this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2024
319 points (96.2% liked)
Technology
59389 readers
3532 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Isn't this just AR? We've had that for years. Or is it somehow different from existing AR?
Ah, you seem to have made a rookie mistake, poor people are using AR, apple users are using spatial computing
It is ~slightly~ different, but in a way that's worse.
AR uses a transparent overlay over reality perceived through a translucent surface, or at most a small subset of your vision is replaced. Think sunglasses with a screen you can see through, or a small corner of your vision is blocked by a tiny screen.
In Apple's "spatial computing" cameras recreate and alter reality, nothing you see is with your own eyes because no part of the display is transparent.
Exactly, it's VR with passthrough.
I have to laugh at "spatial computing" though.
And VR with passthrough has been a thing at least in pro grade VR for like a decade.
apple never released any tech that wasn't already "mature" - mp3 players existed before the iPod, mobile phones before the iPhone,...
Ima call it vr with passthrough from now on
AFAIK there is no strict definition for AR how current reality has to be implemented, and both transparent and reprojected have their advantages and disadvantages. For example it's much harder to "pin" augmentation on transparent AR, on the other hand latency and FOV are big issues for reprojected AR.
You ever seen the myth busters episode where they try to drive a car through cameras and computer monitors?
It didn’t go well
While I completely agree that it is a very bad idea to drive with one, you have to give credit where credit is due. Apple really did an amazing job at reducing latency of the passthrough. That being said it's still added latency and it's a very very narrow FOV so please don't go driving/walking around with that thing.
No. Apple even has an entire library called ARKit to do Augmented Reality on a screen. For them, it has never meant transparent.
Just because developers name libraries things doesn't make them accurate. Generally when something is misnamed it's because of backwards/intercomaptibility or just design decisions that differ from original implementations and it's no longer feasible/reasonable to refactor to a different name.
Examples: windows 7 was version 6.1, windows 8 was version 6.2, windows 8.1 was version 6.3 Java 5 was versioned as 1.5, continuing the convention from previous releases 1.2-1.4 Hell, where I work we use an automation workflow with functions called stuff like "create_and_assign_citrix_security_groups_to_static_containers" that has long since been adapted to work with vmware and other non-virtualization platforms like k8s. Refactoring those functions would mean refactoring any external automation that uses these libraries, just like refactoring versioning schemas would break compatibility with any external software that relies on an assumption that windows >xp would be 6.X.
I understand what you’re saying, but politely disagree. The OP of this thread asked “isn’t this just AR”. In the context of Apple - yes, it is.
No hate if you disagree, your reasoning is sound. I just think that naming, especially in the new tech space, goes beyond pedantry. We have words that are specific enough to describe two similar technologies, but we only retain shared understanding of those words if we collectively use them. It may be the case that AR evolves to be commonly understood as encompassing both technologies but they are fundamentally different in how they work, whatever we choose to call them.
Oh shit. That makes them less appealing, then.
I wish I could say this scenario is unlikely, but nowadays? Who knows! So, picture this:
That wouldn't happen if the goggles were truly transparent.
Oh shit I don't want to be a poor people I need to get something with spatial computing!
That's the point where you sell your fridge and cut on baby diapers for your kids
Be real, it is spatial pornography.
AR just means augmented reality, it says nothing of how it should be implemented
It's pretty good AR from what I hear but still AR.
pretty good VR*: all of the user's field of vision is digitally (re-)created.
If you load up an AR app on your phone, it will often overlap the augmentation over the camera image. So I think reprojecting the outside world using cameras and augmenting that in VR is also a form of AR. Maybe we need a new name for this specifically, though? I don't know. But maybe AVR or VAR?
We don't need another name because it's a very common - almost expected - feature in VR headsets. My headset has monochromatic cameras for passthrough, but it's still a VR headset.
Also, often the whole idea is that this passthrough layer can be toggled at anytime or even gradually mixed with the computer-generated reality, so creating another name will just increase confusion.
I'm not sure about your definition of AR, but if the camera is showing the real world plus digital content then it's augmented reality.
Here is some definition:
The terms are up for definition, I’ve read a ton and there is no specific consensus about optically seeing reality
But it isn't. AR means direct optical contact with the real world augmented with a digital / computer-generated layer. What Apple's VR does is recreate the real pov digitally using cameras, so it's VR.
Apple's tech builds a digital world and adds a "reality" layer on top - meaning the user only sees displays. AR's like Google Glass do the opposite, adding a digital layer on top of the real thing.
I can assure you, there exists no such consensus on the definition of any of the terms.
The most universal you’ll get for AR is the combination of primarily real-world with some digital aspects.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality–virtuality_continuum
I’ve read extensively on the topic. Albeit a couple of years ago.
According to that page I'd consider this headset to be augmented virtuality. But yeah these are all gray areas
Apple already invented the phrase/name: Spatial Computing
I was thinking more of a general term. I can imagine apple putting all kinds of trademarks over any term they're going to use.
I watched some reviews about it. Yes, it's basically like having an iPad screen taped to your eyes.
AR of that visual quality has required the user to be stationary and tied to a large computer.