Kinda doubt about Vision Pros' future.

[Borjan]

I work in tech and manage teams in US, UK, Europe and India. What does this "virtual presence" accomplish in reality that an email or video conference can't do for less money?

Then you have the cultural factor. We recently acquired a large European company. Almost no one, except the Berlin office, goes on camera when we are on video conference.

This is what I mean when I say it's a novelty... and with younger generations what I've noticed is that they prefer using text over FaceTime or voice/phone, as a buffer. They don't like the immediacy for the same reason I like email: I can buffer, collect, and edit my thoughts instead of being put on the spot.

So, again, I'm not seeing the value proposition until virtual presence can do actual things that email, phone, videoconference, or actual physical presence cannot do... and without a pair of heavy goggles strapped to my face which, actually, prevents me from multitasking which I and other managers do constantly during meetings.

Before you say "Yeah but virtual workspace"... Ehh... I write a lot of code and I type 97wpm. I say that having been a proponent of the iPhone and having written my senior thesis on internet distribution of music.

You have fixated entirely upon the professional use cases without considering the personal.

Connecting family members comes to mind.

But fine, even if we wanted to be narrow minded and only think of the business setting - there are plenty of situations where being in the same space builds additional levels of trust and confidence in a partnership. If that can also be done virtually (be mimicking physical presence so accurately) then that’s a value add.

 

[Avatar74]

You have fixated entirely upon the professional use cases without considering the personal.

Connecting family members comes to mind.

But fine, even if we wanted to be narrow minded and only think of the business setting - there are plenty of situations where being in the same space builds additional levels of trust and confidence in a partnership. If that can also be done virtually (be mimicking physical presence so accurately) then that’s a value add.

Read my entire comment. Again, "connecting family members" in what sense that isn't achieved by FaceTime, phone, text, email?

When I'm talking to my brother or sister, what does the virtual presence actually accomplish for me, in real world terms, that FaceTime doesn't?

there are plenty of situations where being in the same space

Except you're not in the same space. You know that. The creepy avatar on the other end of the conversation knows you're not in the same space. You're in a virtual space where nothing you do can actualize anything tangible.

Cutting a virtual tree doesn't give me real firewood.

 

[Borjan]

Read my entire comment. Again, "connecting family members" in what sense that isn't achieved by FaceTime, phone, text, email?

When I'm talking to my brother or sister, what does the virtual presence actually accomplish for me, in real world terms, that FaceTime doesn't?



Except you're not in the same space. You know that. The creepy avatar on the other end of the conversation knows you're not in the same space. You're in a virtual space where nothing you do can actualize anything tangible.

Cutting a virtual tree doesn't give me real firewood.

Please at least try to think a bit creatively.

What does a phone call do that a letter does not?

What does a FaceTime call do that a phone call does not?

Was does a “presence call” do that FaceTime does not?

I will let you fill in the blanks.

Please note, I am not specifically talking about the existing v1 of personas. This is more about the concept of why you might want to slap on goggles and have a virtual conversation with someone.

 

[Avatar74]

Please at least try to think a bit creatively.

What does a phone call do that a letter does not?

It allows full duplex conversations in real time, which was a gigantic leap from half-duplex and simplex, let alone the letter. The Postal Service does not and never has facilitated any of these, though a letter would technically be analogous to really, really slow simplex.

What does a FaceTime call do that a phone call does not?

It allows me to see an actual human being, with all their facial expressiveness, not a facsimile of one. I can read considerably more emotions with video and audio than audio alone. Also, the PSTN for many years used 8 kHz bandwidth with CELP compression, which is functional but especially on transcontinental analog or packet switched transmissions, there's a fair bit narrower bandwidth than on the modern IP switched cloud... but every step of the way, these were giving us something more—making it clearer and easier to discern what someone is saying.

Sidenote: I've had 25 years experience in tech/telecom. I was at Lucent Technologies when the WaveStar OLS400G broke 400 Gbps (more than 3 million simultaneous phone calls) over a single strand of optical fiber in the 90s using Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing. Probably not the best idea to try to quiz me on this topic.

Was does a “presence call” do that FaceTime does not?

Besides the fact that "presence" in telecom parlance doesn't mean what you think it means, but I assume that you mean a "virtual presence" call, and so my answer is this: The only thing "virtual presence" really does is substitute an avatar for the real person. It doesn't put us together in a physical space. It doesn't give us any ability to do anything in the real world that we can't otherwise do. It just adds another barrier between you and the person you're talking to because, hey, the point of FaceTime is to see, well, the person's actual face.

The whole reason we talk to people face to face, to get that emotional context, is not present in a virtual presence... and our brains do a lot more with the micro expressions we read than we consciously realize.

You still haven't convinced me that there is anything tangible, in the real world, that virtual presence can do... and I would also note that the current iteration of AVP does not actually have virtual presence. It has what they call a Persona, which is basically FaceTiming with an avatar instead of a real person's face, minus the microexpressions and body language/tone that make a face to face call different from text.

 

[sunny5]

It is definitely intended for both. Though I will agree there is one feature that is missing which is MDM support, but that is apparently coming in 1.1

Jamf announces immediate support for Apple Vision Pro, allowing customers to confidently and securely explore new ways of working

www.jamf.com

Jigspace is an enterprise app that is already on it at launch. You can be certain there will be companies already using Jigspace who will be buying these.

This is huge for CAD applications and line training. I don’t know what “screams enterprise” is supposed to mean. There is nothing about the iPhone that “screams enterprise” yet it has thousands of enterprise applications.

It is early days still with the AVP but it definitely is also going to be used for enterprise.

Apple developer articles focusing on two companies already using it:

Spotlight on: Apple Vision Pro apps for enterprise - Discover - Apple Developer

Learn how JigSpace and PTC are approaching the new world of visionOS.

developer.apple.com

Here is another big enterprise application announced today:

Vision OS

Shapr3D immersive CAD powered by Siemens Parasolid lets you design and edit interactively in real-time in Vision Pro, making communication and finalization precise.

www.shapr3d.com

Nope, not really and if they did, how come they never advertised about it?

Also, those apps you mentioned are not a great example as Apple themselves are not really great at B2B markets. Seeing 3D objects is nothing new and seeing CAD is more like productivity app, not enterprise uses.

If AVP really intended for enterprise, then they supposed to advertise it toward other companies like MS did but Apple didn't. Probably you dont know the definition of enterprise after all.

 

[calderini]

Spatial Computing is just an Apple's branding and Quest series already support that. Magic Leaf also supports that "spatial computing". It's still MR, nothing special.

Have you ever TRIED Spatial computing in a Quest 3 or even a Quest Pro for that matter?
I have.
I own both. For the same reasons. I wanted to work within the AR VR space.
The Meta Line kind of sucks at this. Immersed (Not Meta but runs on it) is a great program, and TECHNICALLY
does everything it needs to do to make AR computing a Reality. But it just falls apart in implementation.
Very awkward interfaces and screens you just cant use because of resolution issues.
Put MANY hours in to trying to make both work. For what I do (Graphic design) it just doesn't.
The Apple Vision Pro DOES. It's the promise delivered.
The screen I use in the Vision pro is the best screen I have ever used for my work. The clarity and
versatility is unmatched and the user interface is a breeze.
Combined with my MacBook Pro-Bluetooth Keyboard and Magic Trackpad I was able to create a better workspace than I have in real life.
Is it as comfortable? Not yet.
Could I use another computer driven screen?
Yes, but A. There are workarounds and B. Some things are already in the works.

And before the contrarians jump on board I KNOW about the color accuracy issue. But for what I do the colors are good enough, and mostly Pantone or HEX determined so I know what I'm getting regardless if it looks a little different on screen.

It IS something special. You would know it if you tried it, and were being honest.
Yes. It has kinks.
Yes. I am a "special" use case.
But the takeaway is this.
For me the "future" has arrived and I'm glad to welcome it.
At V1 we are already there and it's only going to get better.

And yeah, I am an outlier but I can't be the only one.
This is a completely different product and a completely different experience.
And this is from a guy who basically abandoned the Apple/Mac program (outside of work) about 10 years ago when
they could not produce a VR capable computer and have invested FAR too much in VR headsets (12...13?)
to be fooled by another imposter.
This is the REAL deal.

And as I mentioned in another thread Meta and Apple are now probably on a race to the middle.
Meta HAS to get their "Stuff" together as far as productivity is concerned.
Apple HAS to get their "Stuff" together as far as gaming is concerned.
They have entertainment pretty much covered as the movie experience in this thing has pretty much convinced
my agoraphobic self to possibly never enter a Movie Theatre again. LOL

"some people just want to watch the world burn" - some guy named Alfred in some movie.

 

[subjonas]

Read my entire comment. Again, "connecting family members" in what sense that isn't achieved by FaceTime, phone, text, email?

When I'm talking to my brother or sister, what does the virtual presence actually accomplish for me, in real world terms, that FaceTime doesn't?



Except you're not in the same space. You know that. The creepy avatar on the other end of the conversation knows you're not in the same space. You're in a virtual space where nothing you do can actualize anything tangible.

Cutting a virtual tree doesn't give me real firewood.

If your interaction with your loved one is just strictly talking, virtual 3D probably doesn’t add anything over just 2D video. (Maybe just convenience if you’re trying to do a video call while moving around?)

But I think where AR or VR could potentially add significant value for keeping in touch is if you’re doing some kind of 3D activity together, like an AR board game or some VR game/experience.

And as far as avatars, I see them more as just in between a phone call and a video call—a phone call with just some more visual information—and maybe that’s something some people want. Will avatars ever be as realistic as seeing a video stream of a person? Hard to imagine, maybe someday. But I also don’t think they necessarily need to. They serve a purpose even if they never get there.

 

[Avatar74]

(Maybe just convenience if you’re trying to do a video call while moving around?)

Ignoring for the moment that I can’t use AVP even with prescription lenses, just thinking about taking off my eyeglasses and strapping a 1.4lb contraption to my face (it’s going to be considerably heavier than this with Zeiss inserts) just puts me off. Anything that takes my focus off what I am doing for more than a fraction of a second when I’m moving is a potential tripping hazard.

Besides that, I find it exceptionally rude to multitask while trying to talk with family and friends.

Maybe this is something very young kids do and it’s a norm of their culture but it’s not for a large chunk of us who grew up on both sides of the internet’s existence.

But I think where AR or VR could potentially add significant value for keeping in touch is if you’re doing some kind of 3D activity together, like an AR board game or some VR game/experience.

And this isn’t something AVP currently does but its novelty in general is probably overstated. “Some kind of 3D activity” is very vague.

I’m not trying to put you on the spot with this. Perhaps you didn’t see the entire thread with the other guy. The gist of my comments is that these aren’t things I can’t do as effectively on an existing device. Convenience was the thrust of my thesis on internet distribution of music in 1996 and it still is.

There’s nothing the “virtual space” does more conveniently than other devices other than total immersion but immersion isn’t always needed or wanted. But there’s another factor I mentioned: competing with reality, which is the most immersive experience there is.

And they’re not things that produce a result in the real world so having them be mixed reality only to realize the fruits of my “superpowers” are gone the moment I take the goggles off is not a particularly compelling selling point vs the alternatives.

But that may be good for a very narrow set of games like a racing sim (which I get bored with) a flight sim (which I get bored with) but not games where the omniscient POV is actually a better vantage point than first person immersion.

This is why VR gaming despite being more than ten years old is still less than 2% of the total gaming market.

Digital downloads and streaming music surpassed physical media in less than ten years because of one click purchasing being insanely more convenient than the existing reality at the time.

iTunes Music Store wasn’t merely more convenient than Limewire, Kazaa and Napster. Pressing the buy button (which they licensed from Amazon) was more convenient than going to the record store. Free was surpassed by 99 cents also because free’s catalogue and quality was all over the place, and their search function and UI was terrible.

And as far as avatars, I see them more as just in between a phone call and a video call—a phone with just some more visual information—and maybe that’s something some people want.

But again, why? Why would I want something that puts me on the spot with no ability to edit my thoughts yet doesn’t connect me with someone’s actual face, imperfections, microexpressions and all. One of the most compelling parts of the social media experience is that it is everyone’s highlight reel.

If I don’t want to see someone’s real face, it’s usually because I want to put a buffer between our words and thoughts, not because I’d rather livestream with a very expensive, replica of a person (or myself) with no body language or microexpressions.

VR isn’t more convenient than reality in any use case. It’s a novelty, a cool toy rather than an indispensable tool, and that’s why the larger market sees it as one.

iTunes and iPod dethrones physical media not by being “some kind of” novel way to do… something. It dethroned it entirely by being more convenient than reality. Until MR does that, it’ll remain niche.

They call it the uncanny valley for a reason… because the valley is what separates rather than brings together real people in a real world with real experiences. It’s kind of interesting when you realize that the technocrats who live in a literal valley don’t see that… or maybe they do and keeping people apart so we can lease back our reality at a premium is exactly the ruse they hope we buy into.

 

[Cape Dave]

Ignoring for the moment that I can’t use AVP even with prescription lenses, just thinking about taking off my eyeglasses and strapping a 1.4lb contraption to my face (it’s going to be considerably heavier than this with Zeiss inserts) just puts me off. Anything that takes my focus off what I am doing for more than a fraction of a second when I’m moving is a potential tripping hazard.

Besides that, I find it exceptionally rude to multitask while trying to talk with family and friends.

Maybe this is something very young kids do and it’s a norm of their culture but it’s not for a large chunk of us who grew up on both sides of the internet’s existence.



And this isn’t something AVP currently does but its novelty in general is probably overstated. “Some kind of 3D activity” is very vague.

I’m not trying to put you on the spot with this. Perhaps you didn’t see the entire thread with the other guy. The gist of my comments is that these aren’t things I can’t do as effectively on an existing device. Convenience was the thrust of my thesis on internet distribution of music in 1996 and it still is.

There’s nothing the “virtual space” does more conveniently than other devices other than total immersion but immersion isn’t always needed or wanted. But there’s another factor I mentioned: competing with reality, which is the most immersive experience there is.

And they’re not things that produce a result in the real world so having them be mixed reality only to realize the fruits of my “superpowers” are gone the moment I take the goggles off is not a particularly compelling selling point vs the alternatives.

But that may be good for a very narrow set of games like a racing sim (which I get bored with) a flight sim (which I get bored with) but not games where the omniscient POV is actually a better vantage point than first person immersion.

This is why VR gaming despite being more than ten years old is still less than 2% of the total gaming market.

Digital downloads and streaming music surpassed physical media in less than ten years because of one click purchasing being insanely more convenient than the existing reality at the time.



But again, why? Why would I want something that puts me on the spot with no ability to edit my thoughts yet doesn’t connect me with someone’s actual face, imperfections, microexpressions and all. One of the most compelling parts of the social media experience is that it is everyone’s highlight reel.

If I don’t want to see someone’s real face, it’s usually because I want to put a buffer between our words and thoughts, not because I’d rather livestream with a very expensive, replica of a person (or myself) with no body language or microexpressions.

They call it the uncanny valley for a reason… because the valley is what separates rather than brings real people together in a real world with real experiences. It’s kind of interesting when you realize that the technocrats who live in a literal valley don’t see that… or maybe they do and keeping people apart so we can lease back our reality at a premium is exactly the ruse they’re hoping we buy into.

VR isn’t more convenient than reality in any use case. It’s a novelty, a cool toy rather than an indispensable tool, and that’s why the larger market sees it as one.

iTunes and iPod dethrone physical media by being “some kind of” novel way to do… something. It dethroned it entirely by being more convenient than reality. Until MR does that, it’ll remain niche.

"or maybe they do and keeping people apart so we can lease back our reality at a premium is exactly the ruse they’re hoping we buy into." Nice to know that someone else gets it.

 

[surferfb]

"or maybe they do and keeping people apart so we can lease back our reality at a premium is exactly the ruse they’re hoping we buy into." Nice to know that someone else gets it.

Man, a lot of you really have a pessimistic view on Apple as a company.

 

[Cape Dave]

Man, a lot of you really have a pessimistic view on Apple as a company.

LOL, it's not just Apple

 

[surferfb]

One example of how AVP could bring us together.

I moved 500 miles away from my parents for college and stayed in the city I moved to. My brother moved to Europe and isn’t going to move back to the US. One of the things my dad, brother, and I miss greatly is watching baseball games together. Can we do that right now on AVP? No. Could they both afford to spend $3500 on the gen 1 device? Also no. But I can definitely see a future in a few years where we can all watch a baseball game together on Apple Vision hardware despite being hundreds/thousands of miles apart.

 

[Avatar74]

Man, a lot of you really have a pessimistic view on Apple as a company.

Apple is not what I'm pessimistic about. (Your comment indirectly quoted me.)

 

[Avatar74]

Isn’t this just glasses with a camera on it?

I know this wasn't a reply to me but that is exactly what the Ray Ban example is. It's not MR/VR/AR at all (it's reality plus camera optics of potato quality I already have in my iPhone), and even if it were, it would be too bulky for me.

The Wayfarer is designated as a size 50-22. What this means is that the lens width is 50mm and the bridge with is 22mm. Now, there is rather conspicuously no outside edge to edge measurement (which includes the size of the "horn rims"), which is critical because this measures the overall fit across your face.

If this is too narrow, the legs will squeeze your temples like a vise grip giving you a massive headache, making these horribly unwearable (beyond the extremely terrible thickness that obscures your peripheral vision).

I have a 53 18 Oliver Peoples frame but in a "Large" size that has a total edge to edge width of 134mm, 4mm wider than the smaller size. Now 53x2 + 18 = 124mm so this means that the temples add about a centimeter of width (0.5cm each side)... and these are very thin frames.

So just to circle back to the original point:

When I've said that I want MR tech sandwiched into a lens I don't mean a giant camera on the side. I mean the lens is the screen, the camera, the sensors, even the battery, sandwiched into a transparent material that can fit in my 53 18 134's... AND it makes reality easier to navigate, not harder (which is a whole other discussion).

Then you've got something. But that tech is 50 years away... and I won't be alive to see it.

 

[Night Spring]

And as far as avatars, I see them more as just in between a phone call and a video call—a phone call with just some more visual information—and maybe that’s something some people want. Will avatars ever be as realistic as seeing a video stream of a person? Hard to imagine, maybe someday.

Have you seen the deep fake videos being produced these days? Avatars/Personas are just deep fakes of you being produced in real time. I expect them to get more realistic very quickly.

But I also don’t think they necessarily need to. They serve a purpose even if they never get there.

This, I agree with.

One example of how AVP could bring us together.

I moved 500 miles away from my parents for college and stayed in the city I moved to. My brother moved to Europe and isn’t going to move back to the US. One of the things my dad, brother, and I miss greatly is watching baseball games together. Can we do that right now on AVP? No. Could they both afford to spend $3500 on the gen 1 device? Also no. But I can definitely see a future in a few years where we can all watch a baseball game together on Apple Vision hardware despite being hundreds/thousands of miles apart.

I believe this is what Zuckerberg is trying to do with the Metaverse. Apple may eventually get there, but it doesn't appear to be their main focus.

Oliver Peoples frame

I'm wearing one too! I've bought several frames from them over the years. My current frame is actually a sunglasses frame. I like it because I like bigger frames, and this one is big but light and comfortable.

 

[heretiq]

Ignoring for the moment that I can’t use AVP even with prescription lenses, just thinking about taking off my eyeglasses and strapping a 1.4lb contraption to my face (it’s going to be considerably heavier than this with Zeiss inserts) just puts me off. Anything that takes my focus off what I am doing for more than a fraction of a second when I’m moving is a potential tripping hazard.

Besides that, I find it exceptionally rude to multitask while trying to talk with family and friends.

Maybe this is something very young kids do and it’s a norm of their culture but it’s not for a large chunk of us who grew up on both sides of the internet’s existence.



And this isn’t something AVP currently does but its novelty in general is probably overstated. “Some kind of 3D activity” is very vague.

I’m not trying to put you on the spot with this. Perhaps you didn’t see the entire thread with the other guy. The gist of my comments is that these aren’t things I can’t do as effectively on an existing device. Convenience was the thrust of my thesis on internet distribution of music in 1996 and it still is.

There’s nothing the “virtual space” does more conveniently than other devices other than total immersion but immersion isn’t always needed or wanted. But there’s another factor I mentioned: competing with reality, which is the most immersive experience there is.

And they’re not things that produce a result in the real world so having them be mixed reality only to realize the fruits of my “superpowers” are gone the moment I take the goggles off is not a particularly compelling selling point vs the alternatives.

But that may be good for a very narrow set of games like a racing sim (which I get bored with) a flight sim (which I get bored with) but not games where the omniscient POV is actually a better vantage point than first person immersion.

This is why VR gaming despite being more than ten years old is still less than 2% of the total gaming market.

Digital downloads and streaming music surpassed physical media in less than ten years because of one click purchasing being insanely more convenient than the existing reality at the time.

iTunes Music Store wasn’t merely more convenient than Limewire, Kazaa and Napster. Pressing the buy button (which they licensed from Amazon) was more convenient than going to the record store. Free was surpassed by 99 cents also because free’s catalogue and quality was all over the place, and their search function and UI was terrible.



But again, why? Why would I want something that puts me on the spot with no ability to edit my thoughts yet doesn’t connect me with someone’s actual face, imperfections, microexpressions and all. One of the most compelling parts of the social media experience is that it is everyone’s highlight reel.

If I don’t want to see someone’s real face, it’s usually because I want to put a buffer between our words and thoughts, not because I’d rather livestream with a very expensive, replica of a person (or myself) with no body language or microexpressions.

VR isn’t more convenient than reality in any use case. It’s a novelty, a cool toy rather than an indispensable tool, and that’s why the larger market sees it as one.

iTunes and iPod dethrones physical media not by being “some kind of” novel way to do… something. It dethroned it entirely by being more convenient than reality. Until MR does that, it’ll remain niche.

They call it the uncanny valley for a reason… because the valley is what separates rather than brings together real people in a real world with real experiences. It’s kind of interesting when you realize that the technocrats who live in a literal valley don’t see that… or maybe they do and keeping people apart so we can lease back our reality at a premium is exactly the ruse they hope we buy into.

Ok. We get it — VP does nothing you find valuable or superior to alternate ways of doing it. Now, can you admit that this is true for you but not true for all mankind?

 

[Avatar74]

But I can definitely see a future in a few years where we can all watch a baseball game together on Apple Vision hardware despite being hundreds/thousands of miles apart.

We've been able to do this for almost 100 years.

I know what you mean by "together" is more than "simultaneously" but I want you to think about this for a second because it's a conversation worth having to illustrate the difference between the perceived problem and the actual problem being solved for.

What are we actually solving here? Are we solving the experience of watching the same thing at the same time in the same place? Well, no. Because we're not physically in the same place.

If I'm eating nachos while watching the game, I can't pass them to you. Can I see your real face? I could do that via FaceTime while we both watch the same broadcast.

I'll add another wrench in the works... part of the reason why the Sony v. Universal case is a landmark case is because the legal argument was over more than just copyright, it was over the right to time delay a broadcast if you are not the broadcaster.

But time delayed access to media is the entire world we live in now, because that's what people wanted. They wanted the ability to watch the game whenever it's convenient for them.

Some people want to watch the game together, but as I pointed out, there are a number of reasons that MR doesn't really solve this in any way that makes it more convenient than the alternatives.

That brings me to the general problem with the arguments I've seen put forth so far... and mind you, I'm not categorically against MR. What I am saying is, "What problems can MR actually solve and how?"

The responses I get are stopping short of understanding the actual problem, and solving something that doesn't necessarily need solving.

It's sort of like skipping straight to, "Well, you could turn on a lightbulb in a room you're not in," without first thinking about why I need light in a room I'm not in. If you instead skip to, "Well, because if you want to see what's in that room without being in it..." Yes, but then I need to buy a camera to see that room... which is just inventing more things for me to buy to solve a problem that doesn't really exist.

These are examples of scope creep and adding complexity to create problems to solve, rather than creating actual, practical convenience in the real world... and that's why VR has been around ten years and still is a niche product. Everyone is trying to over-engineer reasons to go to the metaverse, instead of trying to understand what makes reality so much more convenient.

 

[Night Spring]

There’s nothing the “virtual space” does more conveniently than other devices other than total immersion

What about being able to have multiple app windows in any size you want? Isn't that something made possible by "virtual space" not possible in real life?

 

[Avatar74]

Ok. We get it — VP does nothing you find valuable or superior to alternate ways of doing it. Now, can you admit that this is true for you but not true for all mankind?

Do I need to? Everyone points to VR Gaming as the biggest use case... If the biggest use case for VR represents less than 2% of the gaming market, then do I really need to add anything further?

I have no skin in the game either way, because VR won't have what I need until long after I am gone. I'm just trying to tell you, just as Steve would, how humans behave... it's entirely of no consequence to me if all you want is for VR to serve your personal desires. But that is a market of few.

If you want this to be a ubiquitous, indispensable tool, you've got to spend a lot more time understanding how people live and work.

 

[Avatar74]

What about being able to have multiple app windows in any size you want? Isn't that something made possible by "virtual space" not possible in real life?

This is a good question, but we're still describing a feature.

What problem does this solve, exactly?

 

[Night Spring]

This is a good question, but we're still describing a feature.

What problem does this solve, exactly?

I don't have to juggle multiple iPads over my lap.

 

[Avatar74]

I don't have to juggle multiple iPads over my lap.

You chose to buy multiple iPads instead of one laptop with multiple workspaces.

So why would the tenable solution be spending more than $4000 on AVP than $2400 on a laptop with multiple workspaces you can command-tab through?

Again, what is the underlying problem, not a prior purchasing decision. What does having a resizable screen solve? I'm not saying it solves nothing... I just want to start with an example of a practical use case for why I need to resize a screen.

EDIT: I want to say I'm enjoying these conversations ... I'm not trying to be difficult. This is just what I do. A big part of my job as a data analytics and architecture manager is creating end to end ecosystems that collect, store, transform, display, and disseminate useful information to make people's lives/jobs easier. I think about the underlying problem every single day, and there's an inverse relationship between the simplicity of UI/UX and the complexity of the underlying architecture...

Chartjunk is a real problem, and it is what causes people to go back to using spreadsheets and paper no matter how cool your visualizations are. Two very important books I keep near my desk are The Visual Display of Quantitative Information by Edward Tufte and the original edition of the Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines published by Apple Computer.

 

[Antoniosmalakia]

You chose to buy multiple iPads instead of one laptop with multiple workspaces.

So why would the tenable solution be spending more than $4000 on AVP than $2400 on a laptop with multiple workspaces you can command-tab through?

Again, what is the underlying problem, not a prior purchasing decision. What does having a resizable screen solve? I'm not saying it solves nothing... I just want to start with an example of a practical use case for why I need to resize a screen.

They're excited about something new regardless of its actual usefulness, and I guess are desperate to get people on board, so VP doesn't flop harder than me falling off a diving board.

I've yet to be convinced by any of the use cases presented to me so far, and I doubt I ever will.

I'm not often so mean, but I keep hoping some of the hardcore apologists that are blaming users for the most recent issue with this device have it crack for no apparent reason, too.

 

[Night Spring]

Some people want to watch the game together, but as I pointed out, there are a number of reasons that MR doesn't really solve this in any way that makes it more convenient than the alternatives.

So in a video I saw demonstrating the metaverse, which unfortunately I can't remember where I saw it, they showed these stick figures walk into a virtual room and sit around a table. Each stick figure is a participant in the virtual meeting.

Can the same thing be achieved with a Zoom meeting? Well, to a certain extent. But is stimulating participants sitting around a table subjectively better than having them all lined up on a monitor screen in front of you?

Let's go back to the example of watching a baseball game with far-off family members. Right now, the way to do this is to have the game up on a TV, and the family members in a screen on a separate device doing FaceTime/Zoom. Can you really see the game and your family members at once? When your team scores and you jump up and yell "yes!" -- by the time you remember to glance at the device showing your family, their immediate reaction to the score may be over.

The current Metaverse implementation of virtual meetings with stick figures, I acknowledge, isn't better than a Zoom meeting. But as deep fake tech improves to make the avatars more realistic, I think the time could come when such virtual meetings could feel more satisfying than 2D Zoom/FaceTime meetings.

 

[Avatar74]

They're excited about something new regardless of its actual usefulness

And I get that. When I was 12 I ordered a copy of the Apple Computer annual report for no other reason than the fact that it was the first time they'd included a Hypercard stack of it on a floppy, and I thought that was neat.

But that's what we call a "novelty"... John Sculley's real world failure to understand that Hypercard was much more than a glorified presentation tool cost Apple tremendously, because what they were sitting on was in fact the precursor to HTTP and the World Wide Web...

Failure to understand a problem has real, not virtual, consequences.