I still think that an excellent use case for AR/VR* headsets is for diagnostic and repair work of large, complex devices/systems that require a shelf of technical manuals; that shelf gets shrunk down to a storage card, and the headset has an app that can recognize the equipment you are looking at (or select with the caret/pointer) and pull up the documentation for.
I didn’t see anything in the tech specs or the tour on apple’s site regarding how it’ll work for people with existing visual appliances, if it has a way of performing focus, or if you need to get special (read: also expensive) prescription lenses for the thing, and how easy they are to swap out in the event you sell it or have multiple people using it. Until there’s a good, practical answer for that, it’s off the table for me, at least.
Also, can I has actual earphones for it? not in-ear buds, but actual over-the-ear cans? If I’m gonna be wearing something on my head, let’s make it an actual helmet or something.
(*At first, I thought that this was an actual pass-through mask, but then I looked at apple’s web site for digging up the actual data on it, and… fun.)
In addition to the eye focus issue I would also have some concerns about how the light spectrum might affect one’s circadian rhythm and sleep cycle. There’s lots that we don’t know or are only beginning to understand about how ambient light and spectral distributions of artificial lights affect things like sleep and mood. Wearing a device that only allows your eyes to receive artificial light and blocks out all sources of natural light could ramp up any of those issues significantly.
A person who wears something like this in public is making a conscious, voluntary choice to engage in behavior that will change how they are perceived by others.
The public, on the other hand, has little knowledge and no choice in the matter of whether the person wearing the headset is recording or even livestreaming them.
So yeah, there’s a reason most of us aren’t focusing on the feelings of the public headset wearers.
It’s a matter of context. No-one cares if someone wears one in the privacy of their home for entertainment or gaming or what have you. It also isn’t an issue if one is using it for work purposes, including on the street (e.g. a public works foreman using it to see the conduits under a street they’re repairing).
But the idiot on the subway in the video or the ones caught driving with them aren’t helping to mainstream the new tech – the only message they’re sending is that Apple Vision users are inconsiderate/anti-social arseholes. That kind of thing, as much as the not-ready-for-primetime technology, is what killed Google Glass.
I’m with you. I liked using my nephew’s Occulus for playing beat saber, but the focus was never quite right with my eyeglasses, And for my own particular phobias, I’m just never going to get contacts or Lasek surgery or whatever, so I wonder how it will work with my glasses – I’m skeptical. Might be fun for home use but out in public wearing something that tells the world (i) I’m not paying attention and (ii) I’m also wearing blinders limiting my peripheral vision, (iii) you could easily rib this $3000 appliance off my head is a good way to get mugged.
And it’s inconsiderate because they could be recording / streaming? It sounds like a simple software fix would be to alert others using the front camera. Surely the act of using the device publicly independent of recording isn’t wrong.
Depending on the context it may be fine in certain situations, but even if he hadn’t been recording, a lot of the behavior that the guy in that video exhibited could be considered rude. When you’re ordering food from a restaurant cashier it would be rude to be staring at your phone rather than make eye contact with the person you’re conversing with for the few seconds that it takes to complete the transaction. And waving your hands around, making pinching gestures in the air, etc, is pretty unsettling for others around you in a crowded, confined space like a subway car.
And yet the geniuses at Apple didn’t come up with the fix that several of us mere mortals here have suggested. Although it may be that the device is always recording in order to function.
There’s also the aspect of deliberately absenting oneself from being present to others in public a way that’s significantly different from looking at one’s phone or reading a book. My guess is that the difference comes down to not having a chance to see the user’s eyes, which can be very uncomfortable to other humans (as cops who wear mirror shades and Anna Wintour know).
Humans are social animals, conditioned by many centuries of civilization and millions of years of evolution to base our interactions with others on certain visual, auditory and physical social cues.
If you choose to opt out of those social norms then society’s response shouldn’t come as any surprise.
Sure, I get it. Having lived in Japan for a few years I understand social discomfort due to unfamiliar behavior. But for instance smart what we consider ok behavior in public with smart phones has changed substantially in the us.
I’m also thinking about how they realized after the fact that cell phone cameras in Japan needed a sound required.
But being overly critical of someone in public because of what they could be doing / what their motivations / lack of empathy: leave me out.
Oh, there is certainly a lack of empathy involved in this story alright, but it’s not aimed at the people using this in public in invasive and disruptive ways…
There are some people who are experimenting with VR for therapy, although trying to follow news on this use is near impossible because it ends up being drowned out by tech bros promoting their latest mediocrity. I don’t have access to the acedemic papers and all I want to know is are there any new studies on VR use for treating PTSD, ideally in people who aren’t military veterans?
Other than that, I have been generally unimpressed with VR.
I don’t think it’s overly critical to look at the videos of the guy on the subway or the drivers using the device and think that they look ridiculous and/or dangerous.
Even here it seems… just asking the question of “what is this really good for” gets you some level of dismissive contempt.
Exactly the kind of questions we should be thinking about, rather than what stupid shit can tech-dude-bros do to “disrupt” the “normies” (as if they’re not the ultimate “normies”)… I’m all for technology being used to help people, and people with PTSD can be helped that’s absolutely fantastic. I hope it does do some good with regards to that.
Right, me too. And as you said, the useful cases seem to be ignored or put on the back burner. It’s really depressing how the “toy” angle gets hyped as if that’s the end all and be all of technology, and drowns out everything else that might prove useful. But you point that out, and it’s all smug condescension.
