3 ms·

> Also, a TV can be watched by multiple people, and a home cinema will obviously deliver better sound. I was extremely surprised that shared reality was comple

by sho_hn 3y ago

> Also, a TV can be watched by multiple people, and a home cinema will obviously deliver better sound. I was extremely surprised that shared reality was completely absent from the presentation. Apparently the sensors on these devices don't enable creating a coordinate system that multiple devices can collaborate on/in. You can't look at the same objects in space together. This is hard stuff, but I'm stunned they're shipping it before solving that problem.

krmblg 3y ago
Wouldn’t this be addressed automagically by using the same "anchors" when using the appropriate tech stack (i.e. ARKit)? https://developer.apple.com/documentation/arkit/aranchor https://developer.apple.com/documentation/arkit/aranchor
- comment_ran 3y ago
  We're really missing the point here. Yes, that device can't do better. You can't do that with your friends together. But there's some similar in America right now. You can just jump in and in 2 or 4 minutes, and that kind of experience. Why to bother this kind of thing, this new tech? Doing things together is good, I think that's the main selling point of these devices.
- pr0zac 3y ago
  You’d think it would because of that but you’d also think if it was supported they’d mention it, if only to provide defense against the “only for friendless nerds that live alone” criticism, albeit at an absurd price point.
  - krmblg 3y ago
    Got your point. I only saw it from a very limited technical understanding of how ARKit works and how shared experiences can be achieved on a framework level. Not explicitly mentioning shared experiences other than video calls at all could also indicate this is not the way it should be framed (by focusing on the collaborative aspects that exist "today"). The price sure point prevents me and my family members from casually trying this experience. I was merely suggesting that the technology for shared experiences already exists in the form of shared anchors. You could be right wrt "if they didn’t mention it explicitly it's not part of their (currently) intended experience", but it might as well be due to "spatial computing" being sth that primarily will be shaped by their adopters along the way, which is something different than a corporation plotting the experience up front (as might be the case with metaverse?).
docmars 3y ago
Especially with as much emphasis they put on SharePlay in the iPhone presentation. Quite a neat feature. For the few households that will splurge $14,000 for a family of 4 to watch movies together once a month, I'd hope it would have this feature!
Miraste 3y ago
It's not the sensors. Meta headsets can do this with much worse sensors by using shared anchors, which as someone else mentioned is already a feature in ARKit. Why they didn't mention this or integrate it into the OS I don't know.
caconym_ 3y ago
> I'm stunned they're shipping it before solving that problem Are you really? Outside of everybody sitting on the couch watching a movie together, which will be an extremely marginal use case for this thing anyway—are you seriously going to buy all of (spouse, kids, friends) their own $3500 headset?—shared-reality seems very niche for consumer applications, which are clearly what they're targeting.
- sho_hn 3y ago
  I really, honestly am! I think without shared reality in place, the public verdict on this device will be that it's a loneliness enabler, or has you wear your loneliness on your face. Or rather, on a screen strapped to your face. It's going to be undesirable, the most damning quality of any consumer item. Nobody will envy their peers for having one.
  - caconym_ 3y ago
    People say this about smartphones, too, and yet adoption is practically universal. If the product is worth using, people will use it, and the social friction will fade. The reason products like Google Glass never moved beyond pariah status is that they weren't really worth using, so they were only ever used by "tech bros" who were already cultural pariahs, and who in so using outed themselves as such. Besides which, nobody is looking into my home and calling my various screens "loneliness enablers". Not that I would give a shit if they were, though I might invest in some blinds or drapes.
    - sho_hn 3y ago
      It's about perception. None of those screen inherently prevent anyone else from sharing your experience, or outright advertise escapism as a use case. I'm saying the "Apple goggles" can so easily fall victim this perception because those qualities are so front-and-center with it.
      - caconym_ 3y ago
        > I'm saying the "Apple goggles" can so easily fall victim this perception because those qualities are so front-and-center with it. And I'm saying nobody will ultimately give a crap if the tech works as well as Apple wants it to. Our social spaces have been utterly transformed by screens and networked technology in the last few decades, and while there is always some pushback, progress marches on for better or worse.
drcode 3y ago
i suspect this'll be the focus of the next presentation in 6 months they need super powerful software tech for this, and it likely isn't good enough to demo yet

by sho_hn 3y ago

krmblg 3y ago

Wouldn’t this be addressed automagically by using the same "anchors" when using the appropriate tech stack (i.e. ARKit)? https://developer.apple.com/documentation/arkit/aranchor https://developer.apple.com/documentation/arkit/aranchor

comment_ran 3y ago
We're really missing the point here. Yes, that device can't do better. You can't do that with your friends together. But there's some similar in America right now. You can just jump in and in 2 or 4 minutes, and that kind of experience. Why to bother this kind of thing, this new tech? Doing things together is good, I think that's the main selling point of these devices.
pr0zac 3y ago
You’d think it would because of that but you’d also think if it was supported they’d mention it, if only to provide defense against the “only for friendless nerds that live alone” criticism, albeit at an absurd price point.
- krmblg 3y ago
  Got your point. I only saw it from a very limited technical understanding of how ARKit works and how shared experiences can be achieved on a framework level. Not explicitly mentioning shared experiences other than video calls at all could also indicate this is not the way it should be framed (by focusing on the collaborative aspects that exist "today"). The price sure point prevents me and my family members from casually trying this experience. I was merely suggesting that the technology for shared experiences already exists in the form of shared anchors. You could be right wrt "if they didn’t mention it explicitly it's not part of their (currently) intended experience", but it might as well be due to "spatial computing" being sth that primarily will be shaped by their adopters along the way, which is something different than a corporation plotting the experience up front (as might be the case with metaverse?).

docmars 3y ago

Especially with as much emphasis they put on SharePlay in the iPhone presentation. Quite a neat feature. For the few households that will splurge $14,000 for a family of 4 to watch movies together once a month, I'd hope it would have this feature!

Miraste 3y ago

It's not the sensors. Meta headsets can do this with much worse sensors by using shared anchors, which as someone else mentioned is already a feature in ARKit. Why they didn't mention this or integrate it into the OS I don't know.

caconym_ 3y ago

> I'm stunned they're shipping it before solving that problem Are you really? Outside of everybody sitting on the couch watching a movie together, which will be an extremely marginal use case for this thing anyway—are you seriously going to buy all of (spouse, kids, friends) their own $3500 headset?—shared-reality seems very niche for consumer applications, which are clearly what they're targeting.

sho_hn 3y ago
I really, honestly am! I think without shared reality in place, the public verdict on this device will be that it's a loneliness enabler, or has you wear your loneliness on your face. Or rather, on a screen strapped to your face. It's going to be undesirable, the most damning quality of any consumer item. Nobody will envy their peers for having one.
- caconym_ 3y ago
  People say this about smartphones, too, and yet adoption is practically universal. If the product is worth using, people will use it, and the social friction will fade. The reason products like Google Glass never moved beyond pariah status is that they weren't really worth using, so they were only ever used by "tech bros" who were already cultural pariahs, and who in so using outed themselves as such. Besides which, nobody is looking into my home and calling my various screens "loneliness enablers". Not that I would give a shit if they were, though I might invest in some blinds or drapes.
  - sho_hn 3y ago
    It's about perception. None of those screen inherently prevent anyone else from sharing your experience, or outright advertise escapism as a use case. I'm saying the "Apple goggles" can so easily fall victim this perception because those qualities are so front-and-center with it.
    - caconym_ 3y ago
      > I'm saying the "Apple goggles" can so easily fall victim this perception because those qualities are so front-and-center with it. And I'm saying nobody will ultimately give a crap if the tech works as well as Apple wants it to. Our social spaces have been utterly transformed by screens and networked technology in the last few decades, and while there is always some pushback, progress marches on for better or worse.

drcode 3y ago

i suspect this'll be the focus of the next presentation in 6 months they need super powerful software tech for this, and it likely isn't good enough to demo yet