Stop wearing Vision Pro goggles while driving your Tesla: U.S. transportation officials, Calif. police::Videos, many of them stunts or jokes, of people wearing Apple’s new virtual reality headset while driving Teslas in Autopilot mode prompted officials to issue warnings.

  • Ms. ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    87
    ·
    10 months ago

    The new goggles have a feature that merges digital apps and one’s surroundings into one immersive space

    Isn’t this just AR? We’ve had that for years. Or is it somehow different from existing AR?

    • Benaaasaaas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      132
      ·
      10 months ago

      Ah, you seem to have made a rookie mistake, poor people are using AR, apple users are using spatial computing

      • Dran@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        67
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        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.

        • Benaaasaaas@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          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.

          • Zron@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            10 months ago

            You ever seen the myth busters episode where they try to drive a car through cameras and computer monitors?

            It didn’t go well

            • Benaaasaaas@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              10 months ago

              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.

        • laughterlaughter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          Oh shit. That makes them less appealing, then.

          I wish I could say this scenario is unlikely, but nowadays? Who knows! So, picture this:

          • John likes to use his Apple goggles from 11pm to 1am.
          • Hackers get into his googles and install some malware.
          • Now they can walk in front of John without being seen.

          That wouldn’t happen if the goggles were truly transparent.

        • locuester@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          AR uses a transparent overlay over reality perceived through a translucent surface

          No. Apple even has an entire library called ARKit to do Augmented Reality on a screen. For them, it has never meant transparent.

          • Dran@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            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.

            • locuester@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              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.

              • Dran@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                10 months ago

                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.

        • r00ty@kbin.life
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          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?

          • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            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.

            • Calavera@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              10 months ago

              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:

              In virtual reality (VR), the users’ perception of reality is completely based on virtual information. In augmented reality (AR) the user is provided with additional computer- generated information within the data collected from real life that enhances their perception of reality.

              • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                showing the real world plus digital content then it’s augmented 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.

              • NightAuthor@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                10 months ago

                The terms are up for definition, I’ve read a ton and there is no specific consensus about optically seeing reality

            • r00ty@kbin.life
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              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.