7 ms·
The Apple Vision target isn't VR, it's AR (but can also coincidentally do VR, because the necessary hardware for AR enables that). That may sound pedantic, but
by crooked-v 2y ago
The Apple Vision target isn't VR, it's AR (but can also coincidentally do VR, because the necessary hardware for AR enables that).
That may sound pedantic, but actually it's a pretty huge difference. They don't want to sell a device primarily for closed-off experiences; they want to sell an iPad on your face that you can also, if you want, use for movies and whatever.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago> they want to sell an iPad on your face that you can also, if you want, use for movies and whatever. Why would anyone think your average person wants an iPad on your face?
- threeseed 2y agoBecause it offers experiences you can't get otherwise e.g. https://www.lapz.io https://www.lapz.io
- globular-toast 2y agoWhy would the average person want to hold a heavy iPad in their hands if they don't have to?
- consteval 2y agoBecause interacting with an ipad is significantly easier than interacting in VR. And then interacting with a PC is even easier than that. Imagine a typical use case for a computer. Writing an essay, coding, doing CAD work, using Excel, replying to emails, ordering products. Here's how much I'd want to do those per device: 1. TV - fuck no 2. Phone - prefer not to, but replying to an email isn't the worse thing ever 3. iPad - pretty good, sure 3. Desktop PC - by far fastest, most dense, and most convenient experience 4. VR - If it even can be done, I know it will be infuriating.
- ddingus 2y agoHuge difference! I give VR essentially zero chance outside of a few niches, like adult entertainment, virtual tours and the like. The harsh divide between the world the body inhabits and what is presented comes with endless problems. It is cool though. No joke. AR, has a chance. It does not impose that hard divide and it can augment the world without adding latency to it.