3 ms·

I sorta expected this to be the plan. go big to prove some tech and differentiate from the rest so you arent an also-ran, then figure out how to bring it to the

I sorta expected this to be the plan. go big to prove some tech and differentiate from the rest so you arent an also-ran, then figure out how to bring it to the masses. personally I dont care about the front screen at all, the eyes actually creep me out. pass through is cool though. but mostly I want to use it for virtual screens and media consumption. augmented reality is cool, and I desperately want it to become commonplace, but it has to become commonplace before its more than a gimmick imo

ClassyJacket 2y ago
The front screen is not even useful. You don't even see the eyes, you just see a uniform blue blob - have a look on anything on YouTube not uploaded by Apple themselves, and you'll see.
- crooked-v 2y ago
  The value of the front screen to Apple is that by the time this stuff actually fits into a pair of glasses, they'll have had years of practical experimentation in how to indicate 'person is using the face computer' in settings outside of a dedicated VR room.
  - jayd16 2y ago
    Assuming it still makes sense to have some kind of outward facing screen on a pair of glasses.
    - crooked-v 2y ago
      By "glasses" I mean the form factor, not something that actually has transparent lenses. Apple is making a (in my opinion reasonable) bet here that trying to actually make a see-through device is a losing proposition.
therobots927 2y ago
I’m not exactly sure how they differentiated? Actual pass through vs reconstructed pass through (quest)?
- netcraft 2y ago
  im no expert and havent followed particularly closely, but my impression is that the screens are considerably better than quest or others. that it is much more capable at virtual screens. could be wrong
  - therobots927 2y ago
    Oh wow I didn’t know the difference was that significant: https://www.pcmag.com/comparisons/apple-vision-pro-vs-meta-quest-pro https://www.pcmag.com/comparisons/apple-vision-pro-vs-meta-q...
  - jayd16 2y ago
    They're better but they're not 10x better. The screen is worse but lenses are actually much better on the Quest 3 and it goes a long way.
- jayd16 2y ago
  Biggest difference is that it doesn't have controllers and you use eye and hand tracking for interaction. It's a big UX shift. Passthrough and AR are fundamental design considerations. The Quest OS is having to transition there from a previously VR only reality. Passthrough is essentially the same but with a quality bump you'd expect from a premium product. I wouldn't call it 10x better tho.

ClassyJacket 2y ago

The front screen is not even useful. You don't even see the eyes, you just see a uniform blue blob - have a look on anything on YouTube not uploaded by Apple themselves, and you'll see.

crooked-v 2y ago
The value of the front screen to Apple is that by the time this stuff actually fits into a pair of glasses, they'll have had years of practical experimentation in how to indicate 'person is using the face computer' in settings outside of a dedicated VR room.
- jayd16 2y ago
  Assuming it still makes sense to have some kind of outward facing screen on a pair of glasses.
  - crooked-v 2y ago
    By "glasses" I mean the form factor, not something that actually has transparent lenses. Apple is making a (in my opinion reasonable) bet here that trying to actually make a see-through device is a losing proposition.

therobots927 2y ago

I’m not exactly sure how they differentiated? Actual pass through vs reconstructed pass through (quest)?

netcraft 2y ago
im no expert and havent followed particularly closely, but my impression is that the screens are considerably better than quest or others. that it is much more capable at virtual screens. could be wrong
- therobots927 2y ago
  Oh wow I didn’t know the difference was that significant: https://www.pcmag.com/comparisons/apple-vision-pro-vs-meta-quest-pro https://www.pcmag.com/comparisons/apple-vision-pro-vs-meta-q...
- jayd16 2y ago
  They're better but they're not 10x better. The screen is worse but lenses are actually much better on the Quest 3 and it goes a long way.
jayd16 2y ago
Biggest difference is that it doesn't have controllers and you use eye and hand tracking for interaction. It's a big UX shift. Passthrough and AR are fundamental design considerations. The Quest OS is having to transition there from a previously VR only reality. Passthrough is essentially the same but with a quality bump you'd expect from a premium product. I wouldn't call it 10x better tho.