Fundamental Misunderstanding what AVP is

[ZombiePhysicist]

Who is trying to convince anyone that "it's useless for everyone"? I haven't seen posts like that. I've seen people question AVP's utility. I've seen people question the price. I've seen people suggest the price is outrageous. I've seen people question the need for such a product. I've seen people argue that the product is underwhelming and disappointing. But I haven't seen anyone trying to convince others that AVP is "useless".

This is the problem with our social media-fueled era of narcissistic entitlement. Any kind of criticism or disagreement is now viewed as a personal attack. So many people these days act as if they are entitled to a life where their every action and opinion is rubber-stamped by everyone around them. Any difference of opinion is now a personal attack.

What I see on these forums is Vision Pro enthusiasts repeatedly taking personal offense at any criticism of the device. I don't see anyone attacking Vision Pro buyers or trying to convince them not to buy the device. I see people stating opinions that Vision Pro fans don't like and those fans getting defensive. Most of us are here to discuss and debate Apple and technology in general. A few of us want these forums to be a cheerleading echo chamber where dissent = personal attack.

Criticism can be constructive, but it can also not be constructive. Sometimes 'criticism' is just a mask for being a jerk.

Here's a criticism, 'I dont see why anyone would like this pile of garbage, it seems it's only liked by losers.'

Sure, that's a criticism, but also very much is a personal attack, and it adds no value, yet is designed to inflame, derail, and thwart and actual constructive discourse, ie, trolling.

Often it's not what is being said, but how it's being said.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

How is spatial computing different to VR? Why is it beneficial to have messages floating in a panel near my head rather than living on a screen in my pocket or on my wrist? I get that it's cool to play around with and I'm sure when I get the chance I'll also have fun resizing windows and placing them in weird spots around the house. I just don't see the long term appeal in wearing a headset to do all the same things I can already do with the devices I have.

Admittedly, I've never been excited about any VR headset outside of a couple of games, so maybe the whole headset thing just isn't for me, but I don't see what's so different about Apple's VR headset that it would be it's own category of device. It's just a fancier, more expensive version of the thing we've had for like a decade now.

Let me kind of rephrase this to hopefully make a point.

“How is finance different from accounting. Admittedly i've never cared about accounting, so I'm going to use that to point out why I think finance is dumb too, and just seems like a fancier kind of thing (this all while really not really knowing much about either).”

If someone asked that question, it becomes very difficult provide meaningful discourse into that context. Short answer, one keeps you from going poor, while the other can make you rich.

 

[heretiq]

There are posts from people in these forums (can’t remember if in this thread specifically) making blanket statements that the VP solves no problems, no one needs it, etc., as well as mocking people who put the VP in a positive light (usually with the “laugh” reaction). I could go looking through the forum if you’d like reference, but 1) I don’t like to “out” individuals, and 2) I’d think this is something we can all acknowledge. Because let’s face it, we all know there are plenty of people here (and everywhere) who are unable to distinguish their subjective opinion from objective fact, and like to speak on behalf of all people—and this is regardless of being for or against the VP, or any other product or issue for that matter. It’s just how some people are. It would be a mistake to paint all people on one side of any issue/debate as innocent, in almost all cases.

I’m all for questioning. I have no horse in the race. I just want to know what the VP can do, because I want to know if it can benefit me enough to be worth my money. If it can, great. If it can’t, then it’s simply not for me. To me it’s just a device, but I can understand people who are enthusiastic about it, because I’m enthusiastic about other things, and I like sharing enthusiasm. But I can’t comprehend people who spend so much time in thread after thread making comment after comment disparaging and mocking. It seems like a tragic waste of precious time on Earth to me. But it doesn’t matter if I comprehend or not—to each their own. But I do occasionally take the time to challenge posts that I believe are making assumptions or inaccurate statements and that have otherwise gone unchallenged, because I try to promote unbiased fact and reason as best I can. And I do find I challenge posts from “naysayers” (whether regarding the VP or other subjects) overwhelmingly more often. I think this is because negative voices tend to be more prolific on the internet, so assumptions and inaccurate statements from positive voices are already squashed by the time I read them.

Perfectly said. The post you replied to is a great example of the kind of mindset that needs to be checked.

I completely agree. It's like me not going to the PS5 forum at all. I don't even use it, so I won't waste my time arguing with PS5 users about the shortcomings of the PS5. Foolish.

So true. Wasted energy all around. Trolls don’t seem to realize that trolling doesn’t reveal anything helpful about the topic, but it does reveal a lot about the trolls. The good news is they’ve self-identified making it easy to filter them out going forward.

 

[subjonas]

The problem is that any sane person that today already spends x amount of hours every day in front of a screen in any form, would not want to take a step further down the anti-social path that the AVP is. We want to reduce our screen time, not increase it.

The future is not more tech and anti-social behaviour.

You should have played with your cat instead of wasting your time on YouTube.

Screens aren’t bad in themselves. They’re bad by association. It’s addiction to content that is actually bad. Screens are also good by association because they provide very useful and necessary functionality. Screens (and the devices they’re attached to) are just tools, it’s people who choose how to use them—ie. responsibly or not.

The same can be said for non-screen devices like headphones. They’re similar to the VP in that they can be used anti-socially, but they themselves are not anti-social because they’re just tools. They do isolate, but I don’t believe those equate. So we should clarify what anti-social actually means. Since there are times we all need isolation, I’d say anti-social really means being over-isolated. But also everyone is on a different place on the introvert/extrovert spectrum, so being over-isolated/anti-social will look different for each of us.

In any case, balance as always is the key, and that has to be judged by each individual for themselves. Of course there are always those who abuse tools, but throwing out a new tool for fear of the ones who will abuse it is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Also there are some assumptions you’re making or possibly making by saying OP should have just played with their cat. Maybe they should have, but maybe not.
First assumption was that OP watching Youtube was a waste of time. But how do you know that? Youtube can be used for a lot of important things like self-education and even work. I’d say most of my Youtube usage is that. So then you might say “Sure, but why do it at the same time as playing with your cat? You should do one or the other because there should always be a strict division of productivity and in-person/animal time.”
This statement could be operating under an assumption that this is the only time OP plays with their cat. But maybe they spent a large amount of dedicated time playing earlier in the day. In which case, why can’t someone have a little more cat time while taking care of a task? If the task such as watching an educational video can’t be done any better or faster without dangling a cat toy, then why not dangle the cat toy? And if the task could be done faster by dedicating attention to it, who’s to guarantee there will be a chance to play with the cat later (cat not in the mood, etc)? And if the cat does indeed get enough dedicated play time, even if OP was watching Youtube just for leisure, then why not? Is it rude to the cat to divide one’s attention? Would the cat rather OP ignored the cat completely than give it half attention? If so, then that could be a good reason to separate the video and cat time, but I doubt the cat was thinking that. It brings up strange questions, not having to do with the VP at all. If OP is watching a show on TV and the cat wants to be petted, does OP then have to turn off the TV to pet the cat? Probably not, right? But then while petting, the cat starts playing with OP’s hand. At what point does the OP have to then turn off the TV? I have to say, these are questions I don’t know if anyone in the world has ever asked. 😆

 

[subjonas]

Exactly. It's a gimmick. It sounds good and looks appealing in marketing videos, but what's the real advantage? I'm sure it's cool to see a huge browser window or word processor document floating in the room, but how does that make one more productive? So I turn my head and see a different window... cool... but how is that significantly different from swiping between app windows using my trackpad?

Being confined to a "small" screen is actually an advantage. It forces one to be more organized and work more efficiently. Turning one's entire field of view into a huge/endless screen will not increase productivity or efficiency. It will, however, make people even more distracted and disorganized.

Wouldn’t all these arguments also apply to big monitors and multiple monitors in general?

 

[subjonas]

There is a major difference between a physical screen in a stationary position and a virtual screen

i think people underestimate the long term impact on a person’s eyes. There is a difference between a physical screen you can briefly look away from to rest your eyes (even subconsciously) and a virtual screen that looking away from just presents more screen. Not to mention the horrible ergonomic damage of twisting and contorting your neck all day long. It will be great for the massage industry!

I’m interested in seeing long term studies being done on using headsets like VP for final word, but my inclination is to believe with recommended usage, it should be fine, or at least as fine as our other devices are with recommended usage.
I think this because of a few things. From what I understand, the main reason we need to look away from screens every so often is because our eyes are focused too long at one fixed distance, about two feet (wherever the monitor is positioned). Looking away allows us to refocus farther awayand “stretch” our eyes.
With a headset, you do focus past the little screens, but from what I understand it’s still a fixed focus length, but of about six feet depending on the headset. You aren’t able to look away to “automatically” refocus in a headset, but you may be able to close your eyes and refocus “manually”. If not, you’d just have to lift up the headset to let your eyes look at an object. But also since it’s a significantly farther focal distance than a traditional monitor, I’m not sure if one needs to refocus their eyes as often.
There are some other reasons we may need to look away from a monitor—if the refresh rate is too low, if the monitor is too bright itself, or if it’s too bright in contrast with the rest of the room. But theoretically I believe all of these should be able to be mitigated by a good quality display and proper settings, whether a traditional display or a headset. Or at least can be accounted for by occasionally closing one’s eyes.
But also these don’t only apply to displays, these can all apply to printed reading as well.

As far as ergonomics, the VP is potentially more advantageous than physical monitors because of the complete freedom to put displays wherever they’re ergonomically most ideal, especially when working mobile. I believe Max Tech in his “working 8 hours in VP” video said that was the case for him. But of course it just depends on people arranging their virtual displays in the proper places, but that’s true of physical displays too.

 

[Abazigal]

How is spatial computing different to VR? Why is it beneficial to have messages floating in a panel near my head rather than living on a screen in my pocket or on my wrist? I get that it's cool to play around with and I'm sure when I get the chance I'll also have fun resizing windows and placing them in weird spots around the house. I just don't see the long term appeal in wearing a headset to do all the same things I can already do with the devices I have.

Admittedly, I've never been excited about any VR headset outside of a couple of games, so maybe the whole headset thing just isn't for me, but I don't see what's so different about Apple's VR headset that it would be it's own category of device. It's just a fancier, more expensive version of the thing we've had for like a decade now.

The first immediate benefit I am think of is that you have all this useable space without needing to actually have a computer in front of you taking up space. Picture being on an airplane and having a huge 55" display, and you don't even need to place a laptop on the tiny table in front of you. If somebody wants to walk past you to visit the toilet, you can just stand up, all while your content continues playing or your app is saved. No need to put your laptop away or stop what you were doing.

I really don't see how this is remotely comparable to a tiny smartphone screen.

Another aspect is privacy; the people around me simply won't get to see what I am viewing or doing in the Vision Pro, unlike a smartphone, tablet or laptop. And one man's isolation is another man's privacy.

Third, it's a computer I don't need to hold up. I am sure there's utility in that and will open up new computing possibilities in scenarios which were simply not feasible before with more traditional form factors.

Lastly, I think it's fascinating to be able to leave windows and shortcuts everywhere around you. Assuming Apple can find a way to make this stick, it would be pretty convenient, like a modern day NFC tag.

What I believe will set the Vision Pro apart from the competition is its ecosystem, and the developer support. It's kinda like saying how the iPhone is simply a fancier version of the blackberry. One was the end of an old era, while the other was the herald of a new one. The gulf will only proceed to grow.

 

[subjonas]

I’ve been reviewing comments online from owners and 3D photography experts alike, and the consensus is that the “spatial videos” appear to be standard 3D photography and not nearly as impressive as the ones shown in the ads, which were certainly marketing fluff. The viewer would not be able to get a parallax like that where the background is stationary but subjects can be viewed from multiple angles unless there were multiple cameras at different angles for the capture.

Yeah I think lifelike 3D holographic recordings are going to be science fiction for awhile yet haha.

 

[boss.king]

Let me kind of rephrase this to hopefully make a point.

“How is finance different from accounting. Admittedly i've never cared about accounting, so I'm going to use that to point out why I think finance is dumb too, and just seems like a fancier kind of thing (this all while really not really knowing much about either).”

If someone asked that question, it becomes very difficult provide meaningful discourse into that context. Short answer, one keeps you from going poor, while the other can make you rich.

I appreciate the attempt but I was really hoping for more concrete differences rather than vague analogies. I take it that maybe there aren't any (so of like how ProMotion is just variable high refresh rate display tech).

The first immediate benefit I am think of is that you have all this useable space without needing to actually have a computer in front of you taking up space. Picture being on an airplane and having a huge 55" display, and you don't even need to place a laptop on the tiny table in front of you. If somebody wants to walk past you to visit the toilet, you can just stand up, all while your content continues playing or your app is saved. No need to put your laptop away or stop what you were doing.

That feels very niche. Even as someone who flies a lot and does a lot of long-haul flights, that seems like a very specific benefit for something that costs so much.

I really don't see how this is remotely comparable to a tiny smartphone screen.

In that one instance, yeah, the headset is probably better. But how often are you flying that makes that worth it? How often are you out in public and decide "het, I should do something that can only be done on a 55" display, but I should do it on this park bench"?

Another aspect is privacy; the people around me simply won't get to see what I am viewing or doing in the Vision Pro, unlike a smartphone, tablet or laptop. And one man's isolation is another man's privacy.

I ge the appeal, although it's pretty easy to just sit with your back to a wall. But sure, I'll give you that, this is pretty private (although could still be done with any VR headset).

Third, it's a computer I don't need to hold up. I am sure there's utility in that and will open up new computing possibilities in scenarios which were simply not feasible before with more traditional form factors.

Maybe. We'll have to see. I think they would have to be incredibly compelling uses to justify the price, but I'm sure there will be some eventually.

Lastly, I think it's fascinating to be able to leave windows and shortcuts everywhere around you. Assuming Apple can find a way to make this stick, it would be pretty convenient, like a modern day NFC tag.

Personally, this seems like one of the weaker uses, but I've also never bothered with sticking NFC tags all over my house either. The beauty of my phone or watch being on me at all times is that I don't need to go to a physical place to be reminded of something, I already have the reminder on me. Not to mention that this is only useful if you're already wearing the headset, which means you either have to commit to living in it or risk not getting the floating reminder you left yourself. Maybe if those pinned reminders could become location/proximity-based reminders on your other devices I could see it being more compelling, but in general this feels very gimmicky to me.

What I believe will set the Vision Pro apart from the competition is its ecosystem, and the developer support. It's kinda like saying how the iPhone is simply a fancier version of the blackberry. One was the end of an old era, while the other was the herald of a new one. The gulf will only proceed to grow.

Sure, that's the play with pretty much every major Apple device since the iPhone, provided the developers actually show up and make those compelling experiences. It's a cool piece of hardware, so I'm sure a lot of them will, but I can also see lots of devs just shipping their iPad app on here and calling it a day until there's a much bigger user base. Ultimately, it's probably something Apple could fix just by loosening the purse strings, but, to my earlier point, they'd have to be some really compelling uses to overcome the steep price (and the physical awkwardness of wearing a headset).

 

[subjonas]

Yup. Watching movies on giant screen is the kind of usage that initially wows people, but if that is all they use VP for, it will sit and collect dust in a few months. It's when people use it to do actual work that VP and other devices like it will become mainstream. When I go in for a demo, what I want to try is copy and paste, not courtside NBA or dinosaur encounter.

I agree it will be hard for the VP to become mainstream if it’s not great for productivity. However, I’m hesitant to underestimate how many sports fanatics there are out there. If the VP can make you almost feel like you’re at a live game, I could see that really helping to push it toward being mainstream.

 

[nph]

I agree with the OP, the quality of the experience in the AVP is incredible. SCIPSTER got it right, this is the future.

I agree with you. i tried it last night and I went from a sceptic to an advocate. Hope it drops at least some in price and I will buy one. Until then I will try and see if I can move to a role in my company that would interface the AVP.

 

[subjonas]

Maybe if those pinned reminders could become location/proximity-based reminders on your other devices I could see it being more compelling, but in general this feels very gimmicky to me.

That’s an interesting idea. I wonder if you could even see the virtual note in AR through your iPhone or iPad’s screen. Not sure how feasible it all is technically, but that would be cool because then you could let someone else use an iPhone/iPad to see in AR/VR what you’re able to see while using the VP. This would be different than casting your POV because the other person would be free to look at whatever they want (also because casting your POV might cause motion sickness for some people).

 

[AirpodsNow]

I agree it will be hard for the VP to become mainstream if it’s not great for productivity. However, I’m hesitant to underestimate how many sports fanatics there are out there. If the VP can make you almost feel like you’re at a live game, I could see that really helping to push it toward being mainstream.

While it's hard to predict what mainstream would be, over time when this product becomes more available and in different pricing, people might also consider spending money differently. For instance instead of spending it on surround and TV or external displays. I would imagine especially for those that live alone or don't have much space, they might consider spending on such head devices instead of having a screen that is only useable in a particular room in the house. To me it's similar in relative cost to when Apple first went above $1000 with their iPhones, it sounded so ridiculous and now it's seems to be more common to see people carrying such priced phones. I think it's the value it has for people, and it just needs to take time for people and apple to figure out what value that is.

 

[subjonas]

While it's hard to predict what mainstream would be, over time when this product becomes more available and in different pricing, people might also consider spending money differently. For instance instead of spending it on surround and TV or external displays. I would imagine especially for those that live alone or don't have much space, they might consider spending on such head devices instead of having a screen that is only useable in a particular room in the house. To me it's similar in relative cost when Apple first when above $1000 with their iPhones, it sounded so ridiculous and now it's seems to be more common to see people carrying such priced phones. I think it's the value it has for people, and it just needs to take time for people and apple to figure out what value that is.

I don’t see the VP replacing many TVs outright, I imagine more owners would probably just opt to buy cheaper TVs or upgrade them less often. But yes it will be very interesting to see what kind of VP use cases will grow over time.

 

[Audentia]

I didn’t say what I think matters more than what you think. I said what you think doesn’t matter relative to the immovable limits of physics.

I’m all for hoping new and interesting innovation in the world of computing tech is possible. But it’s really tough to do that and have reasonable discussions about it if some people like you on this forum just don’t understand - or aren’t willing to accept what you might not know - about fundamental aspects of what’s within bounds to dream about and what’s not.

It would be like insisting the AVP could eventually facilitate time travel, “just give Apple 5-10 years!” So, no disrespect here: my comment was trying to point out that one of the things you want literally cannot happen.

OK, so let's have a conversation.

Two sticking points for me,
First what are the "immovable limits of physics" that you suggest which would prevent lightweight glasses from being developed? I surmise that I disagree with your assumptions here, but let's hear them.
Second, by saying "people like you" you seem to assume I am quite ignorant about the situation required, and the implied connotation is rather condescending.

Also, what do you do for a living, what is your education, that back up these claims? What is your expertise and/or sources of expertise? I'm happy to learn from someone who truly is an expert in this area. (this is what I meant about whose opinion matters more etc.)

Let me share a bit about myself, before you continue to assume things about me.

As it turns out, I have a computer engineering degree, work as a software engineer, and know people on the Vision Pro team. As a hobby I follow silicon and hardware design and optimizations since I find it interesting and reminds me what I studied originally at university. Now I haven't worked on the headset teams directly, so certainly there are things I don't know, but I feel that I have a high level grasp on whats required.

I am not making 5-10 year predictions blindly or with wishful thinking analogous to time travel as you suggest.

I am thinking about the progress of silicon. If Vision Pro is a baseline, Apple needs M2 level of performance in the size and power constraints of an Apple Watch to make a compelling glasses style device. If they can get to AirPods form factor, even better.

Let's look at history, Apple has basically got M1 performance into iPhone form factor with A17 in 3 years. Furthermore, in certain ways it actually outperforms an M2, (newer GPU etc.) so perhaps A17 is all Apple needs for glasses. Furthermore, with the S9 chip they have A15 architecture from iPhone 13 Pro in the watch, this was done in two years. Now, its just the E cores, so performance is maybe closer to A12 or A13 (iPhone XS, or iPhone 11), so in about 5 years they have iPhone level performance in a Watch.

And this continues forward as well, as TMSC (and everyone else) has no indication of slowing down shrinking process nodes as well as upcoming material changes performance keeps drastically improving; essentially, Moore's Law is not dead. If you don't believe me, there's a good talk from Jim Keller (world renowned CPU architect) explaining this in more detail.

Therefore, it seems reasonable that Apple can achieve M2 (or at least A17) level performance in a Watch size thermal and power constrained device in 5 years time. And perhaps in even smaller sizes by 10 years. This is primarily how I came to my prediction.

In addition to that, with glasses you need transparent OLED screens or a kind of micro projector, both of these exist, and continue to improve. I'm not totally sure on the time frame of these technologies however, so if you have insights there I'm open to hearing them.

Also, while you do still need cameras and lidar to track objects, you don't need constant video passthrough for the user and so no need for the R1 chip, so that should help thermal and power issues as well. It may also be the case that portable glasses one wears outside may not have all the features a larger headset has, (same as iPhone vs Mac) but this does not prevent the device from existing or being compelling.

So, what about this "literally cannot happen" ?

 

[Surf Monkey]

OK, so let's have a conversation.

Two sticking points for me,
First what are the "immovable limits of physics" that you suggest which would prevent lightweight glasses from being developed? I surmise that I disagree with your assumptions here, but let's hear them.
Second, by saying "people like you" you seem to assume I am quite ignorant about the situation required, and the implied connotation is rather condescending.

Also, what do you do for a living, what is your education, that back up these claims? What is your expertise and/or sources of expertise? I'm happy to learn from someone who truly is an expert in this area. (this is what I meant about whose opinion matters more etc.)

Let me share a bit about myself, before you continue to assume things about me.

As it turns out, I have a computer engineering degree, work as a software engineer, and know people on the Vision Pro team. As a hobby I follow silicon and hardware design and optimizations since I find it interesting and reminds me what I studied originally at university. Now I haven't worked on the headset teams directly, so certainly there are things I don't know, but I feel that I have a high level grasp on whats required.

I am not making 5-10 year predictions blindly or with wishful thinking analogous to time travel as you suggest.

I am thinking about the progress of silicon. If Vision Pro is a baseline, Apple needs M2 level of performance in the size and power constraints of an Apple Watch to make a compelling glasses style device. If they can get to AirPods form factor, even better.

Let's look at history, Apple has basically got M1 performance into iPhone form factor with A17 in 3 years. Furthermore, in certain ways it actually outperforms an M2, (newer GPU etc.) so perhaps A17 is all Apple needs for glasses. Furthermore, with the S9 chip they have A15 architecture from iPhone 13 Pro in the watch, this was done in two years. Now, its just the E cores, so performance is maybe closer to A12 or A13 (iPhone XS, or iPhone 11), so in about 5 years they have iPhone level performance in a Watch.

And this continues forward as well, as TMSC (and everyone else) has no indication of slowing down shrinking process nodes as well as upcoming material changes performance keeps drastically improving; essentially, Moore's Law is not dead. If you don't believe me, there's a good talk from Jim Keller (world renowned CPU architect) explaining this in more detail.

Therefore, it seems reasonable that Apple can achieve M2 (or at least A17) level performance in a Watch size thermal and power constrained device in 5 years time. And perhaps in even smaller sizes by 10 years. This is primarily how I came to my prediction.

In addition to that, with glasses you need transparent OLED screens or a kind of micro projector, both of these exist, and continue to improve. I'm not totally sure on the time frame of these technologies however, so if you have insights there I'm open to hearing them.

Also, while you do still need cameras and lidar to track objects, you don't need constant video passthrough for the user and so no need for the R1 chip, so that should help thermal and power issues as well. It may also be the case that portable glasses one wears outside may not have all the features a larger headset has, (same as iPhone vs Mac) but this does not prevent the device from existing or being compelling.

So, what about this "literally cannot happen" ?

This nonsense again? Never ending miniaturization cycle?

It’s fun to entertain fantasies but the notion that this kind of system is going to fit into standard glasses frames is just ridiculous.

 

[Audentia]

This nonsense again? Never ending miniaturization cycle?

It’s fun to entertain fantasies but the notion that this kind of system is going to fit into standard glasses frames is just ridiculous.

Why? You give no reasons. Miniaturization is the most predictable outcome of computers and has been so for the last 50 years. What seemed ridiculous 10 years ago is now commonplace.

 

[roland.g]

I think there’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what AVP is.

So many reviewers are making comparisons to other headsets like Oculus or PSVR. And in my ways, I don’t think that’s a relevant comparison. Sure some of the technology has parallels, but the purpose of AVP is very different.

Here’s a tangible examples of what I was doing last night. My cat was in a mood to play with me and some toys last night. I had a YouTube video playing via Juno (first party app not available yet) and placed it right next to our play area so I can see her and the video at the same time. In other adjacent areas, I had messages open to check some things and a browser in another area for an article I was reading. No monitor, no device to hold, and hands free.

Yes it’s a great media consumption device with amazing immersion. It can do a lot of things. The true power though IMO is it’s actually a computer with the ability to multitask without the constraint of one screen like an iPad. There’s a lot of improvements to be made for sure. But I think it’s an amazing gen 1, and I’m sure they will make lots of software improvements even in the next 3-6 months.

What are your thoughts?

I was hoping for more from this post based on the title. Not a slam but just a suggestion, if you really want to make a title like that, take the time to actually expound more on the idea.

Apple clearly starts their demos and all of their marketing pushing the concept or paradigm of spatial computing. They want to distance themselves from the AR/VR mindset and call it something different. Well that is correct and in correct. Giving it an Apple like name is fine and all, but it is still a AR / VR headset that allows you to do spatial computing.

As to the gen, I'd call it a .7 or .8 gen. Not a gen 1. It is a polished, complete piece of hardware with a lot of great software, but if you want to enter the arena at that price point and call it a finished product, they needed to hit the mark better, or at least have less shortcomings.

 

[okieoutwest]

OK, so let's have a conversation.

Two sticking points for me,
First what are the "immovable limits of physics" that you suggest which would prevent lightweight glasses from being developed? I surmise that I disagree with your assumptions here, but let's hear them.
Second, by saying "people like you" you seem to assume I am quite ignorant about the situation required, and the implied connotation is rather condescending.

Also, what do you do for a living, what is your education, that back up these claims? What is your expertise and/or sources of expertise? I'm happy to learn from someone who truly is an expert in this area. (this is what I meant about whose opinion matters more etc.)

Let me share a bit about myself, before you continue to assume things about me.

As it turns out, I have a computer engineering degree, work as a software engineer, and know people on the Vision Pro team. As a hobby I follow silicon and hardware design and optimizations since I find it interesting and reminds me what I studied originally at university. Now I haven't worked on the headset teams directly, so certainly there are things I don't know, but I feel that I have a high level grasp on whats required.

I am not making 5-10 year predictions blindly or with wishful thinking analogous to time travel as you suggest.

I am thinking about the progress of silicon. If Vision Pro is a baseline, Apple needs M2 level of performance in the size and power constraints of an Apple Watch to make a compelling glasses style device. If they can get to AirPods form factor, even better.

Let's look at history, Apple has basically got M1 performance into iPhone form factor with A17 in 3 years. Furthermore, in certain ways it actually outperforms an M2, (newer GPU etc.) so perhaps A17 is all Apple needs for glasses. Furthermore, with the S9 chip they have A15 architecture from iPhone 13 Pro in the watch, this was done in two years. Now, its just the E cores, so performance is maybe closer to A12 or A13 (iPhone XS, or iPhone 11), so in about 5 years they have iPhone level performance in a Watch.

And this continues forward as well, as TMSC (and everyone else) has no indication of slowing down shrinking process nodes as well as upcoming material changes performance keeps drastically improving; essentially, Moore's Law is not dead. If you don't believe me, there's a good talk from Jim Keller (world renowned CPU architect) explaining this in more detail.

Therefore, it seems reasonable that Apple can achieve M2 (or at least A17) level performance in a Watch size thermal and power constrained device in 5 years time. And perhaps in even smaller sizes by 10 years. This is primarily how I came to my prediction.

In addition to that, with glasses you need transparent OLED screens or a kind of micro projector, both of these exist, and continue to improve. I'm not totally sure on the time frame of these technologies however, so if you have insights there I'm open to hearing them.

Also, while you do still need cameras and lidar to track objects, you don't need constant video passthrough for the user and so no need for the R1 chip, so that should help thermal and power issues as well. It may also be the case that portable glasses one wears outside may not have all the features a larger headset has, (same as iPhone vs Mac) but this does not prevent the device from existing or being compelling.

So, what about this "literally cannot happen" ?

Great, now do this for contact lenses and we can have that conversation.

 

[roland.g]

Great, now do this for contact lenses and we can have that conversation.

It's not a contact lens, but an ONI. Didn't you see Altered Carbon?

 

[turbineseaplane]

Why? You give no reasons. Miniaturization is the most predictable outcome of computers and has been so for the last 50 years. What seemed ridiculous 10 years ago is now commonplace.

And yet we really aren't much further on along this front than 10 years ago, at least not in a revolutionary way that would be required for glasses/contact lenses as are being discussed in AVP threads.

We aren't even remotely close to the miniaturization needed there.

Things have plateaued quite a bit in the last decade on this front

 

[Surf Monkey]

And yet we really aren't much further on along this front than 10 years ago, at least not in a revolutionary way that would be required for glasses/contact lenses as are being discussed in AVP threads.

We aren't even remotely close to the miniaturization needed there.

Things have plateaued quite a bit in the last decade on this front

Processor miniaturization is close to reaching its limit and the 18 month tick tock of Moore’s Law hasn’t been happening for several years now. There are limits on how small some things can be made. Even ignoring processors you still need lenses for cameras and those can’t get much smaller than they already are. Just one of the barriers. The argument that largely self contained glasses frames are possible with this tech is simply wrong.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Processor miniaturization is close to reaching its limit and the 18 month tick tock of Moore’s Law hasn’t been happening for several years now. There are limits on how small some things can be made. Even ignoring processors you still need lenses for cameras and those can’t get much smaller than they already are. Just one of the barriers. The argument that largely self contained glasses frames are possible with this tech is simply wrong.

Agree totally
And the even bigger issue (or at least as big) is power

Battery tech is at a standstill

 

[Surf Monkey]

Why? You give no reasons. Miniaturization is the most predictable outcome of computers and has been so for the last 50 years. What seemed ridiculous 10 years ago is now commonplace.

You’re talking about a phenomenon that has only really existed over the last 50 years or so. The idea that this will continue indefinitely into the future is misguided.

 

[okieoutwest]

Agree totally
And the even bigger issue (or at least as big) is power

Battery tech is at a standstill

This is it as far as the glasses fantasy goes.

There's some research that has shown slightly different compositions of the anode/cathode for Li-ion based tech can improve energy density. It works, in theory! Commercialization has been extremely challenging. Here's the latest, and it's economic at the scale of storage for planes, buses, etc.

The Age of Silicon Is Here…for Batteries

The mainstay material of electronics is now yielding better energy storage

spectrum.ieee.org

One of the companies in that story is Amprius. I toured Amprius in 2015 or 16, i can't remember which year it was, and we met some of their lead researchers. In 2018 it's public info that they reached commercialization for the first time. In 2022 they shipped something. The horizon for being suitable for consumer electronics due to stability, longevity, and cost is long, and we may never cross it at all.