It's not just Netflix, Spotify, and YouTube that don't have apps for Apple's Vision Pro at launch. New App Store data indicates the new mixed reality
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
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.
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?
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…
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.
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.
You’re mixing AR and VR all the time. VR has a lot of entertainment potential that will be realized once the tech gets better and cheaper, probably fairly soon. For AR to be useful for normal users it will have to replace phones, not PCs. I can see people using it on the subway to browse isntagram or while walking for navigation and answering calls. For this it will have to become super small and light, just like normal glasses. Vision pro is 600g + battery pack. We’re decades away from something that will be able to compete with phones.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Pre-installed apps optimized for Vision Pro:
Here’s a full list of third-party apps confirmed for VisionOS so far:
Yeah, 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.
Because I cannot sip at my coffee while looking at my monitor? What a strange idea.
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?
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…
I was talking about AR, not a specific device.
Right… thanks, but no thanks.
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.
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.
You’re mixing AR and VR all the time. VR has a lot of entertainment potential that will be realized once the tech gets better and cheaper, probably fairly soon. For AR to be useful for normal users it will have to replace phones, not PCs. I can see people using it on the subway to browse isntagram or while walking for navigation and answering calls. For this it will have to become super small and light, just like normal glasses. Vision pro is 600g + battery pack. We’re decades away from something that will be able to compete with phones.
I’m just trying to surf spreadsheets in the metaverse man
Excel seems interesting with the Vision Pro. Imagine infinite 3D spreadsheets!
Gonna hack the Gibson!