It's interesting how he mentions Google Glass having captured the public's interest in such technology… which it did, if only for a hot minute. Now, ten years later, Apple has thrown its hat into the ring, and we'll see where it goes.
Could this be another iPod or iPhone moment—where Apple wasn't the first to do it, or arguably even the best, but they somehow, despite being ostensibly late to the party, managed to get it right in a way where it truly changed things? My gut reaction is honestly, no, people still aren't going to want to walk around with digital goggles on their heads, regardless of whether their eyes are visible on the front or not. But then, if I were able to predict which of Apple's products would be unexpectedly and wildly successful, I'd be very wealthy, so…
This could also be an AppleTV moment, where it takes a long time to turn into a real product that a lot of people will want. And even then might still not be a new core pillar of the Apple ecosystem.
I dunno. I've had problems with every AR/VR system I've ever tried in the past 20+ years, so I don't know that Apple will be able to solve this one.
But of all the companies who have at least announced products in this space, I think Apple is best equipped to make it happen. If anyone can do it, I think it's Apple. Just maybe not this decade.
"Could this be another iPod or iPhone moment—where Apple wasn't the first to do it, or arguably even the best, but they somehow, despite being ostensibly late to the party, managed to get it right in a way where it truly changed things?"
I guess one question is whether--assuming these can substitute for large screens--people (perhaps specially in smaller urban apartments) would want to dispense with larger monitors and TVs.
Living in a house, I'm a bit skeptical I'd have any personal utility.
I don't really consider the Vision Pro "AR" as most people think of it; Apple was probably smart to just coin another term. I watched the launch keynote and it seems more like an in-home VR+ as opposed to a HUD for people out walking around. Could it change? Sure. But there's a lot of technological distance between where things are now and what idealized outdoor AR looks like.
AR + AI assistant could be great:
- "I see you are about to eat the 3rd donat today. It would put you over 3000 Cal target. The wedding is in 2 months.."
- "the sign says you can't park here."
- "the car on the left is slowing down. You can cross the street"
- "this yogurt cost 10% less in the shop next door"
Seems more likely you would see ads for those donuts, then gym memberships and diet books and weight-loss apps. The goggles would steer you towards the more expensive yogurt because they paid for promotion.
> My gut reaction is honestly, no, people still aren't going to want to walk around with digital goggles on their heads, regardless of whether their eyes are visible on the front or not.
My interpretation here is that they're expecting it to only get worn in public on planes and at some high-nerd-quotient workplaces, but trying to prime the pump for 5 or 10 years down the road when they have a version that's as light and comfortable as (actual, not exaggerated) ski goggles with a battery that lasts as long as a current phone.
I am personally not interested in AR or VR whatsoever. None of the use cases have ever been interesting to me. Some AR applications for professional use are about the only ones that seem valid.
Sidenote: is he writing equations comically large on the blackboard for a reason?
> Sidenote: is he writing equations comically large on the blackboard for a reason?
Well, yeah, he probably can't see them properly otherwise. Remember how grandma always used to tell you you'd ruin your eyesight by sitting too close to the TV?
In a teaching scenario, that is the norm. You err on the size of, well, size, because larger letters, especially written in a hurry, are easier to read by students sitting in the farthest rows of Ian amphitheater.
This might be a "don't knock it until you've tried it" thing. All I really want right now is virtual monitors, but I'm open to the idea that might be a lack of imagination on my part.
I'm in the same boat- I just want a simple headset that overlays a big, high-resolution monitor on my normal vision.
The closest thing I know of is the [Simula One](https://www.simulavr.com/), which seems to be a VR "virtual monitor".
VR instead of AR is a dealbreaker for me though- I want AR virtual monitors that overlay the displays on my actual vision. Even VR which uses a camera to pass through to the display isn't really what I want.
My ideal hardware would just be a "dumb" AR display with wide FOV and an HDMI input that just overlays the video data onto my normal vision.
From what I understand a big challenge is the wide FOV though, but I don't know enough about optics to really understand why this is the case.
It sounds like the closest thing to what you want is the Xreal Air, not the Simula One, which is a project for a full high-quality standalone VR headset (that happens to run Linux instead of Android like other standalones).
> VR instead of AR is a dealbreaker for me though
The problem with AR is a basic technical one: you can't use a transparent lens to paint black pixels over white light. That's why Apple, despite being desperate to make the "Apple Glasses", has basically abandoned AR entirely in favor of VR-but-the-video-passthrough-is-so-good-it-feels-like-AR design, and I would expect most other companies working on AR devices to follow suit.
My Air turned up today. The "can't paint black with light on a transparent surface" solution is a sheet of plastic. Put it on when it matters, take it off if it doesn't... Can't fault it for simplicity.
The AR functionality that I want is the ability to darken the headlights of oncoming vehicles at night, so I can still see the road in front of me. Which I see is in the article itself.
article is from 2013, so when he says "for 35 years" he means he started in 1978 when he was 16 years old-ish (this guy did the math, though I didn't figure out the months)
“Wearing it in public has, however, often brought me grief—usually from people objecting to what they think is a head-mounted video recorder.”
I think there is a shift in the public mindset about public and sometimes private spaces being under constant video surveillance. I am conscious of this every time I walk by one of my neighbors’ homes as many are using doorbell cameras, or other similar security systems facing the street. Practically every store and train station has multiple cameras.
In some countries the cameras are even more pervasive. For instance, the PRC government has gone full Big Brother, using cameras and facial recognition to track and control behavior.
Moreover, not only does every adult and many children carry a high-quality video camera in their pocket, they are becoming more comfortable using them to take video of what they’re seeing around them.
For these reasons, I believe if Google Glass were released today instead of 10 years ago, the reaction would be less hostile. I would be curious to know the author’s recent experience wearing DIY headsets and the public’s reactions/suspicions regarding video recording.
If there was a way to be sure it would stay only ever being viewed by that person, sure. For now, I think people shouldn't have the risk that it gets seen by others forced upon them.
There's an objective asymmetry to it. The person who has a flawless recording of what happened has options that the person who has a lossy recording of what happened (i.e. the one in their head) does not have. If everyone is on the same playing field (as in, neither have a recording or both have it) then it seems to me the objection is greatly lessened—it's when one party records and the other party doesn't have access to it that there's some sense of unfairness.
Great. Let's break this asymmetry by making AR devices ubiquitous and giving most people those recordings. Would also help with police problems in many countries.
That definitely seems like a way to address at least this one part of what seems to bother people about omnipresent technological observation of everyone everywhere all the time, yes. :)
Surveillance has already made being in public spaces unpleasant enough to prevent me from taking part in many things that I would otherwise enjoy taking part in.
More of it just makes my world smaller and smaller.
I've kind of given up on expecting most people to be rational on emotionally charged subjects. Most people don't think things through, and the more intense the emotion involved the less likely there's any chance of reasoning with them.
Highly emotionally charged attitudes commonly held in society may change, but it'll probably take generations to do so.
i suppose for the same reason you cannot prohibit breathing, it is a biological fact to be considered when drafting regulations. rules without being able to enforce them would show the governing body as weak and clueless, undermining its authority. a rather big no-no for most "powers".
rest assured when more people wear AR-type glasses they sure as hell will inject "rules" in the software to control/limit what you see. to protect of course
People have a strange relationship to surveillance.
Many of them will freak out when they see another person point a camera at them, but they don't seem to care that dozens if not hundreds of surveillance cameras film them every day when they walk around a city.
Depends on the location of the camera. Three went up on the street near me, since its by a high school and I guess they monitor traffic or something. But it can clearly see into private yards and it does offend me. If I lived nearer to the cameras and was impacted I would try to ensure my bits and tackle were visible to the cameras from my bathroom window every day.
It's pretty obvious why that is, don't you think? Surveillance cameras are targeting everyone in the space equally. A person pointing a camera at you is targeting you specifically. Of course that causes a different reaction.
many years ago, there used to be a dude who went by Mr. surveillance man. He’d walk around with a camera just recording random people on the street and it caused a big sensation.
I would even endorse personal recording as an act of SOUSveillance. A subversive reverse surveillance. We have to become the ones who watch the watchers.
It's not sousveillance if you're recording people who are not surveilling you. That's just surveillance.
Regardless, I'm always thought that sousveillance was a terrible idea. All it does is to normalize the idea of ubiquitous surveillance without providing much, if any, actual benefit in terms of coping with ubiquitous surveillance.
I'm not sure there is a realistic path to that, at least in the short term. It requires the majority of people to strenuously oppose it. If history is any guide, that will only happen after the amount of harm from it becomes intolerable for a sizable percentage of the population.
All I can do, personally, is to support organizations that fight this stuff, and to refuse to participate to the greatest degree I can. By this I mean avoiding going to areas where surveillance is used to the greatest degree possible, expressing my concerns about surveillance, and teasing/shaming friends and family who buy into the whole thing by using things like Ring doorbells, etc.
None of which will change anything overall, really, but you do what you can.
Even better.
French Senate has recently approved a bill authorising remote activation of smartphones’ real-time geolocation, cameras, and microphones [1].
Obviously without informing owners.
And while it is, obviously, only to be used to fight against terrorism, organised crime and delinquency, well… let’s just say that France has a history of such powers getting extrajudicially abused, by governments and individuals alike.
Among other things, France called "terrorism" people fighting (including peacefully) to free their countries from being its colonies. Which they still maintain a fair number of.
Now they prosecute people demonstrating against a hugely unpopular government.
Today one doesn’t even need to even intend to do something to be accused of such things [1].
> Following the pattern of the so-called Tarnac affair, their arrest was accompanied by timely leaks in the media, and even political manipulations condemning the "far-left". And this, on the grounds that they were "suspected of planning violent actions targeting police officers, without a specific plan of action being identified," as reported by Le Monde nonetheless.
A few centuries ago the French gov would say it was fighting heresy. Today they are supposedly fighting terrorism. A few centuries later they'll be fighting oldthinkers.
> “Wearing it in public has, however, often brought me grief—usually from people objecting to what they think is a head-mounted video recorder.”
Yes, I remember that guy getting mugged by Mc Donald security in France, at the Champs Elysée, which doesn't surprise me given how dumb and ignorant these people are, since they are recruited among gangs... an absolutely shame for France.
This [1] claims that street photography in general is allowed. As with some other jurisdictions in Europe, you're often not allowed to publish the photos anywhere. Obviously in today's world, that's a law that is pretty much broken continuously.
And his way of getting back at them is to publish an entire theory framework on surveillance asymmetry, gets widely cited, purely so that he could use McDonalds as the punchline[0]
He describes a hit and run where the driver took of when he approached. Then I saw a picture of him with a homemade helmet thing with two antennas sticking out (second in the slideshow). And I think I can think of at least one reason that driver slammed it in reverse.
66 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 155 ms ] threadIt behooves us to look back at what has been done before, as we look to take this technology forward.
I would be very curious to know what Steven Mann thinks of the Apple Vision Pro system.
Could this be another iPod or iPhone moment—where Apple wasn't the first to do it, or arguably even the best, but they somehow, despite being ostensibly late to the party, managed to get it right in a way where it truly changed things? My gut reaction is honestly, no, people still aren't going to want to walk around with digital goggles on their heads, regardless of whether their eyes are visible on the front or not. But then, if I were able to predict which of Apple's products would be unexpectedly and wildly successful, I'd be very wealthy, so…
The battery would need to last more than 2 hours
I dunno. I've had problems with every AR/VR system I've ever tried in the past 20+ years, so I don't know that Apple will be able to solve this one.
But of all the companies who have at least announced products in this space, I think Apple is best equipped to make it happen. If anyone can do it, I think it's Apple. Just maybe not this decade.
The iPod and iPhone didn't cost $3500
It will be interesting to see the next iterations, if they can slim down the size and price enough that it takes off.
Living in a house, I'm a bit skeptical I'd have any personal utility.
Only someone with a cyborg fetish could consider that headset sexy.
My interpretation here is that they're expecting it to only get worn in public on planes and at some high-nerd-quotient workplaces, but trying to prime the pump for 5 or 10 years down the road when they have a version that's as light and comfortable as (actual, not exaggerated) ski goggles with a battery that lasts as long as a current phone.
Sidenote: is he writing equations comically large on the blackboard for a reason?
Well, yeah, he probably can't see them properly otherwise. Remember how grandma always used to tell you you'd ruin your eyesight by sitting too close to the TV?
VR instead of AR is a dealbreaker for me though- I want AR virtual monitors that overlay the displays on my actual vision. Even VR which uses a camera to pass through to the display isn't really what I want.
My ideal hardware would just be a "dumb" AR display with wide FOV and an HDMI input that just overlays the video data onto my normal vision.
From what I understand a big challenge is the wide FOV though, but I don't know enough about optics to really understand why this is the case.
> VR instead of AR is a dealbreaker for me though
The problem with AR is a basic technical one: you can't use a transparent lens to paint black pixels over white light. That's why Apple, despite being desperate to make the "Apple Glasses", has basically abandoned AR entirely in favor of VR-but-the-video-passthrough-is-so-good-it-feels-like-AR design, and I would expect most other companies working on AR devices to follow suit.
I think there is a shift in the public mindset about public and sometimes private spaces being under constant video surveillance. I am conscious of this every time I walk by one of my neighbors’ homes as many are using doorbell cameras, or other similar security systems facing the street. Practically every store and train station has multiple cameras.
In some countries the cameras are even more pervasive. For instance, the PRC government has gone full Big Brother, using cameras and facial recognition to track and control behavior.
Moreover, not only does every adult and many children carry a high-quality video camera in their pocket, they are becoming more comfortable using them to take video of what they’re seeing around them.
For these reasons, I believe if Google Glass were released today instead of 10 years ago, the reaction would be less hostile. I would be curious to know the author’s recent experience wearing DIY headsets and the public’s reactions/suspicions regarding video recording.
(Using this recording for various purposes is a while different issue though).
More of it just makes my world smaller and smaller.
Highly emotionally charged attitudes commonly held in society may change, but it'll probably take generations to do so.
One has to have an open mind. It's not inherently more rational to calmly accept all social changes brought on by technology.
Perhaps because you miss the notion of quantitative and qualitative difference.
Many of them will freak out when they see another person point a camera at them, but they don't seem to care that dozens if not hundreds of surveillance cameras film them every day when they walk around a city.
Out of sight, out of mind.
Someone actively pointing a camera at you is perceived as an aggressive, hostile thing. People get immediately defensive.
A static CCTV camera wasn't installed to video you in particular, so therefore people are more accepting.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X9sVqKFkjiY
Regardless, I'm always thought that sousveillance was a terrible idea. All it does is to normalize the idea of ubiquitous surveillance without providing much, if any, actual benefit in terms of coping with ubiquitous surveillance.
All I can do, personally, is to support organizations that fight this stuff, and to refuse to participate to the greatest degree I can. By this I mean avoiding going to areas where surveillance is used to the greatest degree possible, expressing my concerns about surveillance, and teasing/shaming friends and family who buy into the whole thing by using things like Ring doorbells, etc.
None of which will change anything overall, really, but you do what you can.
Ring is just evil.
Obviously without informing owners.
And while it is, obviously, only to be used to fight against terrorism, organised crime and delinquency, well… let’s just say that France has a history of such powers getting extrajudicially abused, by governments and individuals alike.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36240885
Now they prosecute people demonstrating against a hugely unpopular government.
> Following the pattern of the so-called Tarnac affair, their arrest was accompanied by timely leaks in the media, and even political manipulations condemning the "far-left". And this, on the grounds that they were "suspected of planning violent actions targeting police officers, without a specific plan of action being identified," as reported by Le Monde nonetheless.
[1] (French): https://www.nextinpact.com/article/71826/accuses-terrorisme-...
Yes, I remember that guy getting mugged by Mc Donald security in France, at the Champs Elysée, which doesn't surprise me given how dumb and ignorant these people are, since they are recruited among gangs... an absolutely shame for France.
[1] https://law.photography/law/street-photography-laws-in-franc...
[0] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/McVeillance
I don't want some guy recording me when I eat in a restaurant. In France, they want that even less.
I'd prefer McDonalds itself didn't have cameras either. But at least those are for anti-theft purposes.