Will you still be too cool for spacial computing when it's in gen 5,6,7? When they are as common as a smart watch?

Will you still be too cool for spacial computing when it's in gen 5,6,7?

When they are as common as a smart watch? What about as common as a phone?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why not full face mask.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      pussy deflector

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >deflector
        now, when you say it, this might actually work

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I want a cool AR helmet

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >deflector
      now, when you say it, this might actually work

      This but make them anime girls

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/19sdNqL.jpg

      Will you still be too cool for spacial computing when it's in gen 5,6,7?

      When they are as common as a smart watch? What about as common as a phone?

      When they're like contacts, then they'll be cool

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    ill never use this shit
    its sodomizing your eyesight 10x worse than a regular screen
    and i rather not imagine what it will do to children development (2h of normal screens per day is already turning them into morons)

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Absolutely not. I'm actually pretty on-board with the idea. Seems like it's trying to move towards what Google glass was trying to do way too early.
    Apple has just made this particular product as unappealing as possible, and that's both for device-specific reasons and for 'Apple in general' reasons.
    I'll buy it when it's like the 3rd or so gen of a competitor, assuming it takes off like that at all.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      After the USD value of my crypto investment reaches hits $20,000,000 United States Dollars, I will spend the majority of my time jacked in to my RTX 69420 PC rig, virtually breeding a real-time AI simulation of Marie Rose (SHE IS DEFINITELY 18 years old 😉 ) using an advanced future-gen feedback suit which provides full-dive, entire-body (and I mean ENTIRE body) haptic feedback, immersed in glorious 64K+ VR headset resolution.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >I'll buy it when it's like the 3rd or so gen of a competitor
      We're on generation 300 when it comes to VR shit can you just give it up already?

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    well smartwatches being common doesn't somehow make them not pointless, there's a reason I don't own one. All the VR stuff is a neat tech demo but I don't see how it's actually useful for anything.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I will forver and ever be too cool for this, yes.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      but i actually like vision pro

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        you're not allowed to like it
        if you like it you're in with ~~*them*~~

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    yes

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    vp + fleshlight

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No thanks I don't want to turn myself into a tech zombie glued to a screen 24/7.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Young black influencer already using it so white women will come next. This gonna be big. And g femboys gonna 100% use it the moment some chink make good enough clone with Linux on board.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This but unironically. The only reason I won't use it is because I don't want to get spied on.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No one with above room temperature IQ will ever use it. It's just stupid device with no practical applications. The whole point of Vision Pro is content consumption. You can't actually do anything productive with it. It's a toy for midwits just like smartphones.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Cope much?
        >It's just stupid device with no practical applications. The whole point of Vision Pro is content consumption. You can't actually do anything productive with it.
        Could be said about smart phones. Which 99% of the population own and use.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Smartphones aren't uncomfortable as shit and don't have a control scheme incompatible with 90% of the device's best functionality. As it currently is it's no better than those 3D TVs with glasses, in fact it's even worse because it's so fricking heavy. Remember what happened with 3D TVs? Yeah, wait another month and you won't see another mention of this dogshit useless product.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not saying the Vision Pro is a good product. I'm saying smart phones are stupid devices meant for content consumption and that you can't do anything productive with them and somehow society reached a point where kids don't even know how to use computers anymore because they've been so ubiquitously replaced by phones outside of one or two generations who grew up right around the correct time to "have to" learn to use computers.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >gonna 100% use it the moment some chink make

      Learn english before posting you fricking ESL moron, so sick of you poojeets shitting this place up with your jeetglish

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Make generations of people blind, so they have to get chipped to see.
    Smart

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't know. I will decide then. I'm not one of these edgy anti-tech morons who quote the Unabomber while using IQfy every day. My low opinion of this doesn't come from ideology. It's just that what I've seen so far makes it look like a useless but expensive toy. When that changes, my opinion will change too.
    I've never owned a smartwatch either. I don't need one for anything so why buy it?

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I personally see smart phones as more moronic than this headset. Not that it isn't moronic but it's no worse than the garbage we have today, which I also avoid using. So yes I won't use it but I will probably judge it's users slightly less harshly than the average phone zombie moron I see walking around now.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Make it look like normal sunglasses
    >Make it weight like normal sunglasses
    >Remove the stupid telemetry
    >Have it consume as little power as possible (integrate with smartphone idk)
    >hard-block the camera (eg lid)

    Then i might consider them.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The apple vision can't distinguish between the user hand gestures and strangers hand gestures.
    If someone sits down in front of you with one of these things, start pinching the air for a laugh.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Seriously? Jfc what an oversight

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    When they start shaping the battery like a Bad Dragon and can be recharged by kegeling.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >VR headset
    >Can't watch porn on it
    >Can't play games on it
    >Most irritating control scheme of all time after 2 hours of use
    >Heaviest headset with the worst weight distribution possible
    Yeah, I tooootally want this junk, the people who paid 3.5k totally won't have this useless piece of crap gathering dust on their shelves after a week

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >separate battery so it doesn't weigh on your head
      >make the battery small like you were trying to save on weight
      umm?? tim apple???

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't have a "smart watch" or a "smart phone" either so yes, I will be.

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes. Make it a pair of glasses, let me strip out all the shitware and run a FREE OS, and MAYBE I'll buy in. I have to wear glasses anyway, might as well get some pointless widgets in my vision. Pass-through camera screens? Sub 16 hour battery life? I'll never buy any of that shit.

    At the current rate of progress, I don't see AR being viable for 30 years.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >make it everything it isn't and never will be and I'll consider buying it

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >spacial computing
    It's a AR/VR headset. Market is full of em. Cope.

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I will consider getting a VR headset when the GPU that powers it can consistently do 5000x5000 360Hz on each eye with settings cranked.
    I now don't need monitors anymore, i just have a virtual desktop where i can start apps and use software I install on my pc seamlessly, including CAD, Clip Studio, etc.
    This is still far away though, VR is still a gimmick for tech-illiterate morons atm. We may be never getting there where it's actually useful.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >it can consistently do 5000x5000 360Hz on each eye with settings cranked.
      >I now don't need monitors anymore,
      Always funny seeing people who don't understand anything about resolution posting shit like this. My current monitor is 4k, and to make this simpler for you we'll talk in terms of vertical vision, because horizontal is complicated by binocular overlap.

      So, my monitor, at the 60 PPD sweet spot of 20/20 vision, takes up 36 degrees of vertical FOV, for 2160 pixels. Your proposed solution is 5000 pixels over an IDEAL of 130 FOV. Typical headsets only manage 90-110 degrees, so we'll take an average of 100.

      If I were to spread 2160/36 over 100 degrees, that would be 6000 pixels required. For a near total visual field coverage of 130+, you'd need over 7800 pixels of vertical resolution.

      And guess what? This is for 60 PPD. The human eye can perform much better than 60 PPD, 120 PPD is perfectly viable, and the theoretical upper limit is 150, with hyperacuity going past 300 PPD. So for a 120 PPD style display, you'd want 15600 vertical pixels, giving a total image of somewhere around the 32k mark. 16k would be usable for current monitor replacement, and your 10k is painfully subpar.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I see. ( Or, i didn't i guess?) I have to wait even longer then for this kind of technology. Thanks for the insight and doing the calcs

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        But your monitor has that PPD because you realistically can't (afford to) have a giant monitor the size of your house in front of you.
        I hate VR and will never get one, but if you had the whole 130 POV to play with, you wouldn't need a PPD on par with current monitors to match the utility. Human eyes weren't designed to only use this tiny fraction of our POV and stare at a difference of millimeters all day. That's a compromise because of physical limitations of hardware manufacturing, not any kind of ideal.
        Being in the "open environment" a fake VR desktop could provide could turn out to be much more natural and comfortable (once the obvious problem of wearing a thing on your head gets solved).

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >But your monitor has that PPD because you realistically can't (afford to) have a giant monitor the size of your house in front of you.
          My monitor has that PPD because it's the most optimal. Increasing PPD to 120 improves the picture, but at the moment the challenge of running an 85" 16k screen is too much for hardware, and even 85" 8k is a bridge too far when it comes to price vs performance.

          >you wouldn't need a PPD on par with current monitors to match the utility.
          Of course you would. Look, I'll try and explain this to you as simply as I can, I imagine you're currently using, say, a 1080p 24" monitor at 2.5 feet away or something similar. Move twice as close, to 1 foot away. Is this a comfortable browsing experience? Do you like having to look around your vision to see the page? This is how much utility you would be giving up with a switch to a lower PPD. You can fit less stuff on screen and still have it be readable.

          >Human eyes weren't designed to only use this tiny fraction of our POV
          You're right. Which is why I use a 4k monitor, which uses up a much larger percentage of my FOV than what you're running. When prices come down, I'll be using an 85" monitor, which will take up almost the entirety of my FOV. But strapping a screen to my head instead? That's just moronic until the screens are near weightless and have a minimum of 60 PPD.

          >stare at a difference of millimeters all day.
          Hey, I thought of a better way for you to check out what a low PPD environment looks like. Set your scaling to 200%. Now all the text is much bigger, how wonderful! Sure, you could stretch this across more of your field of vision, but the low resolution would still be a significant issue, because it's limiting how much text you can display.

          >Being in the "open environment" a fake VR desktop could provide could turn out to be much more natural and comfortable
          High FOV setups all have the same basic issue, which is much harder to solve in VR, and that's input.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I use a 4k monitor too Anon. You're not special for owning a 600€ monitor.
            Your monitor is the size it is because it's financially feasible to manufacture that 32-inch or whatever panel and ship it from China to your house, at an attractive price to the consumer, without taking up an entire room. It has the amount of pixels it has because that is the only way to increase the amount of information that can fit inside that physical space.
            If we were in VR, there would be absolutely no reason to be confined to this tiny area and no need to cram pixels as close to each other as possible.

            Like I said, I have very little interest in VR, but this is not one of its bigger problems.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >32-inch
            I own a 4k monitor. You own a child's toy. We are not the same.

            I understand PPD, you don't. You're the one who is artificially confined, and you feel confined because you're likely using a setup with far too high of a PPD, or improper scaling settings. If you understood these things, you'd understand why VR is a waste of time until it hits 16k.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            cope, moron

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You'll need even higher resolution than that to replace monitors and to get fidelity beyond what the human eye can distinguish, so your virtual monitors in the headset don't end up looking worse than real monitors. I also don't really see a huge advantage to not needing monitors anymore. I can see the point of VR when it's for things like games but I don't really see the point of playing pretend to use real-world objects in VR when you could just buy and use the real-world objects in the first place. Why is using pretend monitors in VR so compelling when you could buy and use actual monitors for cheaper?

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't think I'll ever want to spend my day with a huge clunker like the abomination Apple just made on my face and I say this as somebody who doesn't mind using a VR headset. Having it on for an hour or 2 while I play a game designed for it is fine, wearing that shit while I go about my day or work is just LMAO. I also think that this sort of shit should be made see-through rather than having cameras to play pretend if I'm expected to use it all the time, it basically needs to be like some glasses with some sort of optional cover you can use if you don't want outside light getting in when you're using it for VR rather than AR. There's no way looking at its screen and through its cameras is the same.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      google glasses were a thing like 10 years ago

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        There was an attempt, but they weren't really a thing.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *