7 ms·

If people wanted to wear a phone screen taped over their eyes out in public, the technical limitations wouldn't barely make a dent in that desire. But the vast

If people wanted to wear a phone screen taped over their eyes out in public, the technical limitations wouldn't barely make a dent in that desire. But the vast majority of people want to have real in-person human interactions when they're out in the world. That's what the makers of these devices fail to see. But they can't see that because they're self-described VR enthusiasts. If they talk to non VR enthusiasts (which is everyone else), they'll see that the limiting factor isn't the hardware. Think of it this way. Most people think it's rude to talk to each other indoors with sunglasses on. That's the slimmest form factor you're going to get, and it still steps on the toes of human connection.

tsunamifury 3y ago
This is the trap of when a company needs a user to buy a product more than the user needs the product. This was something jobs was adept at navigating around along with Jonny Ive. Tim Cook is a product idiot. Or maybe more to the point he is adept at making factories and has run out of products for them to manufacture. So what’s more important to him his giving the factory more to do vs designing the right product.
MR4D 3y ago
> But the vast majority of people want to have real in-person human interactions when they're out in the world. I think this statement is too strong. I see too many people every day in elevators, in lines, all sorts of different places that are on their phone and specifically avoiding eye contact with other human beings. That suggests that the term “vast majority” is probably too strong.
- taylodl 3y ago
  Right? Eyes down at their phone, Air Pods in, it's not easy to get their attention even if you need to. They're essentially already connected to a VR headset, just a poor version of one.
- wanderingstan 3y ago
  Seconded. One glance around coffee shops, buses, or the like is enough to show that screens dominate “out in the world” too. And looking at the trend lines for the past decade, it seems set to continue.
ryandrake 3y ago
I don’t buy this. So many people walking around absolutely glued to their smartphones. Neck crooked down, ignoring the world, even inside businesses, social situations, at home, at work, and the taboo is very quickly softening! I often notice couples sitting in a restaurant, basically ignoring each other in favor of their phones for an entire meal. No human connection going on here! People want human connections less and less, especially with strangers, service providers, “NPCs” as some would lovingly call them. I think good AR will accelerate this, not fail due to a shrinking taboo.
- px43 3y ago
  IMO people on their smartphones are generally experiencing 10-100x the human connections that people without their smartphones are experiencing. That's exactly why they're so addictive. Smart phones let people push themselves right to the very edge of Dunbar's limit for social connectivity, which is why it can get stressful and exhausting, and is probably damaging when done in extended periods. Putting your phone down for a few hours to stare at the trees, or the water, or the clouds passing by, and maybe chatting up a couple nearby people doing the same, that is now the epitome of disconnected blissful ignorance.
- dspillett 3y ago
  > > But the vast majority of people want to have real in-person human interactions when they're out in the world. > I don’t buy this. So many people walking around absolutely glued to their smartphones. I think it is right-ish, and just needs refinement: Where people have to have human interactions when they're out in the world, the vast majority of them want them to be real in-person. If I choose to interact with someone, or accept their attempt at interaction, I don't want a device between me and them. I often don't choose that, but this doesn't minimise my preference for non-tech-filtered integration if interaction does happen. If I'm out on a trail run or trek I'm perfectly happy to exchange pleasantries with others out and about, I'm quite happy to give directions or similar assistance to a tourist while meandering locally (if asked politely, otherwise you will get sent well out of your way), but far less so if they are not looking me in the face.¹ > especially with strangers, service providers, “NPCs”, … …, bloody survey people, charity muggers, those who think that because they believe [deity] loves me I'm somehow beholden to care, local press outside the station when I get off a train delayed by a significant incident, … -- [1] caveat: I'm away that some people are very uncomfortable with direct eye contact, that is quite different from not entirely paying attention because of a bit of tech.
SeanAnderson 3y ago
I think the key to your last bit is "indoors." People don't consider it rude when talking to each other outdoors because it's mutually understood that wearing the device is beneficial. All it takes is to get to that point with AR. So it's more a critique of the state of AR's present usefulness rather than an innate, immovable reflection on society.
- baby_souffle 3y ago
  I don’t think it’s just usefulness. I know that you can’t possibly be watching something else on your sunglasses when talking to me indoors or out. At least with google glass it was trivial to see where the eyes were pointed.
  - SeanAnderson 3y ago
    I agree it is unfortunate that you can't tell where someone's eyes are at when talking with sunglasses on and I also agree that it detracts from the socialization experience. I do not feel that this loss makes it rude to have an outside conversation wearing sunglasses in a sunny environment. So, I still think that AR will find its way in. I'm not saying it won't reduce the socialization experience further. It'll just be perceived as semi-necessary, understandable, and life will move on.
    - treflop 3y ago
      Sunglasses may detract but they actually serve one purpose -- it's too damned bright out. Having AR glasses on is totally different.
      - SeanAnderson 3y ago
        Maybe for this generation, but give it time. I think expectations will shift. Children used to be told "don't sit so close to the TV" and now we're strapping monitors to our heads.
        deleted 3y ago
spacedcowboy 3y ago
shrug I don't spend my entire life in company. Reading a book is hardly a group event.... Also, when shared experience hits the next version (or the one after that, or..) and I can watch Liverpool beat Man Utd with my brother on a different continent (with whatever lag being compensated for) I'll get more of a shared experience than I could have today. This is a version-1 product. It's only going to get better - I have one of the original iPhones, and compared to the '15 Pro I have now, it's pitiful. Apple are generally a long-term game company, and they're not going to let this just drop. So sure, in company down at the pub, I won't be wearing goggles like this. Funnily enough I don't think that's the target market, making your argument a bit of a strawman one. Apple (I expect) will focus is attention on where it can make a difference. And (again, I expect) it will.
ojbyrne 3y ago
The second paragraph seems silly. Nobody thinks its rude to talk with normal glasses on, and that's the same form factor. Meta's AR glasses are already available as both sunglasses and normal glasses (though obviously lacking in actual AR).
- bookofjoe 3y ago
  Meta AR glasses Beta software has actual AR: https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/meta-launches-expanded-testing-landmark-insights-ray-ban-stories/709924/ https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/meta-launches-expanded... https://www.meta.com/smart-glasses/early-access-program/ https://www.meta.com/smart-glasses/early-access-program/
AlwaysRock 3y ago
> But the vast majority of people want to have real in-person human interactions when they're out in the world. Is this true? Most of the time when I'm out and about I'm going from point a to point b and I'm not really interested in talking to anyone I dont already know. If I'm already at a specific place to do a specific thing... I'm not going to have a vr headset on and I'm not really interested in interacting with people I dont already know.
w8whut 3y ago
these things change quiet quickly. Ask any zoomers (which i might add arent young anymore either, the first ones'll start turning 30 next year!) if its rude to glance at the phone mid conversation. Gen Y/X generally considered that extremely rude, while gen Z started to see it as completely normal.
Retric 3y ago
> Most people think it's rude to talk to each other indoors with sunglasses on. Nobody finds it rude to talk to each other with actual glasses on. If AR had similar utility and minimal impact on seeing each others eyes, then the same would be true. Sunglasses prevent people from tracking where people are looking which is why they come off as rude. > That's the slimmest form factor you're going to get, and it still steps on the toes of human connection. The minimalist form factor for AR is contact lenses not glasses. Several companies are working on them though it's a long way from a consumer product.
- Kwpolska 3y ago
  Prescription glasses are a necessity. Sunglasses or AR glasses are not.
  - Retric 3y ago
    Reading glasses aren't. You may not have realized it, but the glasses on tip of nose thing where people lean forward to look at you is because reading glasses make things blurry at conversation distance. Basically this: https://levinsoneyeclinic.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/shutterstock_1670131417-1024x683.jpg https://levinsoneyeclinic.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/shu... However, sometimes people don't bother and they really can't see you very clearly. But, you can still track the body language from where they eyes are looking so it's fine, that's the difference clear lenses make.
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  > The minimalist form factor for AR is contact lenses not glasses. That is extremely unlikely to ever be possible. A chip that size that did both high-bandwidth radio AND wireless charging (since you're not gonna have wires dangling from your eyes) AND high refresh rate display would fundamentally have to get extremely hot, with anything resembling current electronics. You'd have to invent an entirely different transistor to do something like this.
  - Retric 3y ago
    You don't need a high bandwidth connection for AR. Vector graphics + text dramatically reduces the bandwidth requirements. That's not immersive 3D, but the useful bit of AR would be things like putting peoples names above them at a party as if you where in an MMO. Countdown timers over cooking pots, a map or just an arrow when walking somewhere etc.
Cthulhu_ 3y ago
People used to think it's rude to stare at a phone screen too, but here we are. I'm not saying VR will become as normalised as smartphones, mind you, just that it's a possible outcome. That said, VR / AR as we know it now has been a thing for a while now and it hasn't taken off as much.
- The-Bus 3y ago
  It still is rude... it's just become commonplace.
diffeomorphism 3y ago
It used to be extremely rude to not take off headphones when people talk to you. Nowadays it is quite accepted for earbuds and "transparency mode" is even a selling point. My guess would be that once AR allows easy sharing, e.g. showing others a funny AR cat video, it will quickly become socially accepted to wear frequently.
- andsoitis 3y ago
  > Nowadays it is quite accepted for earbuds Hard disagree. Except for brief interactions like ordering a coffee, I don’t think it is at all socially common for people to keep headphones on when they talk with others. Maybe it varies by culture, or social circle.
  - montagg 3y ago
    It varies. I’m totally fine with it if it’s clear the person can hear and interact with me, and the people I interact with a lot do it to varying degrees, and no one’s offended.
    - wanderingstan 3y ago
      FWIW, I’ve observed in high schoolers that many leave their earbuds in all the time. At this point it’s a fashion statement too.
- zpeti 3y ago
  It’s not socially acceptable to me. If someone talks to me with their AirPods in they are already at -100 in my opinion of them.
- ericd 3y ago
  Not sure that's changed for millenials, maybe it's more acceptable in gen z/alpha?
- short_sells_poo 3y ago
  There's an important difference: the subtle face mimicry is extremely important for sub-conscious (and conscious) communication. Having headphones on is rude because it indicates that the other person is not interested in hearing what you have to say. The problem with having an opaque visor covering your face is not that it's rude, it's that you completely lose the non-verbal part of communication. This is why email and phone communication can be so easy to misunderstand. Without seeing the face and body languages of the other person, your mind will have a tendency to overlay biases and prejudices on what is being communicated. A simple "sure, whatever" can be interpreted as obnoxiously dismissive, as a surrender, or friendly banter. If you can see the body language of the other person, the intent is usually clear. If you can't, it isn't.
spookie 3y ago
What's wrong with AR glasses in a form factor akin to actual prescription glasses? It seems from my perspective a cool way to augment our perception about the world, not to diminish it.
nerdjon 3y ago
I disagree, there is a difference between desire and practicality. For example, I would love and could easily justify the 12.9 inch iPad but the logistics of traveling with it make no sense for me. I could justify the benefits of traveling everywhere with my high powered gaming pc but logistically it makes no sense. These devices are still largely impractical for long term use, and particularly outside use. They won't be until the hardware catches up with what we are working on with the software and it is an almost invisible technology except for a mostly standard looking pair of glasses. People already walk around with their phone almost attached to their face, it isn't hard to imagine wanting an AR headset.
move-on-by 3y ago
> Most people think it’s rude to talk to each other indoors with sunglasses on …really? I have prescription glasses/sunglasses and I often don’t bother switching them during a quick excursion- such as daycare pickup/drop off. It’s never crossed my mind that I could be perceived as rude. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that anyone with such opinions do not have the level prescription that are required for driving and just general consent use. And for anyone thinking transition lenses would be the solution- those do not work in vehicles with UV blocking windows.
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  How many people have you seen wearing sunglasses inside an office, or talking at home? If you're having a quick interaction like popping in and out of a building to pick up / drop off someone or something, sure. But otherwise, it's quite universally rude.
dmix 3y ago
Apple Vision wasn’t designed to be used outdoors in public settings with moving backgrounds. Those were just viral memes of people using it like that for fun.
- kjkjadksj 3y ago
  That video of the guy in san jose wearing one of these, tapping at the air while crossing the road, was both hilarious and disturbing.
wolverine876 3y ago
I'm confused by comments like this one. Apple very specifically designed Vision Pro to address this problem, going to great lengths to make the outside world visible to the user and the user's eyes visible to others, and marketing that they don't want to create isolation. It is also described in the article (where the author thinks they went too far). What do you think of how the Vision Pro addresses this problem?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- beAbU 3y ago
  Most decent NC headphones have audio passthrough which allows you to temporarily easily hear the outside world without problem. Do you enjoy talking to a colleague while they still have their headphones on, even if you know they have this setting on?
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  The "user's eyes visible to others" part has been widely panned, even by the most enthusiastic reviews. There are two major problems with it. One, it's not the actual user's eyes, it's just a bad rendition of some eyes - without any of the extremely subtle facial expressions that happen with the skin around the eyes, and without any amount of certainty from the other that they are correctly reflecting exactly what you're looking at. We are extremely good at noticing exactly which direction another human is looking in, and when theire gaze shifts, so even minor inaccuracies or lag are jarring. Much worse, the screen they used is so bad that the eyes are barely visible in almost any amount of lighting. Either way, even if this "solution" actually worked, the visor still covers far too much of the face to be able to get a normal expression.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    The OP didn't pan it.
Workaccount2 3y ago
This is why linux perpetually has <5% adoption. It's made and maintained by linux enthusiasts who are incapable of understanding how the average person wants to use a computer.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- veidr 3y ago
  But, how the average person wants to use a computer is extremely, irreconcilably different from how the 5% (or 2% probably but whatever, doesn't matter) want to use their computers. So... sniff sniff what's that smell? The market working is it then? Both Vitamix blenders and recumbent bicycles have less market share than desktop Linux. Is that because recumbent bike makers just really have no idea how people want to ride bicycles, or... yeah
- iknowstuff 3y ago
  Gnome is the outlier with beautiful design and they get soo much shit from Linux neckbeards for it haha
- outworlder 3y ago
  > This is why linux perpetually has <5% adoption. It's made and maintained by linux enthusiasts who are incapable of understanding how the average person wants to use a computer. No. That's a gross generalization. You have all sorts of people using Linux, including leading UX experts. What you don't have is a single governing body pulling everyone in the same direction, so efforts get diluted(even when prioritized).
- xcv123 3y ago
  > It's made and maintained by linux enthusiasts who are incapable of understanding how the average person wants to use a computer They understand, but they don't care. The 5% want to have a system that is designed for themselves and not the other 95%.
elorant 3y ago
I wouldn’t mind wearing glasses outdoors as long as the environment could provide me with useful information. From a nearby shop that has discounts, to real time traffic updates. What AR was supposed to deliver but never really materialized.
- psunavy03 3y ago
  Yet.
bookofjoe 3y ago
Remember how stupid AirPods looked when they first came out?
- kjkjadksj 3y ago
  They still do to be fair
  - bookofjoe 3y ago
    True, but it's a familiar stupid.
pfannkuchen 3y ago
Why do you think VR makers think people are going to wear the thing all the time? Not being appropriate to use everywhere doesn’t hurt computer monitors, or game consoles, or cars, etc. It’s not going to replace phones, but that isn’t what it needs to do to succeed as a product.
mliker 3y ago
I would encourage you to try out both the Quest 3 and the Apple Vision Pro for an extended period of time. If you had asked people during the advent of the television, they would have expressed the same opinion about people wanting social connection instead of sitting in front of a box.
- coldtea 3y ago
  And they would be right. Television did fuck social connection. And the smartphone did it much worse.
  - swores 3y ago
    No they clearly wouldn't be right. Even if we accept as fact the idea that both those things have had negative effects on society and on us, quite clearly huge numbers of people DO want TVs and smartphones, even if those things aren't leading to better, happier lives.
    - _heimdall 3y ago
      I'm not sure how we could possibly quantify and compare better, happier lives before and after TVs or smartphones, but it would be impossible to narrow down the metrics to peg the change over such a long period of time on just those technologies. The scale is just too big and the timeline to long to possibly know why happiness may have increased, if it did at all. > quite clearly huge numbers of people DO want TVs and smartphones This really ventures into the space of addictive behaviors. Do meth addicts really want meth, or are they using for some other reason? Can we assume that they DO want the meth and that's the primary driver simply because they keep using it?
      - lotsofpulp 3y ago
        Pretty sure meth addicts really want meth, based on the chemical reactions involved between the brain and meth.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
germinalphrase 3y ago
I’m in my late 30’s, and I was a high school educator for about a decade. Teenagers have become quite comfortable holding an entire conversation while wearing earbuds. As an ancient and outdated old person, my initial gut reaction was that it was… a bit rude(?); however, these teenagers just internalized that audio pass-through was a thing, and wearing earbuds didn’t indicate a lack of attention to the conversant. My point being, we may not be comfortable having a conversation indoors with sunglasses on today - but that could change in a flash and only ‘old people’ would even notice.
- qazxcvbnmlp 3y ago
  I appreciate this observation. It identifies that rudeness comes from lack of attention and that communicating attention can change within a cultural context.
- m463 3y ago
  Maybe at some point society will interact with goggles like people chatting at a masquerade ball.
- lm28469 3y ago
  But that doesn't mean it isn't a bad thing. Being a crackhead in a crack house feels like being a fish in water...
  - iambateman 3y ago
    Depends on your perspective. People living in the 1920’s would say we are all crackheads.
  - haswell 3y ago
    Yeah, it could be a “bad thing”, but it won’t be a bad thing just because prior norms have been broken. We’re already deep into the process of merging modern technology into every aspect of our lives, and in some cases it’s been bad. In some cases it’s been a necessary evolution to survive in a modern society. In some cases, it’s been good. On the one hand, I worry that face helmets will further erode human connection, and people will live in a lower resolution reality than what is possible with direct human contact. On the other hand, the current reality is that more and more people are looking down into a slab of glass instead of up/out at the world around them. It could be that the ultimate version of AVP (some kind of glasses that are barely more noticeable than AirPods) is what gets people to look up/out again. The “bad thing” is arguably already here, and it’s just a question of whether future tech will make it worse, or do a better job of merging the real world with the digital world, enabling people to participate in both instead of disappearing into their pocket computer.
joshstrange 3y ago
I think you could make the exact same argument about almost any tech device, like the iPhone itself which is wildly popular along with the spinoffs. Also VR isn’t what companies, Apple at least, care about. It’s a stepping stone to AR which is why the AVP does a “fake AR” of sorts as its primary mode of operation. You have to walk before you run which is also why Apple pushed VR/ARKit so hard even before they had a device to really take full advantage of it (as in a device that’s not just holding an iPad up and pointing it at table, all of 5 people care about that). The Overton window will shift if people get true utility out of VR/AR in the same way it’s shifted on everything else. Right now there just isn’t anything compelling enough to force that shift but I think it will happen quickly when there is. And before “I find X compelling”, ok, that’s great for you, for the vast majority of people the tech and/or use-cases are not there yet.
- echelon 3y ago
  > Also VR isn’t what companies, Apple at least, care about. It’s a stepping stone to AR I couldn't care less about AR. I want VR and only VR. I don't want digital overlays of the world around me at all. That's completely useless and will be filled with ads and noise. I want to live and breathe in imaginative fantasy worlds and escape the real world completely. I want to be a character in interactive movies. Have realistic D&D sessions with friends where the real world disappears completely. To create entire planets and universes and populate them with stories and adventures. I don't want labels on cooking ingredients, advertisements for Taco Bell while I walk around, or email notifications popping up during conversations. AR might have industrial use cases, but the real world implications are annoying.
  - creeble 3y ago
    And they’ll all be in VR if it ever gains success too. But maybe there will be a few years of bliss, like the early internet. Or maybe that bliss has already happened.
- moolcool 3y ago
  > you could make the exact same argument about almost any tech device, like the iPhone itself I don't think this is true. There was a massive appetite for the iPhone for decades leading up to its release, and there was no question that mobile was going to have a giant role in the future of computing. If you look back, most nay-sayers didn't doubt the value or utility of pocket-computers, but rather just that Apple specifically would be out-competed by established vendors.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
rqtwteye 3y ago
What we consider acceptable changes all the time. A lot of people have conversations with earbuds in. And in the 90s it would have been inconceivable to go out for dinner and have half of the people hacking away on their phones.
cma 3y ago
Ok but compare it with a phone call. That's much worse than sunglasses. Whereas VR equivalent of a phone call with eye and face tracking and eventually full body tracking is much closer to an in-person interaction.

tsunamifury 3y ago

This is the trap of when a company needs a user to buy a product more than the user needs the product. This was something jobs was adept at navigating around along with Jonny Ive. Tim Cook is a product idiot. Or maybe more to the point he is adept at making factories and has run out of products for them to manufacture. So what’s more important to him his giving the factory more to do vs designing the right product.

MR4D 3y ago

> But the vast majority of people want to have real in-person human interactions when they're out in the world. I think this statement is too strong. I see too many people every day in elevators, in lines, all sorts of different places that are on their phone and specifically avoiding eye contact with other human beings. That suggests that the term “vast majority” is probably too strong.

taylodl 3y ago
Right? Eyes down at their phone, Air Pods in, it's not easy to get their attention even if you need to. They're essentially already connected to a VR headset, just a poor version of one.
wanderingstan 3y ago
Seconded. One glance around coffee shops, buses, or the like is enough to show that screens dominate “out in the world” too. And looking at the trend lines for the past decade, it seems set to continue.

ryandrake 3y ago

I don’t buy this. So many people walking around absolutely glued to their smartphones. Neck crooked down, ignoring the world, even inside businesses, social situations, at home, at work, and the taboo is very quickly softening! I often notice couples sitting in a restaurant, basically ignoring each other in favor of their phones for an entire meal. No human connection going on here! People want human connections less and less, especially with strangers, service providers, “NPCs” as some would lovingly call them. I think good AR will accelerate this, not fail due to a shrinking taboo.

px43 3y ago
IMO people on their smartphones are generally experiencing 10-100x the human connections that people without their smartphones are experiencing. That's exactly why they're so addictive. Smart phones let people push themselves right to the very edge of Dunbar's limit for social connectivity, which is why it can get stressful and exhausting, and is probably damaging when done in extended periods. Putting your phone down for a few hours to stare at the trees, or the water, or the clouds passing by, and maybe chatting up a couple nearby people doing the same, that is now the epitome of disconnected blissful ignorance.
dspillett 3y ago
> > But the vast majority of people want to have real in-person human interactions when they're out in the world. > I don’t buy this. So many people walking around absolutely glued to their smartphones. I think it is right-ish, and just needs refinement: Where people have to have human interactions when they're out in the world, the vast majority of them want them to be real in-person. If I choose to interact with someone, or accept their attempt at interaction, I don't want a device between me and them. I often don't choose that, but this doesn't minimise my preference for non-tech-filtered integration if interaction does happen. If I'm out on a trail run or trek I'm perfectly happy to exchange pleasantries with others out and about, I'm quite happy to give directions or similar assistance to a tourist while meandering locally (if asked politely, otherwise you will get sent well out of your way), but far less so if they are not looking me in the face.¹ > especially with strangers, service providers, “NPCs”, … …, bloody survey people, charity muggers, those who think that because they believe [deity] loves me I'm somehow beholden to care, local press outside the station when I get off a train delayed by a significant incident, … -- [1] caveat: I'm away that some people are very uncomfortable with direct eye contact, that is quite different from not entirely paying attention because of a bit of tech.

SeanAnderson 3y ago

I think the key to your last bit is "indoors." People don't consider it rude when talking to each other outdoors because it's mutually understood that wearing the device is beneficial. All it takes is to get to that point with AR. So it's more a critique of the state of AR's present usefulness rather than an innate, immovable reflection on society.

baby_souffle 3y ago
I don’t think it’s just usefulness. I know that you can’t possibly be watching something else on your sunglasses when talking to me indoors or out. At least with google glass it was trivial to see where the eyes were pointed.
- SeanAnderson 3y ago
  I agree it is unfortunate that you can't tell where someone's eyes are at when talking with sunglasses on and I also agree that it detracts from the socialization experience. I do not feel that this loss makes it rude to have an outside conversation wearing sunglasses in a sunny environment. So, I still think that AR will find its way in. I'm not saying it won't reduce the socialization experience further. It'll just be perceived as semi-necessary, understandable, and life will move on.
  - treflop 3y ago
    Sunglasses may detract but they actually serve one purpose -- it's too damned bright out. Having AR glasses on is totally different.
    - SeanAnderson 3y ago
      Maybe for this generation, but give it time. I think expectations will shift. Children used to be told "don't sit so close to the TV" and now we're strapping monitors to our heads.
      - deleted 3y ago

spacedcowboy 3y ago

shrug I don't spend my entire life in company. Reading a book is hardly a group event.... Also, when shared experience hits the next version (or the one after that, or..) and I can watch Liverpool beat Man Utd with my brother on a different continent (with whatever lag being compensated for) I'll get more of a shared experience than I could have today. This is a version-1 product. It's only going to get better - I have one of the original iPhones, and compared to the '15 Pro I have now, it's pitiful. Apple are generally a long-term game company, and they're not going to let this just drop. So sure, in company down at the pub, I won't be wearing goggles like this. Funnily enough I don't think that's the target market, making your argument a bit of a strawman one. Apple (I expect) will focus is attention on where it can make a difference. And (again, I expect) it will.

ojbyrne 3y ago

The second paragraph seems silly. Nobody thinks its rude to talk with normal glasses on, and that's the same form factor. Meta's AR glasses are already available as both sunglasses and normal glasses (though obviously lacking in actual AR).

bookofjoe 3y ago
Meta AR glasses Beta software has actual AR: https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/meta-launches-expanded-testing-landmark-insights-ray-ban-stories/709924/ https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/meta-launches-expanded... https://www.meta.com/smart-glasses/early-access-program/ https://www.meta.com/smart-glasses/early-access-program/

AlwaysRock 3y ago

> But the vast majority of people want to have real in-person human interactions when they're out in the world. Is this true? Most of the time when I'm out and about I'm going from point a to point b and I'm not really interested in talking to anyone I dont already know. If I'm already at a specific place to do a specific thing... I'm not going to have a vr headset on and I'm not really interested in interacting with people I dont already know.

w8whut 3y ago

these things change quiet quickly. Ask any zoomers (which i might add arent young anymore either, the first ones'll start turning 30 next year!) if its rude to glance at the phone mid conversation. Gen Y/X generally considered that extremely rude, while gen Z started to see it as completely normal.

Retric 3y ago

> Most people think it's rude to talk to each other indoors with sunglasses on. Nobody finds it rude to talk to each other with actual glasses on. If AR had similar utility and minimal impact on seeing each others eyes, then the same would be true. Sunglasses prevent people from tracking where people are looking which is why they come off as rude. > That's the slimmest form factor you're going to get, and it still steps on the toes of human connection. The minimalist form factor for AR is contact lenses not glasses. Several companies are working on them though it's a long way from a consumer product.

Kwpolska 3y ago
Prescription glasses are a necessity. Sunglasses or AR glasses are not.
- Retric 3y ago
  Reading glasses aren't. You may not have realized it, but the glasses on tip of nose thing where people lean forward to look at you is because reading glasses make things blurry at conversation distance. Basically this: https://levinsoneyeclinic.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/shutterstock_1670131417-1024x683.jpg https://levinsoneyeclinic.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/shu... However, sometimes people don't bother and they really can't see you very clearly. But, you can still track the body language from where they eyes are looking so it's fine, that's the difference clear lenses make.
tsimionescu 3y ago
> The minimalist form factor for AR is contact lenses not glasses. That is extremely unlikely to ever be possible. A chip that size that did both high-bandwidth radio AND wireless charging (since you're not gonna have wires dangling from your eyes) AND high refresh rate display would fundamentally have to get extremely hot, with anything resembling current electronics. You'd have to invent an entirely different transistor to do something like this.
- Retric 3y ago
  You don't need a high bandwidth connection for AR. Vector graphics + text dramatically reduces the bandwidth requirements. That's not immersive 3D, but the useful bit of AR would be things like putting peoples names above them at a party as if you where in an MMO. Countdown timers over cooking pots, a map or just an arrow when walking somewhere etc.

Cthulhu_ 3y ago

People used to think it's rude to stare at a phone screen too, but here we are. I'm not saying VR will become as normalised as smartphones, mind you, just that it's a possible outcome. That said, VR / AR as we know it now has been a thing for a while now and it hasn't taken off as much.

The-Bus 3y ago
It still is rude... it's just become commonplace.

diffeomorphism 3y ago

It used to be extremely rude to not take off headphones when people talk to you. Nowadays it is quite accepted for earbuds and "transparency mode" is even a selling point. My guess would be that once AR allows easy sharing, e.g. showing others a funny AR cat video, it will quickly become socially accepted to wear frequently.

andsoitis 3y ago
> Nowadays it is quite accepted for earbuds Hard disagree. Except for brief interactions like ordering a coffee, I don’t think it is at all socially common for people to keep headphones on when they talk with others. Maybe it varies by culture, or social circle.
- montagg 3y ago
  It varies. I’m totally fine with it if it’s clear the person can hear and interact with me, and the people I interact with a lot do it to varying degrees, and no one’s offended.
  - wanderingstan 3y ago
    FWIW, I’ve observed in high schoolers that many leave their earbuds in all the time. At this point it’s a fashion statement too.
zpeti 3y ago
It’s not socially acceptable to me. If someone talks to me with their AirPods in they are already at -100 in my opinion of them.
ericd 3y ago
Not sure that's changed for millenials, maybe it's more acceptable in gen z/alpha?
short_sells_poo 3y ago
There's an important difference: the subtle face mimicry is extremely important for sub-conscious (and conscious) communication. Having headphones on is rude because it indicates that the other person is not interested in hearing what you have to say. The problem with having an opaque visor covering your face is not that it's rude, it's that you completely lose the non-verbal part of communication. This is why email and phone communication can be so easy to misunderstand. Without seeing the face and body languages of the other person, your mind will have a tendency to overlay biases and prejudices on what is being communicated. A simple "sure, whatever" can be interpreted as obnoxiously dismissive, as a surrender, or friendly banter. If you can see the body language of the other person, the intent is usually clear. If you can't, it isn't.

spookie 3y ago

What's wrong with AR glasses in a form factor akin to actual prescription glasses? It seems from my perspective a cool way to augment our perception about the world, not to diminish it.

nerdjon 3y ago

I disagree, there is a difference between desire and practicality. For example, I would love and could easily justify the 12.9 inch iPad but the logistics of traveling with it make no sense for me. I could justify the benefits of traveling everywhere with my high powered gaming pc but logistically it makes no sense. These devices are still largely impractical for long term use, and particularly outside use. They won't be until the hardware catches up with what we are working on with the software and it is an almost invisible technology except for a mostly standard looking pair of glasses. People already walk around with their phone almost attached to their face, it isn't hard to imagine wanting an AR headset.

move-on-by 3y ago

> Most people think it’s rude to talk to each other indoors with sunglasses on …really? I have prescription glasses/sunglasses and I often don’t bother switching them during a quick excursion- such as daycare pickup/drop off. It’s never crossed my mind that I could be perceived as rude. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that anyone with such opinions do not have the level prescription that are required for driving and just general consent use. And for anyone thinking transition lenses would be the solution- those do not work in vehicles with UV blocking windows.

tsimionescu 3y ago
How many people have you seen wearing sunglasses inside an office, or talking at home? If you're having a quick interaction like popping in and out of a building to pick up / drop off someone or something, sure. But otherwise, it's quite universally rude.

dmix 3y ago

Apple Vision wasn’t designed to be used outdoors in public settings with moving backgrounds. Those were just viral memes of people using it like that for fun.

kjkjadksj 3y ago
That video of the guy in san jose wearing one of these, tapping at the air while crossing the road, was both hilarious and disturbing.

wolverine876 3y ago

I'm confused by comments like this one. Apple very specifically designed Vision Pro to address this problem, going to great lengths to make the outside world visible to the user and the user's eyes visible to others, and marketing that they don't want to create isolation. It is also described in the article (where the author thinks they went too far). What do you think of how the Vision Pro addresses this problem?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
beAbU 3y ago
Most decent NC headphones have audio passthrough which allows you to temporarily easily hear the outside world without problem. Do you enjoy talking to a colleague while they still have their headphones on, even if you know they have this setting on?
tsimionescu 3y ago
The "user's eyes visible to others" part has been widely panned, even by the most enthusiastic reviews. There are two major problems with it. One, it's not the actual user's eyes, it's just a bad rendition of some eyes - without any of the extremely subtle facial expressions that happen with the skin around the eyes, and without any amount of certainty from the other that they are correctly reflecting exactly what you're looking at. We are extremely good at noticing exactly which direction another human is looking in, and when theire gaze shifts, so even minor inaccuracies or lag are jarring. Much worse, the screen they used is so bad that the eyes are barely visible in almost any amount of lighting. Either way, even if this "solution" actually worked, the visor still covers far too much of the face to be able to get a normal expression.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  The OP didn't pan it.

Workaccount2 3y ago

This is why linux perpetually has <5% adoption. It's made and maintained by linux enthusiasts who are incapable of understanding how the average person wants to use a computer.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
veidr 3y ago
But, how the average person wants to use a computer is extremely, irreconcilably different from how the 5% (or 2% probably but whatever, doesn't matter) want to use their computers. So... sniff sniff what's that smell? The market working is it then? Both Vitamix blenders and recumbent bicycles have less market share than desktop Linux. Is that because recumbent bike makers just really have no idea how people want to ride bicycles, or... yeah
iknowstuff 3y ago
Gnome is the outlier with beautiful design and they get soo much shit from Linux neckbeards for it haha
outworlder 3y ago
> This is why linux perpetually has <5% adoption. It's made and maintained by linux enthusiasts who are incapable of understanding how the average person wants to use a computer. No. That's a gross generalization. You have all sorts of people using Linux, including leading UX experts. What you don't have is a single governing body pulling everyone in the same direction, so efforts get diluted(even when prioritized).
xcv123 3y ago
> It's made and maintained by linux enthusiasts who are incapable of understanding how the average person wants to use a computer They understand, but they don't care. The 5% want to have a system that is designed for themselves and not the other 95%.

elorant 3y ago

I wouldn’t mind wearing glasses outdoors as long as the environment could provide me with useful information. From a nearby shop that has discounts, to real time traffic updates. What AR was supposed to deliver but never really materialized.

psunavy03 3y ago
Yet.

bookofjoe 3y ago

Remember how stupid AirPods looked when they first came out?

kjkjadksj 3y ago
They still do to be fair
- bookofjoe 3y ago
  True, but it's a familiar stupid.

pfannkuchen 3y ago

Why do you think VR makers think people are going to wear the thing all the time? Not being appropriate to use everywhere doesn’t hurt computer monitors, or game consoles, or cars, etc. It’s not going to replace phones, but that isn’t what it needs to do to succeed as a product.

mliker 3y ago

I would encourage you to try out both the Quest 3 and the Apple Vision Pro for an extended period of time. If you had asked people during the advent of the television, they would have expressed the same opinion about people wanting social connection instead of sitting in front of a box.

coldtea 3y ago
And they would be right. Television did fuck social connection. And the smartphone did it much worse.
- swores 3y ago
  No they clearly wouldn't be right. Even if we accept as fact the idea that both those things have had negative effects on society and on us, quite clearly huge numbers of people DO want TVs and smartphones, even if those things aren't leading to better, happier lives.
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    I'm not sure how we could possibly quantify and compare better, happier lives before and after TVs or smartphones, but it would be impossible to narrow down the metrics to peg the change over such a long period of time on just those technologies. The scale is just too big and the timeline to long to possibly know why happiness may have increased, if it did at all. > quite clearly huge numbers of people DO want TVs and smartphones This really ventures into the space of addictive behaviors. Do meth addicts really want meth, or are they using for some other reason? Can we assume that they DO want the meth and that's the primary driver simply because they keep using it?
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      Pretty sure meth addicts really want meth, based on the chemical reactions involved between the brain and meth.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

germinalphrase 3y ago

I’m in my late 30’s, and I was a high school educator for about a decade. Teenagers have become quite comfortable holding an entire conversation while wearing earbuds. As an ancient and outdated old person, my initial gut reaction was that it was… a bit rude(?); however, these teenagers just internalized that audio pass-through was a thing, and wearing earbuds didn’t indicate a lack of attention to the conversant. My point being, we may not be comfortable having a conversation indoors with sunglasses on today - but that could change in a flash and only ‘old people’ would even notice.

qazxcvbnmlp 3y ago
I appreciate this observation. It identifies that rudeness comes from lack of attention and that communicating attention can change within a cultural context.
m463 3y ago
Maybe at some point society will interact with goggles like people chatting at a masquerade ball.
lm28469 3y ago
But that doesn't mean it isn't a bad thing. Being a crackhead in a crack house feels like being a fish in water...
- iambateman 3y ago
  Depends on your perspective. People living in the 1920’s would say we are all crackheads.
- haswell 3y ago
  Yeah, it could be a “bad thing”, but it won’t be a bad thing just because prior norms have been broken. We’re already deep into the process of merging modern technology into every aspect of our lives, and in some cases it’s been bad. In some cases it’s been a necessary evolution to survive in a modern society. In some cases, it’s been good. On the one hand, I worry that face helmets will further erode human connection, and people will live in a lower resolution reality than what is possible with direct human contact. On the other hand, the current reality is that more and more people are looking down into a slab of glass instead of up/out at the world around them. It could be that the ultimate version of AVP (some kind of glasses that are barely more noticeable than AirPods) is what gets people to look up/out again. The “bad thing” is arguably already here, and it’s just a question of whether future tech will make it worse, or do a better job of merging the real world with the digital world, enabling people to participate in both instead of disappearing into their pocket computer.

joshstrange 3y ago

I think you could make the exact same argument about almost any tech device, like the iPhone itself which is wildly popular along with the spinoffs. Also VR isn’t what companies, Apple at least, care about. It’s a stepping stone to AR which is why the AVP does a “fake AR” of sorts as its primary mode of operation. You have to walk before you run which is also why Apple pushed VR/ARKit so hard even before they had a device to really take full advantage of it (as in a device that’s not just holding an iPad up and pointing it at table, all of 5 people care about that). The Overton window will shift if people get true utility out of VR/AR in the same way it’s shifted on everything else. Right now there just isn’t anything compelling enough to force that shift but I think it will happen quickly when there is. And before “I find X compelling”, ok, that’s great for you, for the vast majority of people the tech and/or use-cases are not there yet.

echelon 3y ago
> Also VR isn’t what companies, Apple at least, care about. It’s a stepping stone to AR I couldn't care less about AR. I want VR and only VR. I don't want digital overlays of the world around me at all. That's completely useless and will be filled with ads and noise. I want to live and breathe in imaginative fantasy worlds and escape the real world completely. I want to be a character in interactive movies. Have realistic D&D sessions with friends where the real world disappears completely. To create entire planets and universes and populate them with stories and adventures. I don't want labels on cooking ingredients, advertisements for Taco Bell while I walk around, or email notifications popping up during conversations. AR might have industrial use cases, but the real world implications are annoying.
- creeble 3y ago
  And they’ll all be in VR if it ever gains success too. But maybe there will be a few years of bliss, like the early internet. Or maybe that bliss has already happened.
moolcool 3y ago
> you could make the exact same argument about almost any tech device, like the iPhone itself I don't think this is true. There was a massive appetite for the iPhone for decades leading up to its release, and there was no question that mobile was going to have a giant role in the future of computing. If you look back, most nay-sayers didn't doubt the value or utility of pocket-computers, but rather just that Apple specifically would be out-competed by established vendors.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

rqtwteye 3y ago

What we consider acceptable changes all the time. A lot of people have conversations with earbuds in. And in the 90s it would have been inconceivable to go out for dinner and have half of the people hacking away on their phones.

cma 3y ago

Ok but compare it with a phone call. That's much worse than sunglasses. Whereas VR equivalent of a phone call with eye and face tracking and eventually full body tracking is much closer to an in-person interaction.