4 ms·

i can't wait for Apple to figure out AR

stesch 8y ago
Apple bought Metaio in 2015. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaio
techstrategist 8y ago
There are already impressive things happening with ARKit; I have a feeling there will be plenty of developers using a relatively mature toolset already if/when they drop a real AR product outside of a phone. https://twitter.com/search?f=videos&vertical=default&q=%23arkit&src=typd https://twitter.com/search?f=videos&vertical=default&q=%23ar...
zamalek 8y ago
I honestly don't think we are close enough to the tools. It is the culmination of what is currently handwavium: neural interfaces, carbon nanotechnology, who knows? As a VR user and enthusiast, FOV is a problem that lenses simply can't solve - which is an even harder problem for AR. I'm not a big fan of Apple, but I can hand them the "polish card" (at least under Jobs). With our current level of technology, that level of polish is impossible.
- oliveshell 8y ago
  We’ll never get there if we don’t start sometime... even if the development process might take a decade or two. No one is better prepared to judge whether the tools are ready than people who are being paid to try and make it work.
  - zamalek 8y ago
    I'm not saying that it's not worth it - just that we have a lot more to do than a single acquisition.
    - oliveshell 8y ago
      Fair. I read hastily and was a little too snarky at first and have slightly edited my comment. I’m just excited. Goddamn do I want me a solid full-FOV AR devkit to play with.
      - zamalek 8y ago
        No problem! I'm a VR user because I want to keep up, I want to experience the bleeding edge - I want to experience it as it happens. I'm enthusiastic but realistic - science will solve this though, not Apple.
        Scarbutt 8y ago
        someone has to do the science, why can't it be apple?
        zamalek 8y ago
        Are they?
        crooked-v 8y ago
        Well, they're pouring a bunch of money into paying for people to work on AR lenses, so... yes?
- djrogers 8y ago
  > With our current level of technology, that level of polish is impossible. Hence the anticipation and excitement. I can’t wait for jet packs, hoverboards, and flying cars too - one can geek out over cool tech even if it ain’t right around the corner.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    > jet packs, hoverboards, and flying cars too - one can geek out over cool tech even if it ain’t right around the corner Two of those three are entirely doable (and have been done) - the main problems with them are 1) economy, and 2) that, while cool for individual, they'd be absolutely disastrous if ubiquitous. You don't want everyone to get themselves a jet pack or flying car, not unless 99.9% of flying is done by a foolproof AI.
    - frockington 8y ago
      I never even thought about that. The amount of damage one drunk flyer could do would be astounding
- drewblaisdell 8y ago
  > FOV is a problem that lenses simply can't solve Would you or someone else mind elaborating on this? I am unfamiliar with this problem.
  - imustbeevil 8y ago
    Put your fingers in front of your face, in the middle of each eye. The glasses would only display the overlay between your fingers. The other half of your vision (and it is a hard cut off as you move your head) does not get the overlay. That would be roughly 90 degrees, which puts 60 and 30 in perspective. Say we have 1,000 pixels. With current lenses we can display 500 of those pixels over 30 degrees of vision. This is the tradeoff between FOV and Resolution. You could also display those 500 pixels over 60 degrees of vision at half the resolution. A better lens increases the maximum resolution, so you can show 500 pixels over 15 degrees of vision. But you're still going to bottleneck on the total number of pixels you can display. And if you're targetting FOV having higher resolution only hurts because it costs more of your total pixel budget for less of the users vision being full.
    - lihaciudaniel 8y ago
      I totally wouldn't mind that. If the technology reaches then surely app would be integrated. I would love goals app that sync with smartphone and makes life like a videogame. I mean possibilities and unlimited with AR glasses.

Apple bought Metaio in 2015. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaio

There are already impressive things happening with ARKit; I have a feeling there will be plenty of developers using a relatively mature toolset already if/when they drop a real AR product outside of a phone. https://twitter.com/search?f=videos&vertical=default&q=%23arkit&src=typd https://twitter.com/search?f=videos&vertical=default&q=%23ar...

zamalek 8y ago

I honestly don't think we are close enough to the tools. It is the culmination of what is currently handwavium: neural interfaces, carbon nanotechnology, who knows? As a VR user and enthusiast, FOV is a problem that lenses simply can't solve - which is an even harder problem for AR. I'm not a big fan of Apple, but I can hand them the "polish card" (at least under Jobs). With our current level of technology, that level of polish is impossible.

oliveshell 8y ago
We’ll never get there if we don’t start sometime... even if the development process might take a decade or two. No one is better prepared to judge whether the tools are ready than people who are being paid to try and make it work.
- zamalek 8y ago
  I'm not saying that it's not worth it - just that we have a lot more to do than a single acquisition.
  - oliveshell 8y ago
    Fair. I read hastily and was a little too snarky at first and have slightly edited my comment. I’m just excited. Goddamn do I want me a solid full-FOV AR devkit to play with.
    - zamalek 8y ago
      No problem! I'm a VR user because I want to keep up, I want to experience the bleeding edge - I want to experience it as it happens. I'm enthusiastic but realistic - science will solve this though, not Apple.
      - Scarbutt 8y ago
        someone has to do the science, why can't it be apple?
        zamalek 8y ago
        Are they?
        crooked-v 8y ago
        Well, they're pouring a bunch of money into paying for people to work on AR lenses, so... yes?
djrogers 8y ago
> With our current level of technology, that level of polish is impossible. Hence the anticipation and excitement. I can’t wait for jet packs, hoverboards, and flying cars too - one can geek out over cool tech even if it ain’t right around the corner.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  > jet packs, hoverboards, and flying cars too - one can geek out over cool tech even if it ain’t right around the corner Two of those three are entirely doable (and have been done) - the main problems with them are 1) economy, and 2) that, while cool for individual, they'd be absolutely disastrous if ubiquitous. You don't want everyone to get themselves a jet pack or flying car, not unless 99.9% of flying is done by a foolproof AI.
  - frockington 8y ago
    I never even thought about that. The amount of damage one drunk flyer could do would be astounding
drewblaisdell 8y ago
> FOV is a problem that lenses simply can't solve Would you or someone else mind elaborating on this? I am unfamiliar with this problem.
- imustbeevil 8y ago
  Put your fingers in front of your face, in the middle of each eye. The glasses would only display the overlay between your fingers. The other half of your vision (and it is a hard cut off as you move your head) does not get the overlay. That would be roughly 90 degrees, which puts 60 and 30 in perspective. Say we have 1,000 pixels. With current lenses we can display 500 of those pixels over 30 degrees of vision. This is the tradeoff between FOV and Resolution. You could also display those 500 pixels over 60 degrees of vision at half the resolution. A better lens increases the maximum resolution, so you can show 500 pixels over 15 degrees of vision. But you're still going to bottleneck on the total number of pixels you can display. And if you're targetting FOV having higher resolution only hurts because it costs more of your total pixel budget for less of the users vision being full.
  - lihaciudaniel 8y ago
    I totally wouldn't mind that. If the technology reaches then surely app would be integrated. I would love goals app that sync with smartphone and makes life like a videogame. I mean possibilities and unlimited with AR glasses.