can show whatever TF they want. Why are you even talking about Hololens?

Doubt it’s the input methods. It’s the variable focal range. Without this, most people will get motion sickness

Both are issues. Current input methods will keep these from being mainstream, and so will motion sickness issues.

They were testing AFAIK and AR isn’t new to the military either, pilots use AR in their helmets for flight data.

Store employees immediately get a breakdown of your job title and expected income and get to treat you accordingly.

Got a vr headset recently and never had any motion sickness in all but one game - so it’s definitely a performance / software issue that can be fixed.

I hope the quality still holds up.

Cyberpunk dystopia here we come!

>Store employees immediately get a breakdown of your job title and expected income

Your dates too.

Because they were the first big usable AR platform, it serves as a reference point for all AR to compete against.

The biggest consumer feedback was that the limited FOV results in use cases limited to professional use rather than leisure. This article is about how Apple AR is going from glasses to headsets, for multiple reasons including a more immersive experience.

Headsets have mostly gotten to a place where pixel density is no longer an issue, especially with today’s pancake lenses. Tracking has also become a trivial issue as standalone headsets can track themselves with a simple set of cameras.

This leaves immersion to be determined by the weight/comfort and FOV. Going from glasses to a headset is going to require more weight. This sacrifice is likely to accommodate for better FOV, as the biggest current challenge with glasses is finding a place to mount a screen while remaining balanced.

There’s also battery life,but the headset is planned to have an external battery, the same type of banks I use to power my dinosaur Vive Pro+Wireless. The same way I would have solved the issue for glasses.

Apple is being tight lipped, so I’m speculating about as much as the article. But saying HoloLense isn’t a reference one should consider when comparing AR is like saying the Ford Pinto wasn’t a factor in the design of the Fiat 126, the Honda Civic, or the Renault 5. Even the failures have lessons to learn

I’m trying to understand the difference between AR and MR. Please chime in with more examples or explanations as I have a hard time with the concepts.

So AR tech is more akin to Pokémon Go. Where the digital stuff is overlaid on a real environment with very basic interactivity. It can understand ceilings walls and floors. It adds depth and understands distance. Like those furniture apps to see what stuff can look like in your room.

MR tech seems to be far more immersive. Same concept,but the digital stuff can interact with real world elements. Your hands would be able to move a virtual ball with the real world as a backdrop. but also, picking up a stick in the real world would register and can be understood in the virtual sense, turning it into a sword without any fancy controllers. It would be the next-gen iteration of augmented reality.

It probably is up there.

Think of the number of problems that it has to solve.

Medical imaging is pretty straightforward. You’re beaming energy into something and then capturing the image. Humans are doing all of the recognition.

Microprocessors are very difficult but each thing is an evolution of the last.

AR glasses is probably the most difficult integration problem ever solved so far. It is taking a ton of technologies that have only every been used at much larger scales (cars, planes, stationary cameras), shrinking them down, then they’re trying to integrate that with a pair of glasses that are both comfortable and stylish and have a long enough battery to use, and are affordable to buy.

The object recognition is getting pretty decent, but right now phones struggle with this let alone something glasses sized. AND getting the device to do it on device vs the cloud for both privacy and latency. Then once you have object recognition, you have to then filter out which recognized objects are important to display. How does the device figure this out? Watching your eyes? Have you seen a video of human eyes moving? They’re not exactly stable, they jump around constantly and your brain stitches all the image’s together into something cohesive. What about when you want to use gestures to control things, like scrolling through menus on a virtual screen? How does it differentiate between that and when you’re touching an actual screen? So now you need cameras on the inside too, but also super advanced AI onboard to figure out gestures from random hand waving. You also need to build an entire suite of apps that work with this. Smartphones didn’t exactly start out with huge app stores and we didn’t have high expectations for them anyway. Now, our expectations are sky high. We want to replace our phones and laptops with these. So we need that experience but better.

Then on top of that, you need a transparent screen that doesn’t fuck with your vision both while you’re wearing the glasses and permanently that can show high resolution, high frame rate, variably transparent images, video, and text, that can both be stationary in space or motion smoothed depending on the users motion. For example, when you’re sitting and you have virtual computer monitors, you want those monitors to be fixed over a desk, always, even when you turn your head. But when you walk away, you want those monitors to stay there and not move. You want them to be there when you come back though. But you also want them to be able to pop up in the “right” place while you’re on the train so you can work on your commute. You’re facing sideways and the train is moving forward. The glasses need to figure out that motion and allow you to work or watch a movie without a ton of jittering, but it needs enough jittering to match the bounces of the train because otherwise you’ll get motion sickness. It also needs a different interface for while you’re walking and want to do things. It needs stationary menus always in the same place in your field of view (which, define that) but also things that move with the environment, some transparent and others completely opaque.

And it needs to do all of this with absolutely no lag. And not look dorky, and the battery needs to last all day, and it needs to work with different interfaces like keyboards, mice, fingers, eye tracking, figure out when it needs to ignore eye tracking and use the mouse, when it needs to combine the two. And it can’t just be something that only Jeff Bezos can afford.

Pilots use heads up display (HUDs) not AR.

Ah I’m an idiot, you’re right

With ads or a subscription fee

If I understand correctly, MR means the headset is capable VR, and then there’s passthrough capabikity which essentially feeds your headset a video image of the “outside world” and overlays info/images on that real world image. AR I believe there’s no “video” that’s being shown. It’s just the outside world being shown through a lens like on on your phone with images overlayed on top of it.

No glassholes

Just like Apple to straight up name their shit “reality”.

Plus, you'd have to wait for someone to solve the captcha for you

Virtual boy was trying to do things we just didn’t have the tech for yet. I had that thing it weighed about 20 pounds. They said you could lie down and use it instead of playing it on top of a desk but that never really worked.

I’ve used the latest iteration of Hololens and never had an issue with motion sickness. Using the device while walking around the office is one thing, wearing it while sprinting through a war zone is another. I imagine Apple will stick with the headset fork factor until it can handle more physically strenuous use cases

LMAO. Fair point but judging by how difficult some of those are compared to the past I'd imagine Googles object detection is getting pretty good.

Go big or go home apple.

It's also a person thing, I think. Some people in my family can play VR for a long at a time, others start feeling woozy and play in shorter bursts.

That was also almost 30 years ago. Mainstream VR has been a thing for 5+ years

Shit this is a whole other angle.

Paying for darkweb style reports on people that pop up in real time

Searched for bestiality porn 3 months ago

"Petrus you need to stay overtime tonight! I will not put up with my employees fucking the dog on company time!"

"W.w.whaat?"

"Oh it's just an expression....now get to it!"

[deleted]

Stylish, comfortable, well balanced, light, adapts to various prescriptions, etc....

Honestly, I think this is a big test for Apple. Do they still have the stuff to invent new computing paradigms.

[deleted]

Shitty link should be the flair on this one.

Apple doesn't have anything...

Apple’s cash reserves have dropped by over half in two years, from $100b to $48b.

AR is apparently a very expensive solve.

Makes sense to call it “mixed” if It can perform both VR AND AR. On that note it actually sounds like an improvement as opposed to exclusively AR which would overlay digital to a real world display or even a feed.

There's only three features to AR and all three are missing from all current projects.

Reliable general object recognition so that data can be put onto normal things,

an open-protocol data ecosystem that would allow banal data about the world to be shared,

and most importantly, stylish, high quality, unobtrusive glasses reasonably indistinguishable from normal eyeglasses.

Tldr all the things that would make AR awesome are things we can't do.

Yes, although the benefit of a strictly AR device would be that since it takes less processing power, it would be a smaller, thinner and lighter (and less expensive) device. So there are trade offs for both.

I know people who get motion sick playing regular video games on a stationary screen, so it's an inherent flaw of VR/AR.

I’m sure Apple sees the sales of the Meta Quest 2 and figured they need to re-engineer their device to hit a similar price point to be competitive.

What? The demand for a $3,000 toy isn’t overwhelming? Shocking.

You might enjoy: Hyper-Reality - AR with ads and gamification (on speed)

https://youtu.be/YJg02ivYzSs

Always post this.

So, like... Three years? Or seventy?

Somewhere in between probably

It’s not quite mainstream yet. Outside a decent sized niche in gaming and porn, a vast majority of people are not using it

As literally the only other existing version of the tech to reference, how can you not mention Hollow lens when discussing this technology?

Microsoft tried it one way and virtually failed, apple saw that and is course correcting. It's absolutely connected.

Something can be mainstream without the vast majority of people using said thing.

Cheaper is better. I will wait longer for something that isn’t outrageously priced.

This is code for, “we spent a lot of money but it sucks.”

eyePods would have been an epic name.

Amazing use of the available technology though. I believe the biggest downside was that it caused dizzyness.

I played Mario tennis for like 45 mins once, and when I took my face out of it I looked at a can of Pepsi and it looked bright red instead of blue. The virtual boy was no joke

Damn how expensive are they going to be? You know it's going to be way over priced when even Apple declined the original pricing.

The same thing happens if you stare at the color red for long enough and then look at a white wall.

Yeah, it needs to be something that people would wear even when they aren’t using it.

Really, it needs to be a status symbol

I'd say the quest2 with over 15 million(estimates Jun. 2022) counts as mainstream

It will be the best AR they’ve ever made.

You honestly think they spent $52 billion on AR? Their official plan is to get rid of their cash pile through stock buy backs an dividends. Sorry no mystery here

Wasn’t that a business decision to buyback shares to reduce the extra cash?

Yeah it’s like gaming PCs. Less common than consoles but still common

Ar = mr

[removed]

I tired a couple game on a vr headset both times I felt very sick within 10 mins. But I also get seasick out at sea so I think it's a me thing. I wonder if the motion sickness tablets work for things like vr or ar headsets?

Certain games make me feel nauseous but most are fine. Its when the screen moves alot with the motion of the characters head. I think it's called camera sway, thankfully a lot of game have the option to switch it off.

Honestly it's very doubtful that they would have been able to make enough of an improvement to make it successful. Most of the problem was the marketing, which really overpromised what it could do; they tried to pretend it was a virtual reality machine when in reality the most it could do was display low-resolution graphics with the illusion of depth and none of the core technologies needed for VR like head tracking or actual realtime 3D graphics.

It was more of a toy than anything else, and if it came out as a toy instead of a game system we would have thought of it as being much more successful.

Nintendo did it first.

And then Sony/Nvidia did it later.

I don't think Apple has ever done that in it's entire existence

my favorite use case to imagine is: you're walking down a city street looking at all the seemingly random people you're passing—but that guy on the left you've actually seen 36 times mostly every Thursday in this spot, and that woman in the right has been in the coffee shop back in your neighborhood with you 8 times this year

the social implications are weeiirddd, it could make big cities start to feel a lot smaller

[removed]