I left the headline like the original, but I see this as a massive win for Apple. The device is ridiculously expensive, isn’t even on sale yet and already has 150 apps specifically designed for that.

If Google did this, it wouldn’t even get 150 dedicated apps even years after launch (and the guaranteed demise of it) and even if it was something super cheap like being made of fucking cardboard.

This is something that as an Android user I envy a lot from the Apple ecosystem.

Apple: this is a new feature => devs implement them in their apps the very next day even if it launches officially in 6 months.

Google: this is a new feature => devs ignore it, apps start to support it after 5-6 Android versions

  • HalJor@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Most of those millions of apps are crap that hasn’t been updated in years, and they don’t have millions of users (not the kind of users who would by a Vision Pro at launch, anyway). I haven’t read the list but I’m betting the 150 that are here are much more popular and useful for this platform – the kinds of apps that would actively benefit from this technology and that the users actually want and will use.

    • ExLisper@linux.community
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      the kinds of apps that would actively benefit from this technology and that the users actually want and will use.

      Pre-installed apps optimized for Vision Pro:

      App Store
      Encounter Dinosaurs
      Files
      Freeform
      Keynote
      Mail
      Messages
      Mindfulness
      Music
      Notes
      Photos
      Safari
      Settings
      Tips
      TV
      

      Here’s a full list of third-party apps confirmed for VisionOS so far:

      Disney+
      Microsoft Excel
      Microsoft Word
      Microsoft Teams
      Zoom
      WebEx
      Adobe Lightroom
      Unity-based apps and games (titles TBC)
      Sky Guide
      

      Yeah, because when I use Safari, Notes and Word what I REALLY need is augmenter reality.

      • jarfil@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        because when I use Safari, Notes and Word what I REALLY need is augmenter reality

        You may not realize it, but you actually want AR for everything: pick up some coffee, read some news, take some notes, write them into a document… while still sipping your coffee, and no computers in sight.

        AR is not the tiny dancing characters you see through your phone’s camera, that’s a silly gimmick. AR is the equivalent of picking a bunch of sheets of paper, and having them display the different apps, except without any paper, or taking any physical space, or buying more devices to fill your workspace.

        • ExLisper@linux.community
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          read some news, take some notes, write them into a document… while still sipping your coffee,

          Because I cannot sip at my coffee while looking at my monitor? What a strange idea.

          • jarfil@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            As strange as looking at your monitor, instead of buying a newspaper that you can take to the bathroom then reuse it when you’re done.

            Having monitors, screens, and other displays scattered around, will be as backwards as the newspaper thing. Why even buy a monitor, when you have all the virtual monitors you might ever want, right there on your head?

            • ExLisper@linux.community
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              Sure as long as ‘all the virtual monitors you might ever want’ is exactly one monitor. You do know that Vision Pro can only simulate one display when working with a Mac? We’re talking about specific device not some imaginary thing Apple will release 10 years from now. Jesus, Mac fanboys are just the worst…

              • jarfil@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                We’re talking about specific device

                I was talking about AR, not a specific device.

                Jesus, Mac fanboys are just the worst…

                Right… thanks, but no thanks.

                • ExLisper@linux.community
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Ok, I see how you could get confused and think we’re talking about some non-existing, future product instead of the device this post is actually about. No problem, this happens.

                  When it comes to AR in general Magic Leap was pushing it hard for a very long time and after they released actual device their value quickly dropped. AR for general public is a gimmick, it doesn’t solve any problems, no one wants it. It has very interesting applications in some very specific fields and definitely will find it uses with professionals but when it comes to your dream of looking at 15 4k screens while sitting on a toilet most people are happy with just their phones.

                  • jarfil@beehaw.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    Magic Leap fell for the same trap as many VR/AR projects before it: let the marketing department overpromise, then have clients disappointed when they underdeliver. Don’t get mistaken, I also think this Apple Vision Pro is overpromising, and that they’ll get hit hard for it.

                    Still, most people would jump at the opportunity of shitting in the woods, or on the moons of Jupiter, or in their favorite fantasy porn den… it’s part of why making appealing marketing for this stuff is so easy: people love to get carried away by gimmicks.

                    And yet again, none of that changes the actual utility of AR, which, if implemented correctly, goes far beyond a gimmick and becomes life changing.

                    It just needs to pass a single filter: human capabilities. In particular, vision and balance perception.

                    Vision

                    Vision is ironically a pretty low and high bar at the same time: the optical nerve only has 1M signals going through it, that’s about 640x480x3, a VGA display could fool it. At the same time, the eye can scan its surroundings with a fovea with an equivalent 60 pixels per degree, with about 135° horizontal × 180° vertical.

                    The Magic Leap 2 has a 45°×55° FOV (70° diagonal), with a 1440×1760 display, giving it a 30PPD, or about 1/4 (square) of human vision, and a very limited viewing area.

                    The Apple Vision Pro claims a 110° FOV (presumably diagonal) with 4K displays or 2160×3840… for around a 40PPD, or about 1/2 (square) of human vision, with still a quite small viewing area.

                    Human vision with a 135°×180° FOV at 60PPD, would require something in the range of 8100×10800px static displays.

                    Balance

                    Balance perception has to do with visual feedback, and the vestibulo-ocular reflex… which is informed on one side by the vestibular system, that barely reacts at more than 10Hz, and the retina cones that are capable of reacting at up to 400Hz!

                    The idea of pre-scanning the environment in the Magic Leap and Apple Vision Pro, looks like a step in the right direction, allowing the system to pre-render images into the future, adapted to the probable environment… but I think they’ll still get smashed against the 400Hz barrier.

                    Meaning, a static display system would need a couple of 16K HDR screens running at 480Hz… which is way above anything being sold or even planned right now. There have been alternative technical solutions, like eye tracking while projecting directly onto the retina, but they seem to still have most of the same limitations.

                    So… 10 years into the future you said? Maybe. I got an Oculus DK1 about 10 years ago… then promptly went part blind in one eye… but still had a chance at seeing what 640x800 per eye at below 10PPD and 250Hz looked like (like crap, and made a lot of people vomit).

                    10 years sounds like the timeframe for a wide adoption where people go around with their AR goggles onto the street, some in groups with their virtual friends, some on a peaceful meadow with no one in sight, some with their IRL families or friends and any mix of the aforementioned.