this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2024
55 points (79.6% liked)

Asklemmy

43945 readers
970 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

i wouldn't normally be concerned since any company releasing a VR product with this price tag is obviously going to fail... but it's apple and somehow through exquisite branding and sleek design they have managed to create something that resonated with "tech reviewers" and rich folk who can afford it.

what's really concerning is that it's not marketed as a new VR headset, it's marketed by apple and these "tech reviewers" as the new iphone, something you take with you everywhere and do your daily tasks in, consume content in etc...

and it's dystopian. imagine you are watching youtube on this thing and when an ad shows up, you can't look away, even if you try to they can track your eye movement and just move the window, you can't mute it, you certainly cannot install adblock on it, you are forced to watch the ad until it satisfies apple or you just give up and take out the headset.

this is why i think all these tech giants (google meta apple etc) were/are interested in the "metaverse". it holds both your vision and your hearing hostage, you cannot do anything else when using it but to just use the thing. a 100% efficiency attention machine, completely blocking you from the outside world.

i'm not concerned about this iteration as much as people are not hyped about this iteration. just like how people are hyped about the next apple vision, i'm more worried about the next iterations with somewhat lower price tag and better software availability. i hope it flops and i know it probably won't achieve any sort of mainstream adoption even if it's deemed a success because it probably can't get less bulky and look less dorky, but the possibility is still worrying. what are your thoughts?

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I’ve not really seen any overly positive reviews. Most reviews I’ve seen talk about it like it’s this neat thing that doesn’t really have much to do in it now and are saying you’d probably only use it 1/2 hr at a time because of the hefty weight, unless you’re sitting/laying on a couch. It’s kind of a confused piece of tech because Apple is desperate to call it “spatial computing” and market it like it’s AR, but really it’s a VR headset. Yet they’re really not taking advantage of the VR aspect.

[–] P1r4nha@feddit.de 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The first iPad also had shitty reviews and then it still established itself. I wouldn't judge too early just based on these initial reviews.

[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (3 children)

I’m actually hopeful for it and hope it does ok enough and that they release a cheaper Vision SE or something that’s at least in the realm of possibility for commoners to own. I just think Apple itself is kind of confused about what this thing should be and I think their walled garden approach could hurt them in the long run on this.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] P1r4nha@feddit.de 2 points 9 months ago (4 children)

It's true that devices like these can gather a lot more data about you than a phone can. The amount of sensors that are always on and look at you and your environment should be a concern.

Luckily Apple isn't directly interested in ad revenue, but more into what apps you use and their biggest interest was always to provide a friction free user experience so you actually want to use their products and are happy to spend so much money on them.

I personally am not a fan of Apple, because I'm not a friend of golden cages. So I'm just waiting for the Android version of the experience. Since this first iteration will be from Google as they would need to update their OS to really accomodate AR applications, that's where my concern lies: How do we know that they are going to handle our data responsibly? Also AR does require quite some infrastructure to provide an interesting experience. Something Apple cannot do, is provide you with a shared experience with other users and to provide location specific, persistent content. There are many examples for such content, but for this discussion, let's say a location specific ad in a fixed location somewhere in the city adjusted to your preferences.

Of course the virtual ad sucks, but such content could also be amazingly awesome and very useful. You no longer need to set up real-life signs, you just update what the virtual sign says in AR. Doesn't need to be an ad, could be something interesting and useful.

But to provide location-specific, persistent content you need infrastructure. Infrastructure only Google and other tech giants have (see for instance the AR mode in Google maps that gives you directions). This is where I'm worried. It's no longer enough to just get internet via a SIM card, maybe add your personal VPN on top to be safer. You now need direct connection to Google's localization API and they'll always know where all their AR devices are and because you wear it, they always know where you are, how you are, where you look etc.. This should leave us worried.

[–] RiderExMachina@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If Google has an answer, how long will they support it? I bought a Daydream visor and controller, only for them to totally discontinue the project within 2 years.

[–] P1r4nha@feddit.de 1 points 9 months ago

If you look at it as an extension of Android, we're at 15 years and counting. That assumes this is not just a fad however. Apple jumping into the market, may be an indicator that it will indeed not be a fad. That said, Google has made bad experiences with Google Glass in the past, but the acceptance of cameras in public has grown in the last decade and if enough people walk around with an AVP, head-mounted always on cameras will gain acceptance too.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 months ago

I think what the tech implies these big tech giants want for the world is more worrisome than the specific tech itself.

They may fail with this iteration or the next, but why do you think they're trying so hard insisting this is the next big thing? To survive, capitalism needs to create new problems to be solved. The smart phone didn't solve any problems we had, it created a desire, which then became a fear (FOMO, then it became a need, which then finally became a problem if you didn't have one.

If you're homeless today and want to get out of it, one of the first things you need is an address, then an internet connection, and a smart phone. Why? Because most jobs require it to get a hold of you and in many cases to facilitate the software used on the job.

They don't need to convince consumers to adopt the new tech per se. They just need to convince businesses that without the new technological progress, their competitors will leave them behind. Then it won't matter if you like the tech or not, you'll NEED it to have a job and survive. Just like the smart phone is today.

They're directing us, telling us how the future will look like based off of THEIR vision, not OURS.

That's what worries me. Not this AR headset, but rather the reasons they have for insisting this is the future we are all heading towards.

[–] eek2121@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

There are so many flaws with your take I don’t even know how to reply.

I will just say that:

  1. $3,500 is not a price that only rich people can afford, at least in the US. Many middle class folks can afford it with ease.

  2. It isn’t Apple’s fault that YouTube has ads. That is Google’s doing. Apple themselves are privacy focused and I never see targeted ads on any Apple app. The only places I even see ads are in the app store and in the TV app, and the TV ads are limited to promos of upcoming shows or movies.

People are constantly bashing Apple for their premium prices and walled garden while forgetting that nobody is targeting the folks who want a privacy oriented experience without ads blasting everywhere.

I switched to iOS because I got tired of Google watching my every move and I got tired of worrying if every app I download from google’s app store has malware or not.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Shurimal@kbin.social 1 points 9 months ago

any company releasing a VR product with this price tag is obviously going to fail…

Varjo is doing very well and offers probably the best VR sets. Prices start at around 3000€

[–] ulkesh@beehaw.org 1 points 9 months ago

Is anyone else worried about the apple vision pro?

Nope.

[–] JimmyBigSausage@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

Must watch ads.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago
[–] LesserAbe@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

I have some sympathy for the slippery slope argument. Used to be you didn't need a smart phone, but both my current and last job wanted you to use a two factor authentication app, which required either apple or android. Probably some way around that requirement, but then now you're the difficult weirdo in the office.

[–] rekabis@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago

If the Apple Vision Pro is going to replace smartphones in the way Smartphones replaced flip phones, we wouldn’t have flip phones anymore.

Spoiler alert: we still have flip phones.

Lots of them, actually, albeit not “dumb” ones anymore… they all run either Android or KaiOS, and come with all the commensurate risks of having all your usage stats beamed up to the mothership for third-party sales and monetization.

Hell, we now have a rotary cell phone - the rotary un-smartphone - which is enjoying decent popularity and mental rent-free status among lots of techy people, despite being nothing more than a 1970s rotary dialler with an ePaper display for incoming text messages. And a few buttons for hard-set quick-dial options. I would love one myself if it wasn’t so expensive compared to a smartphone.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›