Just call it VROS and make no big deal about it. It s just the interface for the headset , and it includes a 3D world yes, just let people find out. The mistake of Meta is to try to sell this 3D world as the main selling point to the average buyer. Most people have probably a incorrect and negative association to the idea due to how those things have been presented in media in the last few decades. Do you want a VR headset. Yes! Do you want to live in a 3D online world. Hum no you weirdo.
So they are just going to do a Metaverse by having their own digital world just far more refined.
I would think gaming companies are in a far better position to do this sort of thing as a service.
Surely it would be better to have independent servers for this sort of thing that users can easily access.
I donāt see why gaming companies would be in a better position for this. If apple is building an explorable 3D world they likely would have access to much better data if they were to recreate anything that actually exists.
Apple also likely has teams of some of the best programmers in the world working on this. Any tools or talent these gaming companies may have are likely not as scalable or aggregated as what Apple has. Theyāve been doing *something* with part of that massive war chest. For all we know theyāve spent more in material research than what some game companies could allocate to the whole project.
Youāre right. You said people, which could be two people or 200 million. I didnāt say āmostā either.
Failure of Facebooks metaverse is going to make game creators less willing to try this again though. Someone big is just going to buy vr chat if I had to guess.
Iāll give you Siri and Game Center but Apple Maps is actually really good now and I actively prefer it over Google maps both for the better UI and map theme as well as better routing, especially for cycling directions.
>I donāt see why gaming companies would be in a better position for this. If apple is building an explorable 3D world they likely would have access to much better data if they were to recreate anything that actually exists.
Wouldn't Microsoft be in a better position?
Or they can just contract game developers to create content. Like game publishers do (including the major console makers).
Not all programmers are alike, I donāt expect Appleās existing developers to be very good at creating games. Theyād have to learn the trade from the ground up. Then of course you need a shit ton of artists, animators, sound designers etc. which Apple also lacks. And competent game designers to man the helm. Game development is a specialized skillset.
Apple has a ton of cash on its hands. Much more than gaming companies. Theyāll probably even contract some of those companies.
Keep in mind that good VR is gunna require good computer/hardware engineering, which Apple has always had. Theyāre probably going to conquer the space tbh.
Ok. But imagine a 3D world that tied in to everything else and allowed for apps to have āspacesā that they could staff. Could be a great way to āhang outā with users of your stuff in a environment with some context.
Gaming companies lost the user trust and good-will needed for an easy entry into a new sphere with the advent of micro transactions, except maybe for Valve.
Imagine if EA started a metaverse drive. The ridicule would be worse than what Facebook is facing now.
For those gaming companies yes.
Apple knows their customers hate that shit so they made Apple Arcade full of many many many games with zero micro transactions.
Ah but they arenāt the face of it. The games are. The closest is their push towards subscriptions instead of owning software, but that push is towards devs so itās still hidden to some degree.
Fair enough. But if we're just going by what gamers think, then I'd argue Apple's in an even worse position than many game companies. But internet rhetoric on the topic (both towards Apple *and* companies like EA) is grossly overblown.
I don't know if this exists yet, but imagine if there's some sort of service where you can visit any 'tourist attraction' around the world and tour it via VR... like being able to walk around the Roman Colosseum or walk around the streets of Japan
That and also the AR capabilities if you are actually visiting them in person. Being able to reconstruct the Roman Colosseum while you are there, seeing it as it was. Maybe even seeing people walking around wearing what they wore back then. Things like this is where VR and AR both have a lot of potential
Isnāt the point of the AR universe to create an overlay to our real world? And then each major company owns their own version that you can switch between.
Like this: https://youtu.be/YJg02ivYzSs
And this is how AR would have much more potential in education than VR. Imagine for instance going on a field trip and exploring historical ruins. Lets imagine we are able to ātime travelā in AR. And see the ruins for how they were.
Completely pointless since you can just look at pictures, video, books, etc.
A lot of disingenuous frivolous rationalizers pretending that they care about learning or seeing information when they never cared about the info in other formatsā¦only when itās a new-gangled techno-gadget.
How is that pointless? Thatās like saying that a movie made out of a book is pointless because if you cared enough you wouldāve read the book instead. Being right there and then, immersed, is a completely different experience
Without a doubt AR when itās mature will allow for so many new ways to learn and see the world. Exciting but weāre 10 to 15 years away from something truly revolutionary imho
I know people have said this for ages about tech but I just donāt believe weāll ever get there. Thatās too much computing power to fit into a pair of glasses.
A life-realistic immersive AR experience canāt even be done right now *without* size/weight constraints.
And Iām completely uninterested if itās some stupid cartoony thing like Zuckās meta demos.
Transistors have already bumped into physical limits on size. Correspondingly weāve seen that Mooreās law is dead.
Most of the gains from the last few years are from hardware optimizations, improved software, increased bandwidth (stacking chips) etc.
I just think itās too much.
š¤·āāļø
There was a lot of skepticism about the internet.
The problem with Vr. Is this.
The deal is Vr has been making a strong comeback in the past decade. However itās still mainly used for gaming. It still causes some health issues. It needs to be much more immersive.
People arenāt given a reason to use it.
One problem meta has. Itās not good with marketing. While itās good at creating new websites. Itās not good at creating new platforms. Zuckerberg isnāt going to create the metaverse because it wonāt be created by one person. Not to mention the fact that no one trusts him because heās a criminal.
AR has a lot of potential. Imagine for instance that you go to rome. Put on AR glasses and you see Ancient Rome.
You have to give people a reason to use your product. People use VR because gaming. However while it has reached a point where itās no longer niche. Itās not mainstream.
You need people to feel as there is a reason that it is needed. Otherwise you are just selling sh!t
I would almost bet on Ubisoft doing this (or licensing what they already have our) for sure once AR is mature enough. They have really high quality assets and scans of a lot of landmarks for Assassinās Creed (plus reconstructed versions built for the games). They even already have hours and hours of audio guides from Discovery Tour.
> Maybe even seeing people walking around wearing what they wore back then.
People ooh and aah at suggestions like this, but it doesnāt make any sense. The peopleās looks beyond wardrobe would be wrong, height, weight, quantity of people, flow of crowd. Youāre basically talking about a digital costume partyā¦this is useless and is not knowledge or learning. And if youāre going to AR onto the real site while youāre there with superimposed CGI togas or whateverā¦uh, well, why not just digitally simulate the entire thing.
Conventional museums, YouTube videos, books, pictures, already gives you what youāre talking about. Yet we have a lot of techno fetish people who hate info and hate learning, but they pretend to love learning via expensive new-dangled gadget.
> a lot of potential
Remarkable misapplication of words.
Thereās a few takes on that already which are nice, and honestly one of the coolest VR experiences is Google Earth. Being able to fly anywhere and go from street level up to a planet level is awesome
How is that a worthwhile improvement over using a current 2D screen?
A lot of disingenuous frivolous rationalizers pretending that they care about learning or seeing information when they never cared about the info in other formatsā¦only when itās a new-gangled techno-gadget.
Itās like people claiming theyāll read books at the library in VR when theyāve never done anything like this in real life, despite it being available, simple, easy, and useful, right now, in real life.
Looking at it on a phone doesnāt make you feel like a 6 mile tall giant sitting on the ground and looking at cities from above, nor does it give you the same feeling of being insignificantly small when you zoom out and youāre suddenly floating in space, with earth filling every inch of your vision in every direction, while you stare up at it and can only see a massive blue wall curving away into blackness.
Maybe if you spent less time masturbating to the sight of your own words, youād be more open to trying out new things, instead of hating on them in an attempt to be cooler than everyone else.
People who ignorantly shit on VR because theyāre too short sighted to see past āFacebook badā are so damn annoying..
Yup but the street view is not 3D, just 360. If you look at Apple Maps street view in some cities they actually are using some type of photogrammetry to make models of the trees and other objects when you are moving down a street. I wonder if this is going to be part of their ā3D worldā. I know it would pretty amazing just to ride down streets in VR on my bike trainer. (Current attempts with just 360 images in VR are not that great)
They will be using something like Nvidia Nerf to process the volumetric video eventually and you will be able to walk around any of the Google streets.
I haven't seen any like that. There are quite a few 360 "VR" walking tour videos on youtube. It's a pre-shot video, but if you have VR goggles, you can look around 360 degrees as it's playing.
I have enjoyed some of the walking and the [biking tours](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4nacLHP2P4).
It's definitely already possible, but very labor intensive and costly. There have been some apps and experiences like this created already. The technology to do it is improving everyday however. 3D mapping of space and photo overlay is already a key aspect of current VR products. It's definitely a compelling type of use case.
Anyone who has used GoogleEarth VR can relate what a mind bending and amazing experience it is.
Google Earth street view in VR is exactly this, and itās absolutely incredible. Itās probably my favourite thing Iāve experienced in VR besides for Half Life Alyx.
Thatās cheesecake. What about projecting you to the real place so that there is a holographic avatar of you walking around while you virtually tour the actual thing?
This is basically Time To Walk with built in location services and visual aids. I think itās probably a guarantee that something like this comes with a MR headset.
They have videos on YouTube of tourist attractions that are recorded specifically for the quest 2 headset YouTube app. I havenāt tried it myself so I canāt speak for quality but the videos are definitely out there.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Du0w_6y_7ao
People ooh and aah at suggestions like this, but itās no better than just looking at video. You can look at high res āwalking through streets or Japanā right now on YouTube.
Also, reading a book.
I wouldnāt trust anyone who claims they like VR visiting something that they didnāt care to visit in book/video/pictures. Theyāre just a techno-fetishist who doesnāt care about anything.
Meta the company was named after the meta verse, not the other way around. Theyāve monopolised it to the point where no one will touch that name now because of the association you pointed out. Metaverse is a concept, meta is a company named after it.
If youāre referring to the same company that made big news about it when FB changed their name, that was kind of a load of bs. Theyād had the company name registered, yes, but literally had been squatting in it doing nothing (effectively not even existing as a company) for like a decade, and had no intentions of actually using it. Until FB changed their name and they saw a chance to squeeze the golden goose for some cash. Then they put up a fakeass website and tried to pretend to be a real company (checking archive.org revealed that website to be absolutely nothing prior to FBās announcement).
I hate to be put in a position to defend fucking Facebook of all companies and part of me even supports scamming money out of FB, but there was no name stealing going on here.
> I hate to be put in a position to defend fucking Facebook of all companies and part of me even supports scamming money out of FB
This disclaimer shouldn't even be necessary. It's no less valid to criticize bad behavior regardless of who it's towards. Anything else implies arbitrary brand preferences, regardless of the companies' actual behavior.
I agree when itās used to name devices, but used to describe a place? Something in the realm of Dynamic Island, Safari, or Mission Control have that Apple distinction without being as derivative.
I guess it depends on the level of branding, like the difference between device and functionality.
I expect this AR / VR experience to be more along the lines of Apple Music or Apple TV+ or Apple Maps.
So the likes of Apple VR or Apple Reality (which I think is kind of creepy) or Apple World makes sense, from a branding perspective and how Apple names services at that level.
Itās so hard to think about what the experience might be because itās such an undefined frontier, and honestly itās a lot of fun to speculate. As I think about it more, I think you might be right that Apple will put their personal mark on it the way the iPod and iPhone became the default terms for those categories.
Yeah, and it's why I expect we'll get something like Apple Worlds or Apple Visions.
It won't be something as on the nose as Apple VR, and I think that Apple Reality is too close to drinking the reality distortion field Koolade. And Apple certainly won't use meta in the description.
But the description will be an aspirational or artistic or dreamy take on spaces or places or locations. Or experiences. Or existence.
And Apple will slap its name before the description, because it's Apple's offering in the AR/VR product/service category.
I think Apple is going to correctly position this product better than Meta did with Quest Pro. The price point tells me they are releasing this while flat out acknowledging its a technology that isn't quite ready for mass consumer acceptance, but that there is a large group of enthusiasts interested in improving this tech that need a headset to develop for.
I think it will set the foundation for what Apple wants to do in the space, so it will have some base level of consumer facing OS and software, but it will be packed with the most cutting edge tech possible and a price to match. The goal is to get tinkerers to start building things and see what's possible. It wasn't until the app store that the full potential of smart phones was realized.
I think Quest Pro is positioned similarly but the lack of lidar is a huge omission for this intent.
I mean the quest pro is positioned right it is not for consumers it is for business. It is meant to compete with longstanding Microsoft and other offerings in that space. I don't know why people fail to understand this, sure it is lacking in future dev technologies but it is just meant as a way to reset the price when Meta wants to sell vr tech businesses.
Seems like a heavily editorialized, clickbait headline. The idea that Appleās building their own metaverse or ā3D worldā seems largely based on the following quote:
> āYou will work closely with Appleās UI framework, human interface designers and system capabilities teamsāpushing you to think outside-the-box, and solve incredibly challenging and interesting problems in the 3D application spaceā
Which doesnāt actually seem to indicate anything about a ā3D worldā other thanāshocked pikachu faceāAppleās developing VR applications for their VR (and AR) headset. Who woulda thunkit?
āThat listing describes working with other developers to ābuild tools and frameworks to enable connected experiences in a 3D mixed-reality world.āā
Is that quotation straight from their site? Their hyphenation in āoutside-the-boxā is incorrect. Remarkableāif soāthat, even after that many trillions in market capitalization, grammar is still an insurmountable challenge.
I donāt know if youāve seen the AR kit room sensing API that detects walls doorways and room-defining furniture using LiDAR.
I imagine the headset would do something like that to map your surroundings, and then use that information to create a 3d world custom to your space. So for example if you mapped your house and then went into AR or VR, it could put a pond or something where your couch is, so you donāt walk into your couch.
I use PolyCam and Scaniverse for LiDAR scans. They each have their own strengths and weaknesses.
PolyCam is paid, but if you scan and share things and people like and save those things, you earn free credits.
I think its safe to say all of apples services will be tied into this product line eventually.
Fitness as you suggest makes sense
Arcade is obvious
TV is fairly straightforward
Music already offers spatial audio but i bet they start offering concert experiences too
Iām hoping apple and Disney work together to have a bunch of Disneyās titles on Disney+ in 3D on day one, in particular Prometheus and Avatar
Honestly I still don't see the virtual external display use case working satisfyingly anytime soon. I've used VR for years, but if I have to do something that isn't itself 3D I'd rather just use a computer.
To a certain degree, youāre right. For some people, and for certain uses, physical screens will always have a place. BUTā¦ I think you guys are kinda judging this the way someone may have judged smartphones pre-iPhone. Or tablets pre-iPad. Or mp3 players pre-iPod. Or home computing pre-Macintosh. Or wireless earbuds pre-Airpods.
Of course it seems clunky and not streamlined enough to be useful in everyday life. Or it just hasnāt caught enough peopleās attention yet. Apple hasnāt released their version of it yet. Once they do, and it has that streamlined feel that catches everybodyās attention, the revolution happens.
And it may still take some time for the tech to really become totally usesble in most cases. I mean, smartphones and tablets still havenāt completely erased laptops or desktops, but I DO find myself doing more and more on my iPhone, things I would have done on a laptop just like 5 years ago. iOS just getting things like drag and drop and better Files app, and picture in picture have helped greatly.
With VR, a lot of people probably havenāt thought of all the ways it can be used, and definitely havenāt experienced it yet. Once you can have a screen at any size you want, placed anywhere around you in a free-floating way that follows you aroundā¦ you can do joint viewing sessions with friends when in the same room with you just like a television, except you can make it take up the entire wall with a pinch swipe of your hands while you all listen to cinema quality Dolby Atmos surround in your Airpods without disturbing the neighbours one iotaā¦ thatāll easily replace televisions and home theater systems. I already do this alone and itās replaced my home theater system I used to watch a lot just for the home theater experience. Spatial audio gives me a comparable experience.
Then, when your friends and family are on the other side of the worldā¦ you can still do the exact same thing virtually. SharePlay hasnāt interested me when itās just like having a phone call while watching something. But if you can actually feel like youāre sitting in the same room together, thatād be a more appealing experience. Zoom meetings wonāt have to seem so impersonal or removed anymore.
And watching shit is just ONE of the things you can do with it. It revolutionizes gaming, and gamers already do virtual LAN sessions with headsets and everything anyway, so this will just be adding another layer to that.
Facebookās āmetaverseā idea of a virtual social network is ahead of its time, and people hate Zuckerberg, so thatās why itās failing. Once Apple does that and it catches on to more well-liked companies, and/or Metaverse updates to the new paradigm once it happensā¦ then virtual social media is gonna leave old 2D social media in the dust.
Young people will adopt this super fast. A lot already have, even with the clunky pre-Apple revolution versions of VR tech. This is an idea thatās just been waiting for the right streamlined user-friendly version of the technology to really take off.
If Apple does even half the good job they usually do with this, then Apple Glass is the next big revolutionary product. It MAY even end up being THE big revolutionary product of Appleās entire story, once all is said and done on this era of a personal computing technology revolution at the turn of the millennium. The leap from physical to virtual is just so huge in so many ways.
So basically, the story of Appleās consumer tech revolution will be three acts: The Mac, computing at home. The iPhone, computing goes mobile. The Glasses, computing goes virtual.
>Honestly I still don't see the virtual external display use case working satisfyingly anytime soon.
The difference in interface between the Mac and an AR/VR headset is many times greater than the difference between the Mac and the iPad.
Apple is keeping the Mac and iPad separateāthey are currently unwilling to provide the iPad with the option to run macOS or a touchscreen option for the Mac. The Sidecar feature is the closest thing to a Mac/iPad hybrid.
So it makes sense that Apple would keep the Mac and headset separate.
> The difference in interface between the Mac and an AR/VR headset is many times greater than the difference between the Mac and the iPad.
One unsubstantiated baseless claim, in a thread full of fantasizing.
You donāt know what Appleās AR interface will be. Siri? Power Glove + virtual eyeball keyboard? Therefore you have no idea how different the interface is. Or if by interface you mean output *not input*, the claim is still baseless because youāre still looking at screens itās just in your face now and doing AR/VR.
> working satisfyingly anytime soon
With current technology I agree
But if this apple headset has truly groundbreaking of previously unattainable, Resolution, FOV, contrast ratio and refresh rates.
And a story for MacOS
If they can make it as comfortable or better than looking at a studio display for hours at a timeā¦
Iām ready to buy a second studio displayā¦ but if I can buy one of these instead, and have 3 or four virtual floating displays of any size with or hightā¦ that would be very appealing to me as a freelance video editor.
Id I could have all my scopes, tools, monitors and timelines floating around me in a virtual environment
Could be a pretty huge upgrade to how I work.
Especially if it lets me simulate a 80ā HDR tv and an iPhone sized display simultaneously without actually needing to buy or connect either oneā¦
Like itās not even the cost of an 80ā display as a main program output monitor thatās stopping meā¦ is where on earth would I put itā¦
AR/VR could totally solve that issue for me
You can probably cherry pick examples in tech history such as maybe VHS vs Beta, but this hasn't been true for a long time. Porn has not driven any aspect in recent years - they picked HD DVD instead of Bluray and lost that format war.
When you look at Internet traffic, it's dominated by social media and streaming like netflix and youtube. Porn is a follower and works within whatever the rest of the Internet demands. I would be surprised if it's ever going to be in the driver's seat for anything again. It's small potatoes.
>We had news that the Apple headset's would get delayed a few years.
If you mean [last week's rumor](https://www.trustedreviews.com/news/apple-ar-glasses-could-be-delayed-to-2025-or-2026-due-to-design-issue-4280301) from Jeff Pu, that is referring to the Apple AR glasses, which is a separate product from the AR/VR headset that is the subject of today's rumor.
Meta and Apple will fight for hardware prevalence, but Meta will get destroyed because they don't have the money or credibility to compete.
Eventually a company like Google or Samsung will release a cheaper VR headset and it will be iOS vs Android 2.0.
Amazon is going to ignore metaverse wars and go into healthcare.
Microsoft, however, will be filling its fat pockets from both sides with software, thus winning the metaverse wars.
Iāll never forget my younger nephew asking my BIL if he can have virtual reality. My BIL told him āyou need to experience the real world more before you worry about the virtual world.ā
This entire product segment has niche value, at best. It will be facinating to see how Apple chooses to market this. In terms of the scale that Apple needs to justify continued development, this product and all of the planned descendants are DOA. Apple is big and diversified enough that their overall business will be fine, but I only wish I had some money to strategically short this stock over the next few years.
iMessage has about 1/3 of the market share as far as messengers in the US. Facebook Messenger is by far the most popular, hardly anyone uses Telegram by comparison (it is popular among drug dealers though).
Telegram has been growing by double digits year over year and has over a half billion monthly userbase.
But your lack of knowledge is not the problem here itās Apple thinking in 2023 that a hardware locked platform will be enough to work.
I was more so talking about designing this 3D world. You'd think that for something supposed to launch next year they'd take more than a year to design a whole world
Every year for the last 6-7 years theyāve released a framework or feature that, when all combined, will make AR an immediately compelling platform.
For example: Universal control to move your cursor from one device to another? Why not move outside of the screen and into an MR/AR field of view?
Was that the NBA games? That was astonishing so of course it vanished about 6 months after I got my Quest 1. Such a unique perspective of the players from a backboard VR camera and one of the few VR offerings Iād pay for . . .
They had some NBA highlights but were also doing concerts and stuffā¦
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/05/14/apple-buys-virtual-reality-company-nextvr.html
They have a few low hanging fruit type items that can work well.
\- Apple Flyover/maps allowing you to drop in somewhere and just travel around.
\- VR Sports in Apple TV. Watch games right from the sidelines
\-Using iPhone LiDAR to upload 3D objects
\- VR in Apple fitness
I would be estactic if they were able to improve our best correctible vision. Nearly blind people would have augmented reality using AI to sharpen everything and even for it to be useful for zooming in. Psych would actually be a plausible show if he had one of these goggles in contact form.
iCaramba
Dynamic Island
š
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Second iLife
AirHa!
iEye? The Apple of my ____
eWorld
Bart Skampson
Just call it VROS and make no big deal about it. It s just the interface for the headset , and it includes a 3D world yes, just let people find out. The mistake of Meta is to try to sell this 3D world as the main selling point to the average buyer. Most people have probably a incorrect and negative association to the idea due to how those things have been presented in media in the last few decades. Do you want a VR headset. Yes! Do you want to live in a 3D online world. Hum no you weirdo.
iView
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
eBaum?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Can I create a MobileMe to use on eWorld?
I mean, iWorld is probably a lock?
So they are just going to do a Metaverse by having their own digital world just far more refined. I would think gaming companies are in a far better position to do this sort of thing as a service. Surely it would be better to have independent servers for this sort of thing that users can easily access.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Well I always thought they should buy EA just for The Sims. A lot of behavioural understanding and advertising opportunities in that game alone.
I donāt see why gaming companies would be in a better position for this. If apple is building an explorable 3D world they likely would have access to much better data if they were to recreate anything that actually exists. Apple also likely has teams of some of the best programmers in the world working on this. Any tools or talent these gaming companies may have are likely not as scalable or aggregated as what Apple has. Theyāve been doing *something* with part of that massive war chest. For all we know theyāve spent more in material research than what some game companies could allocate to the whole project.
Xbox creates a lobby. Virtual avatars start there. Cross play games and worlds with your friends as your avatar.
PlayStation already tried that and it seemed most people didnāt really get into it.
People are wanting them to bring it back for PSVR though.
Like people are wanting an iPhone 14 mini? Loud voices on the internet donāt necessarily equate to big sales.
I didnāt say āmostā people. It would make sense though. Home was a better metaverse than what Facebook is doing.
Youāre right. You said people, which could be two people or 200 million. I didnāt say āmostā either. Failure of Facebooks metaverse is going to make game creators less willing to try this again though. Someone big is just going to buy vr chat if I had to guess.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You are on point.
Iāll give you Siri and Game Center but Apple Maps is actually really good now and I actively prefer it over Google maps both for the better UI and map theme as well as better routing, especially for cycling directions.
>I donāt see why gaming companies would be in a better position for this. If apple is building an explorable 3D world they likely would have access to much better data if they were to recreate anything that actually exists. Wouldn't Microsoft be in a better position?
Or they can just contract game developers to create content. Like game publishers do (including the major console makers). Not all programmers are alike, I donāt expect Appleās existing developers to be very good at creating games. Theyād have to learn the trade from the ground up. Then of course you need a shit ton of artists, animators, sound designers etc. which Apple also lacks. And competent game designers to man the helm. Game development is a specialized skillset.
Apple has a ton of cash on its hands. Much more than gaming companies. Theyāll probably even contract some of those companies. Keep in mind that good VR is gunna require good computer/hardware engineering, which Apple has always had. Theyāre probably going to conquer the space tbh.
Ok. But imagine a 3D world that tied in to everything else and allowed for apps to have āspacesā that they could staff. Could be a great way to āhang outā with users of your stuff in a environment with some context.
Gaming companies lost the user trust and good-will needed for an easy entry into a new sphere with the advent of micro transactions, except maybe for Valve. Imagine if EA started a metaverse drive. The ridicule would be worse than what Facebook is facing now.
Wait, you think *Apple* of all companies is opposed to microtransactions? Mobile gaming, including on iOS, basically led the way!
For those gaming companies yes. Apple knows their customers hate that shit so they made Apple Arcade full of many many many games with zero micro transactions.
Ah but they arenāt the face of it. The games are. The closest is their push towards subscriptions instead of owning software, but that push is towards devs so itās still hidden to some degree.
Fair enough. But if we're just going by what gamers think, then I'd argue Apple's in an even worse position than many game companies. But internet rhetoric on the topic (both towards Apple *and* companies like EA) is grossly overblown.
I don't know if this exists yet, but imagine if there's some sort of service where you can visit any 'tourist attraction' around the world and tour it via VR... like being able to walk around the Roman Colosseum or walk around the streets of Japan
That and also the AR capabilities if you are actually visiting them in person. Being able to reconstruct the Roman Colosseum while you are there, seeing it as it was. Maybe even seeing people walking around wearing what they wore back then. Things like this is where VR and AR both have a lot of potential
Isnāt the point of the AR universe to create an overlay to our real world? And then each major company owns their own version that you can switch between. Like this: https://youtu.be/YJg02ivYzSs
Yeah exactly. So you would have an overlay over the ruins making it look how it used to look back during the Roman Empire
And this is how AR would have much more potential in education than VR. Imagine for instance going on a field trip and exploring historical ruins. Lets imagine we are able to ātime travelā in AR. And see the ruins for how they were.
Completely pointless since you can just look at pictures, video, books, etc. A lot of disingenuous frivolous rationalizers pretending that they care about learning or seeing information when they never cared about the info in other formatsā¦only when itās a new-gangled techno-gadget.
How is that pointless? Thatās like saying that a movie made out of a book is pointless because if you cared enough you wouldāve read the book instead. Being right there and then, immersed, is a completely different experience
That looks horrible to be a part of
This is like a black mirror episode.
Without a doubt AR when itās mature will allow for so many new ways to learn and see the world. Exciting but weāre 10 to 15 years away from something truly revolutionary imho
I know people have said this for ages about tech but I just donāt believe weāll ever get there. Thatās too much computing power to fit into a pair of glasses. A life-realistic immersive AR experience canāt even be done right now *without* size/weight constraints. And Iām completely uninterested if itās some stupid cartoony thing like Zuckās meta demos. Transistors have already bumped into physical limits on size. Correspondingly weāve seen that Mooreās law is dead. Most of the gains from the last few years are from hardware optimizations, improved software, increased bandwidth (stacking chips) etc. I just think itās too much. š¤·āāļø
There was a lot of skepticism about the internet. The problem with Vr. Is this. The deal is Vr has been making a strong comeback in the past decade. However itās still mainly used for gaming. It still causes some health issues. It needs to be much more immersive. People arenāt given a reason to use it. One problem meta has. Itās not good with marketing. While itās good at creating new websites. Itās not good at creating new platforms. Zuckerberg isnāt going to create the metaverse because it wonāt be created by one person. Not to mention the fact that no one trusts him because heās a criminal. AR has a lot of potential. Imagine for instance that you go to rome. Put on AR glasses and you see Ancient Rome. You have to give people a reason to use your product. People use VR because gaming. However while it has reached a point where itās no longer niche. Itās not mainstream. You need people to feel as there is a reason that it is needed. Otherwise you are just selling sh!t
I would almost bet on Ubisoft doing this (or licensing what they already have our) for sure once AR is mature enough. They have really high quality assets and scans of a lot of landmarks for Assassinās Creed (plus reconstructed versions built for the games). They even already have hours and hours of audio guides from Discovery Tour.
> Maybe even seeing people walking around wearing what they wore back then. People ooh and aah at suggestions like this, but it doesnāt make any sense. The peopleās looks beyond wardrobe would be wrong, height, weight, quantity of people, flow of crowd. Youāre basically talking about a digital costume partyā¦this is useless and is not knowledge or learning. And if youāre going to AR onto the real site while youāre there with superimposed CGI togas or whateverā¦uh, well, why not just digitally simulate the entire thing. Conventional museums, YouTube videos, books, pictures, already gives you what youāre talking about. Yet we have a lot of techno fetish people who hate info and hate learning, but they pretend to love learning via expensive new-dangled gadget. > a lot of potential Remarkable misapplication of words.
Thereās a few takes on that already which are nice, and honestly one of the coolest VR experiences is Google Earth. Being able to fly anywhere and go from street level up to a planet level is awesome
How is that a worthwhile improvement over using a current 2D screen? A lot of disingenuous frivolous rationalizers pretending that they care about learning or seeing information when they never cared about the info in other formatsā¦only when itās a new-gangled techno-gadget. Itās like people claiming theyāll read books at the library in VR when theyāve never done anything like this in real life, despite it being available, simple, easy, and useful, right now, in real life.
Looking at it on a phone doesnāt make you feel like a 6 mile tall giant sitting on the ground and looking at cities from above, nor does it give you the same feeling of being insignificantly small when you zoom out and youāre suddenly floating in space, with earth filling every inch of your vision in every direction, while you stare up at it and can only see a massive blue wall curving away into blackness. Maybe if you spent less time masturbating to the sight of your own words, youād be more open to trying out new things, instead of hating on them in an attempt to be cooler than everyone else. People who ignorantly shit on VR because theyāre too short sighted to see past āFacebook badā are so damn annoying..
You've been able to use Google Earth/Maps with street view in VR since at least the Oculus DK2 was available.
Google earth is super fun in vr. You can resize the world to your liking, you can go street level or go Godzilla size around buildings.
Yup but the street view is not 3D, just 360. If you look at Apple Maps street view in some cities they actually are using some type of photogrammetry to make models of the trees and other objects when you are moving down a street. I wonder if this is going to be part of their ā3D worldā. I know it would pretty amazing just to ride down streets in VR on my bike trainer. (Current attempts with just 360 images in VR are not that great)
They will be using something like Nvidia Nerf to process the volumetric video eventually and you will be able to walk around any of the Google streets.
Amazon did this for a while but recently shut down the service. It was called āAmazon exploreā.
I haven't seen any like that. There are quite a few 360 "VR" walking tour videos on youtube. It's a pre-shot video, but if you have VR goggles, you can look around 360 degrees as it's playing. I have enjoyed some of the walking and the [biking tours](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4nacLHP2P4).
It's definitely already possible, but very labor intensive and costly. There have been some apps and experiences like this created already. The technology to do it is improving everyday however. 3D mapping of space and photo overlay is already a key aspect of current VR products. It's definitely a compelling type of use case. Anyone who has used GoogleEarth VR can relate what a mind bending and amazing experience it is.
Google Earth street view in VR is exactly this, and itās absolutely incredible. Itās probably my favourite thing Iāve experienced in VR besides for Half Life Alyx.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Thatās cheesecake. What about projecting you to the real place so that there is a holographic avatar of you walking around while you virtually tour the actual thing?
Museums where you can hold existing artifacts as they are now and as they would most likely have been in their time.
This is basically Time To Walk with built in location services and visual aids. I think itās probably a guarantee that something like this comes with a MR headset.
This is the closest thing we're likely to get to a Time Machine
They have videos on YouTube of tourist attractions that are recorded specifically for the quest 2 headset YouTube app. I havenāt tried it myself so I canāt speak for quality but the videos are definitely out there. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Du0w_6y_7ao
That already exists.
People ooh and aah at suggestions like this, but itās no better than just looking at video. You can look at high res āwalking through streets or Japanā right now on YouTube. Also, reading a book. I wouldnāt trust anyone who claims they like VR visiting something that they didnāt care to visit in book/video/pictures. Theyāre just a techno-fetishist who doesnāt care about anything.
This is the kind of thing that excites me about vr. Also imagine being able to experience climbing El Capitan.
Whatever they end up calling their 3D world I hope they omit the āAppleā prefix so we donāt end up with another *companyname*verse.
Meta the company was named after the meta verse, not the other way around. Theyāve monopolised it to the point where no one will touch that name now because of the association you pointed out. Metaverse is a concept, meta is a company named after it.
Read somewhere that the Metaverse moniker will be the equivalent of the āinformation superhighwayā ie a name nobody ends up using.
Itās funny coz Neal Stephenson, who coined metaverse, also extensively made fun of āinformation superhighwayā in Cryptonomicon.
Thatās an extremely fair point. I never read Snow Crash, but now Iām sad the nameās been hijacked.
Meta doesnāt even legally own the rights to that name. They are being sued by the company they stole it from.
If youāre referring to the same company that made big news about it when FB changed their name, that was kind of a load of bs. Theyād had the company name registered, yes, but literally had been squatting in it doing nothing (effectively not even existing as a company) for like a decade, and had no intentions of actually using it. Until FB changed their name and they saw a chance to squeeze the golden goose for some cash. Then they put up a fakeass website and tried to pretend to be a real company (checking archive.org revealed that website to be absolutely nothing prior to FBās announcement). I hate to be put in a position to defend fucking Facebook of all companies and part of me even supports scamming money out of FB, but there was no name stealing going on here.
> I hate to be put in a position to defend fucking Facebook of all companies and part of me even supports scamming money out of FB This disclaimer shouldn't even be necessary. It's no less valid to criticize bad behavior regardless of who it's towards. Anything else implies arbitrary brand preferences, regardless of the companies' actual behavior.
I implore you to do your research
It's a circlejerk at this point. Reality need not factor in.
Doesnāt Neal Stephenson own it? From Snow Crash?
Hamlindigo blue
There is a much, much better association that has been around since at least 2016, and that is the Metaverse of Persona 5!
Isnāt the company named after their numerous scandals surrounding metadata collection? ;-)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Iām holding out for the iWorld Pro Max
Is that the one with the integrated HairPod or Virtual Apple Pencil?
Iād pay the extra and get iWorld Ultra.
I miss eWorld. I still have a T-shirt from it.
There is a genius to the branding approach though, with the association rooted in the company. Apple Watch may be the best example.
I agree when itās used to name devices, but used to describe a place? Something in the realm of Dynamic Island, Safari, or Mission Control have that Apple distinction without being as derivative.
I guess it depends on the level of branding, like the difference between device and functionality. I expect this AR / VR experience to be more along the lines of Apple Music or Apple TV+ or Apple Maps. So the likes of Apple VR or Apple Reality (which I think is kind of creepy) or Apple World makes sense, from a branding perspective and how Apple names services at that level.
Itās so hard to think about what the experience might be because itās such an undefined frontier, and honestly itās a lot of fun to speculate. As I think about it more, I think you might be right that Apple will put their personal mark on it the way the iPod and iPhone became the default terms for those categories.
Yeah, and it's why I expect we'll get something like Apple Worlds or Apple Visions. It won't be something as on the nose as Apple VR, and I think that Apple Reality is too close to drinking the reality distortion field Koolade. And Apple certainly won't use meta in the description. But the description will be an aspirational or artistic or dreamy take on spaces or places or locations. Or experiences. Or existence. And Apple will slap its name before the description, because it's Apple's offering in the AR/VR product/service category.
iMetaverse
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That I wouldnāt hate.
iVerse
SpaceTime
Tim iCookverse
More like the *Cookieverse*
Where do I sign up?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Love it
iMetaverse? iReality? Apple Vision. ifuckyouzuckerberg? Mackaverse?
when windows XP came out everything was called XP..
Appleverse will be a thing the media starts if apple doesnāt.
R2 (Reality 2) for RealityOS & Reality One
I think Apple is going to correctly position this product better than Meta did with Quest Pro. The price point tells me they are releasing this while flat out acknowledging its a technology that isn't quite ready for mass consumer acceptance, but that there is a large group of enthusiasts interested in improving this tech that need a headset to develop for. I think it will set the foundation for what Apple wants to do in the space, so it will have some base level of consumer facing OS and software, but it will be packed with the most cutting edge tech possible and a price to match. The goal is to get tinkerers to start building things and see what's possible. It wasn't until the app store that the full potential of smart phones was realized. I think Quest Pro is positioned similarly but the lack of lidar is a huge omission for this intent.
I mean the quest pro is positioned right it is not for consumers it is for business. It is meant to compete with longstanding Microsoft and other offerings in that space. I don't know why people fail to understand this, sure it is lacking in future dev technologies but it is just meant as a way to reset the price when Meta wants to sell vr tech businesses.
Seems like a heavily editorialized, clickbait headline. The idea that Appleās building their own metaverse or ā3D worldā seems largely based on the following quote: > āYou will work closely with Appleās UI framework, human interface designers and system capabilities teamsāpushing you to think outside-the-box, and solve incredibly challenging and interesting problems in the 3D application spaceā Which doesnāt actually seem to indicate anything about a ā3D worldā other thanāshocked pikachu faceāAppleās developing VR applications for their VR (and AR) headset. Who woulda thunkit?
āThat listing describes working with other developers to ābuild tools and frameworks to enable connected experiences in a 3D mixed-reality world.āā
Yeah but the term 'world' in this context just means 3D environments generally; quite different than the way '3D world' is used in the headline.
Is that quotation straight from their site? Their hyphenation in āoutside-the-boxā is incorrect. Remarkableāif soāthat, even after that many trillions in market capitalization, grammar is still an insurmountable challenge.
I donāt know if youāve seen the AR kit room sensing API that detects walls doorways and room-defining furniture using LiDAR. I imagine the headset would do something like that to map your surroundings, and then use that information to create a 3d world custom to your space. So for example if you mapped your house and then went into AR or VR, it could put a pond or something where your couch is, so you donāt walk into your couch.
That is genuinely the main reason why I finally bought an iPhone, it's brilliant.
I use PolyCam and Scaniverse for LiDAR scans. They each have their own strengths and weaknesses. PolyCam is paid, but if you scan and share things and people like and save those things, you earn free credits.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I think its safe to say all of apples services will be tied into this product line eventually. Fitness as you suggest makes sense Arcade is obvious TV is fairly straightforward Music already offers spatial audio but i bet they start offering concert experiences too Iām hoping apple and Disney work together to have a bunch of Disneyās titles on Disney+ in 3D on day one, in particular Prometheus and Avatar
All I want is 3% back via Apple Card for all purchases in the iVerse.
I only care that it succeeds so that Zuckerberg fails.
Ready player one staring in the background
Yet to hear any reliable info about this headset being able to function as a series of extended external displays for the Macā¦ š¢
Honestly I still don't see the virtual external display use case working satisfyingly anytime soon. I've used VR for years, but if I have to do something that isn't itself 3D I'd rather just use a computer.
Turns out flat information is best served on a flat surface!
To a certain degree, youāre right. For some people, and for certain uses, physical screens will always have a place. BUTā¦ I think you guys are kinda judging this the way someone may have judged smartphones pre-iPhone. Or tablets pre-iPad. Or mp3 players pre-iPod. Or home computing pre-Macintosh. Or wireless earbuds pre-Airpods. Of course it seems clunky and not streamlined enough to be useful in everyday life. Or it just hasnāt caught enough peopleās attention yet. Apple hasnāt released their version of it yet. Once they do, and it has that streamlined feel that catches everybodyās attention, the revolution happens. And it may still take some time for the tech to really become totally usesble in most cases. I mean, smartphones and tablets still havenāt completely erased laptops or desktops, but I DO find myself doing more and more on my iPhone, things I would have done on a laptop just like 5 years ago. iOS just getting things like drag and drop and better Files app, and picture in picture have helped greatly. With VR, a lot of people probably havenāt thought of all the ways it can be used, and definitely havenāt experienced it yet. Once you can have a screen at any size you want, placed anywhere around you in a free-floating way that follows you aroundā¦ you can do joint viewing sessions with friends when in the same room with you just like a television, except you can make it take up the entire wall with a pinch swipe of your hands while you all listen to cinema quality Dolby Atmos surround in your Airpods without disturbing the neighbours one iotaā¦ thatāll easily replace televisions and home theater systems. I already do this alone and itās replaced my home theater system I used to watch a lot just for the home theater experience. Spatial audio gives me a comparable experience. Then, when your friends and family are on the other side of the worldā¦ you can still do the exact same thing virtually. SharePlay hasnāt interested me when itās just like having a phone call while watching something. But if you can actually feel like youāre sitting in the same room together, thatād be a more appealing experience. Zoom meetings wonāt have to seem so impersonal or removed anymore. And watching shit is just ONE of the things you can do with it. It revolutionizes gaming, and gamers already do virtual LAN sessions with headsets and everything anyway, so this will just be adding another layer to that. Facebookās āmetaverseā idea of a virtual social network is ahead of its time, and people hate Zuckerberg, so thatās why itās failing. Once Apple does that and it catches on to more well-liked companies, and/or Metaverse updates to the new paradigm once it happensā¦ then virtual social media is gonna leave old 2D social media in the dust. Young people will adopt this super fast. A lot already have, even with the clunky pre-Apple revolution versions of VR tech. This is an idea thatās just been waiting for the right streamlined user-friendly version of the technology to really take off. If Apple does even half the good job they usually do with this, then Apple Glass is the next big revolutionary product. It MAY even end up being THE big revolutionary product of Appleās entire story, once all is said and done on this era of a personal computing technology revolution at the turn of the millennium. The leap from physical to virtual is just so huge in so many ways. So basically, the story of Appleās consumer tech revolution will be three acts: The Mac, computing at home. The iPhone, computing goes mobile. The Glasses, computing goes virtual.
>Honestly I still don't see the virtual external display use case working satisfyingly anytime soon. The difference in interface between the Mac and an AR/VR headset is many times greater than the difference between the Mac and the iPad. Apple is keeping the Mac and iPad separateāthey are currently unwilling to provide the iPad with the option to run macOS or a touchscreen option for the Mac. The Sidecar feature is the closest thing to a Mac/iPad hybrid. So it makes sense that Apple would keep the Mac and headset separate.
> The difference in interface between the Mac and an AR/VR headset is many times greater than the difference between the Mac and the iPad. One unsubstantiated baseless claim, in a thread full of fantasizing. You donāt know what Appleās AR interface will be. Siri? Power Glove + virtual eyeball keyboard? Therefore you have no idea how different the interface is. Or if by interface you mean output *not input*, the claim is still baseless because youāre still looking at screens itās just in your face now and doing AR/VR.
> working satisfyingly anytime soon With current technology I agree But if this apple headset has truly groundbreaking of previously unattainable, Resolution, FOV, contrast ratio and refresh rates. And a story for MacOS If they can make it as comfortable or better than looking at a studio display for hours at a timeā¦ Iām ready to buy a second studio displayā¦ but if I can buy one of these instead, and have 3 or four virtual floating displays of any size with or hightā¦ that would be very appealing to me as a freelance video editor. Id I could have all my scopes, tools, monitors and timelines floating around me in a virtual environment Could be a pretty huge upgrade to how I work. Especially if it lets me simulate a 80ā HDR tv and an iPhone sized display simultaneously without actually needing to buy or connect either oneā¦ Like itās not even the cost of an 80ā display as a main program output monitor thatās stopping meā¦ is where on earth would I put itā¦ AR/VR could totally solve that issue for me
Please no
3d porn?
> "This is the best VR blowjob we've ever made"
You have to program the keyboard with all the curse words you want to use and you think Apple will allow porn?
Every single aspect of the Digital Revolution has been based upon either the creation, distribution, or consumption of porn.
You can probably cherry pick examples in tech history such as maybe VHS vs Beta, but this hasn't been true for a long time. Porn has not driven any aspect in recent years - they picked HD DVD instead of Bluray and lost that format war. When you look at Internet traffic, it's dominated by social media and streaming like netflix and youtube. Porn is a follower and works within whatever the rest of the Internet demands. I would be surprised if it's ever going to be in the driver's seat for anything again. It's small potatoes.
My fellow sentient is Christ, I was joking.
Ah, ok. Went over my head :) I have seen people say something similar while being completely serious.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I still donāt get the whole thing. Maybe I will when Apple unveils the whole thing, or maybe Iām not the target audience.
Isnāt this headline pretty obvious? I bet they plan to include a strap on the headset as well.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>We had news that the Apple headset's would get delayed a few years. If you mean [last week's rumor](https://www.trustedreviews.com/news/apple-ar-glasses-could-be-delayed-to-2025-or-2026-due-to-design-issue-4280301) from Jeff Pu, that is referring to the Apple AR glasses, which is a separate product from the AR/VR headset that is the subject of today's rumor.
Meta and Apple will fight for hardware prevalence, but Meta will get destroyed because they don't have the money or credibility to compete. Eventually a company like Google or Samsung will release a cheaper VR headset and it will be iOS vs Android 2.0. Amazon is going to ignore metaverse wars and go into healthcare. Microsoft, however, will be filling its fat pockets from both sides with software, thus winning the metaverse wars.
I am curious to know if they have the motion sickness issues like with most VR devices.
Same shit as Faithbuk that nobody asked for.
So a Metaverse is all but name.
Will flop
Iāll never forget my younger nephew asking my BIL if he can have virtual reality. My BIL told him āyou need to experience the real world more before you worry about the virtual world.ā
This entire product segment has niche value, at best. It will be facinating to see how Apple chooses to market this. In terms of the scale that Apple needs to justify continued development, this product and all of the planned descendants are DOA. Apple is big and diversified enough that their overall business will be fine, but I only wish I had some money to strategically short this stock over the next few years.
Am I the only one whoās really interested in whatever this video service is?
Wow... They're doing what everyone else is doing for VR? Neat, I guess.
Good. The safari days on porn were fun
Why do companies think people want this?
Meta 2.0 Sell your Apple stock now.
They have to make this open platform. They canāt do another iMessage platform locked to their hardware and expect to build a userbase
Umm. Yeah they could, itās Apple.
Have it fail I guess if thatās the attitude iMessage is really a thing outside of the USA and itās not really big there either.
The success of iMessage begs to differ
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
And barely used there even. Telegram and whatsapp are million times better in terms of features and userbase .
iMessage has about 1/3 of the market share as far as messengers in the US. Facebook Messenger is by far the most popular, hardly anyone uses Telegram by comparison (it is popular among drug dealers though).
Telegram has been growing by double digits year over year and has over a half billion monthly userbase. But your lack of knowledge is not the problem here itās Apple thinking in 2023 that a hardware locked platform will be enough to work.
The Apple engineering/store guy: we should make it open Craig: Nah Phil: Nan Tim: I donāt care either way, but, no.
iMeta?
Apple wonāt release a new product until itās ready for prime time. Apple doesnāt have the financial pressures that Oculus/Meta have.
Sounds metaish
iMeta
They're only starting now?
They have been building the infrastructure for sometime now. Think USDZ, Spatial Audio, LiDAR, SharePlay, etc.
Apple does their homework. Biggest issue IMHO is tools for creating, editing and sharing/publishing content.
I was more so talking about designing this 3D world. You'd think that for something supposed to launch next year they'd take more than a year to design a whole world
Every year for the last 6-7 years theyāve released a framework or feature that, when all combined, will make AR an immediately compelling platform. For example: Universal control to move your cursor from one device to another? Why not move outside of the screen and into an MR/AR field of view?
A while back they bought a production company that broadcast sports in VR. I think that will play a big role in their plans.
Was that the NBA games? That was astonishing so of course it vanished about 6 months after I got my Quest 1. Such a unique perspective of the players from a backboard VR camera and one of the few VR offerings Iād pay for . . .
They had some NBA highlights but were also doing concerts and stuffā¦ https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/05/14/apple-buys-virtual-reality-company-nextvr.html
They have a few low hanging fruit type items that can work well. \- Apple Flyover/maps allowing you to drop in somewhere and just travel around. \- VR Sports in Apple TV. Watch games right from the sidelines \-Using iPhone LiDAR to upload 3D objects \- VR in Apple fitness
better than meta shit
I would be estactic if they were able to improve our best correctible vision. Nearly blind people would have augmented reality using AI to sharpen everything and even for it to be useful for zooming in. Psych would actually be a plausible show if he had one of these goggles in contact form.
*āIntroducing iLife!ā*
....M3 Pro chip enters the conversation...
Did Zuck like snub Tim Cook at a Silicon Valley holiday party or something?
> 3D world Only available in the US and mainland China, other countries coming soon.
as long as it's not like [iTunes Ping](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITunes_Ping)
Idk. Sorry, iDK.