Is it unpopular to think the eyes screen is very gimmicky? I feel like they could’ve made the device possibly lighter and slightly smaller if they didn’t add that tech to it. Genuinely curious for others opinions.
I haven't seen it in person, but i get what they're trying to do.
This thing is AR for the wearer, but with the eyes window, it's also kind of AR for the other people in the room. The person isn't locked behind a giant white pill like my kids are with their quests.
I think it's an attempt to keep a 2-way connection with people when in AR mode. I can't think of any other way to do it, without using irritating transparent LCDs.
I dont think its unpopular but I dont think its popular either — imo it adds unneeded cost to an already expensive device and I wonder how much cheaper this would have been if they would have gone without it or what freeing up that cost would have let them do with the money used on it elsewhere on the device. That said if it wasnt included it would just look like every other headset.
Also agree if the screen was gone it would def have left the team to make it thinner and lighter on the first iteration, wasnt a fan of when apple was doing all it could to get its devices as thin as possible but this might have been the time to go back into that old mantra
Apple will not cut costs at expense of features and testing out tech for their future product roadmap. That’s so far from their strategy. They add sensors and exotic materials to the iPhone and other devices for a reason even if it doesn’t make sense or skyrockets the price of current devices.
You can argue whether this is a good plan or not but it’s how they develop products at scale.
If it actually works as marketed, I think it's a worthwhile feature that will make it more viable to use the device when you're not alone in a room by yourself. If it doesn't work as marketed, then it could easily be as you describe -- a waste of weight and cost.
An external facing display like that is going to add pretty negligible weight to it I suspect. They built the thing out of aluminum which is going to add a lot more to the weight than an extra OLED would. And the remainder is just compute that would already be in there anyway. I don't think it is impacting the weight much at all. But certainly the price, and I do think that while the idea is interesting in theory, it doesn't look like it is successful in practice, and it's the first feature I expect to see cut in a lower-cost future version.
They could’ve gone with the Quest 3 approach of only having glass over the cameras/sensors and the rest is lightweight plastic (which a future “Vision Air” will likely do) But that would’ve definitely sacrificed the look they were going for.
The eyes screen is weird. It feels like they included it because they wanted to replicate the experience of the headset being "just glasses" (which imo it will need to actually be to see widespread adoption, and I think Apple knows it) but it doesn't quite work. If nothing else it does make the product quite unique though with the rainbow mode - it would've been a bit boring from the outside without it.
I agree. The front display was more of a differentiator between other VR headsets rather than a functionally valuable addition. I wouldn’t mind if they just scrapped it and used lightweight aluminum or TITANIUM on the front and reduced the price by a couple hundred. But it’s Apple.
That’ll be the first thing the non-Pro version gets rid of, I think.
This first Pro version is all about introducing people to the world of “spacial computing” with all the bells and whistles they could pack in at this point, and having the eyes there is part of whole approach Apple is taking to focus on it not being too isolating. It is kind of a gimmick, but one that Apple probably felt was necessary to sell these as “goggles” (or really thick cumbersome glasses) that you could theoretically wear and not have to take off just to interact with somebody in the real world… rather than an isolating headset that you’d always have to take off and on whenever somebody else walked onto the room. But with the eye display, you can get away with just turning the dial back to passthrough and seeing them through the viewer while they at least see a representation of your eyes.
That’s not gonna be as necessary if they manage to get the device sleek enough to be taken off and on more easily, like if they were an actual sunglasses kind of design. And once they have people on board with spatial computing as a concept, they might not feel the need to try to convince us it’s not isolating anymore.
I like it. Though It does seem like a gimick but they did it to emphasize that this is an augmented reality device and not like those vr headsets that failed in the past.
They want to make you feel that you will not be isolated from people around you when you put this on. Which i think they do a good job of sending that message.
Yes, yes, and yes--it's a gimmick, it doesn't look good, and they could have saved weight/size/cost by nixing it. I would guess that Vision Pro 2 might altogether remove the feature and if we get a cheaper "Vision Air" or something, it definitely would not have it.
It’s a gimmicky yes and I see a lots of people here talking about it. But it does not impact the functionality of the device. It’s not primarily a device for people to see through from the other side while you are wearing it. More of a bonus over current VR headsets as the front display can let people know you can or can’t see them at the moment.
I have a theory about this. IMO the eye screen feature isn't for the wearer but for the benefit of everyone around the wearer. One of the major hurdles companies are facing with headsets is that it's not socially acceptable to wear them in public. Because A, it looks silly and B it enables creeps to stare at people without them knowing. If someone with a headset is facing you the uncertainty of not knowing whether or not they're looking or recording you is gonna drive people crazy. Which is inevitably going to result in it getting the google glass treatment where it'll be banned in all public spaces.
So I think that feature was added to inform outside observers whether pass through is enabled or not.
Ok great I'm glad my theory was correct. Fyi the overwhelming majority of people don't watch WWDC videos. So idk why you're acting like it's common knowledge.
Well you're in the r/apple subreddit. Pretty sure everyone's seen the WWDC video here. Your theory is verbatim just reciting their explanation, which is also extremely obvious. It's like writing a paragraph about a pet theory that a mouse should be used with the hand.
Lol no I'm pretty sure they haven't. That shit is 2 hours long. Just because this is /r/apple doesn't mean everyone mindlessly consumes everything apple related.
I love how confidently incorrect you are on this incredibly small issue. The very comment I'm responding too called the front facing display "gimmicky" has 300+ upvotes and pretty much every single child comment agrees yet you've somehow convinced yourself everyone on this sub knows what it's actually for.
Idk how true this is but I heard from co worker who knows someone from Apple, that the UX team forced Apple to delay the launch by 1 year to get EyeSight working
See, when I first saw the eyes, my first thought was they are trying to fix the problem of someone wearing a headset being "unavailable" and blocked off from the world. If you can see someone's eyes/face when you're talking to them, it makes them feel more present, even with the headset on.
But now that I'm seeing them more and more, it would be better if they didn't do the eyes.
Hahaha it’ll be first SE product I’ll be forced to buy because I’m too poor. And I’m not saying I can afford the stuff, I just can afford the installments lol! 😝
357
u/SpeakingTheKingss Jan 30 '24
Is it unpopular to think the eyes screen is very gimmicky? I feel like they could’ve made the device possibly lighter and slightly smaller if they didn’t add that tech to it. Genuinely curious for others opinions.