An extremely late model feature that marginally impacted UX for a subset of users but deeply upset a diehard subset (of a subet of) nerds philosophically? Which then got dropped the next major product cycle?
Hate Apple's business mentalility as much as you want - or even predict another market entrant dominating AR goggles later - but Macbook remains the best in class for a good reason. And you don't get there without Apple understanding you don't mess with what works, aka listening to customers.
Admitting you're wrong is one of the virtues most disregarded in our industry. It should be praised not scorned. Especially when all of us software engineers are common victims to cool new fancy tech and getting overly excited about it while disregarding IRL usecases or overvaluing our ability to adress "short term" trade offs via upgrading, and then fixing fundamentals far too late for customers to care.
>Admitting you're wrong is one of the virtues most disregarded in our industry.
From 2007 onwards (but some could say eben before that) and with Ive's power, Apple has lost all credibility by being utterly unwilling to admit their shortcomings. We had to wait years and years for the butterfly keyboard to drop, for magsafe and SD slot to be reintroduced. If for the next 10 years they go back to making their products more functional like they did in the 90s and early 2000s then maybe I'll reconsider
> "Apple has lost all credibility by being utterly unwilling to admit their shortcomings. We had to wait years and years for the butterfly keyboard to drop, for magsafe and SD slot to be reintroduced."
How long did you have to wait for Google to revive Reader, for Reddit to undo 'new Reddit', for Microsoft to revert the Windows UX hodgepodge and Microsoft account requirement and telemetry, for Facebook to put your timeline back to friends and chronological order without ads, for Linux distros to remove SystemD, and all the other much-maligned changes (Google News, Twitter timeline, Wayland, Ubuntu snaps, Google Maps UX, car manufacturers and touchscreens...)?
"Apple took a long time to fix their disliked changes" has to go against the backdrop of "other (tech) companies never do it at all".
Can you spot the 'butterfly keyboard' or the 'touchbar' in there? The drop in sales forcing them to change? I can't. 2015, 2016 (touchbar), 2017 and 2018 look pretty similar to me.
I remember it differently. In my mind NeXT-Apple – while being perfectly willing openly eviscerate pre-NeXT-Apple – has always been extremely unwilling to admit any fault.
I see consistency, not a trend. Maybe a slight trend towards a softening, towards being more willing to admit fault.
Whether it’s brushed metal interfaces or butterfly keyboards, Apple isn’t good about admitting fault. Most of all openly.
However, my experience is also (and I don’t think you can be successful for so long without that) that they are still reactive. Maybe sometimes a bit slow, maybe without saying they did something wrong (just quietly fixing it), but NeXT-Apple does eventually change shit things.
Except, obviously when it’s deeply tied to something they hold strategically very dear. Then they are completely unable to.
Overall my main point is that I don’t see a trend where you seem to be seeing one. Especially not post 2007.
The Macbook are great because they finally undid the stupid changes of the 2016 models.
Touchbar, no HDMI port, keyboard that sucks... Most of my coworkers prefered to keep their older laptop than getting new ones, even though it was at no cost for them because paid by the company.
> you don't mess with what works, aka listening to customers
Reminds me of "any customer can have any colour as long as it is black". People are still singing praises for not needing to fumble with the earpiece cords, for slowing down the phones and for the great ecosystem of multiple converters.
I'm one of those (there are dozens of us!) who actually liked the Touch Bar and not only that, deeply regret Apple giving up on it. I found it eminently useful to have contextual controls I could use rather than those non-descript Fn keys I don't really ever use.
It wasn't perfect, for example the fact that it was just a single bar meant it was hard (but not impossible) to use accurately without looking, but to me it really was a step in the right direction.
I hope they bring it back at some point, maybe in a way that appeases the Fn crowd as well so we can all be happy. Maybe a few physical buttons with an embedded screen a la stream decks, and a smaller bar in the center for more fluid things? I don't know. All I know is I miss it dearly.
I feel it depends on whether they can get it to work well enough not to be creepy and weird. I think the reasoning is pretty obvious, most people will not wear huge goggles that cover half their face outside a private setting, it's just too socially offputting. So if you want to do AR out in the wild, you have to have some way of showing the face underneath, IMO.
IOW, if Apple can't get the front display to work, their product will be limited to office and solo entertainment use.
That's a good comparison. It strikes me as a visual differentiator as much as anything, which is a shallow purpose. I'd initially assumed that they'd have some grander plans for it, but I assume the lenticular aspect implies that it's not going to be used for any sort of display that isn't inset an inch or two? e.g., it can't show a ghostly reverse view of what someone is seeing, or a visible HUD, or a digital effect (imagine a security guard wearing this, and the display is showing a "scanning, scanning" effect - cool, not useful...).
And another confounding thing is that it might've been a pro feature you introduced after a base model, but if the eventual non-pro edition has a plastic front without Eyesight, and it's cheaper and lighter, most people will be happy about that.
Ultimately, I think they just decided that it was worth the trade-offs to instantly have a headset that looked different and more futuristic than each competitor. They had to make a splash.
Apple has some other devices which require another device for setup, so it wouldn't be unusual for them. They could also offer setup at an Apple store.
> Apple has some other devices which require another device for setup, so it wouldn't be unusual for them.
Hmm, I think that'd be pretty difficult because you can't guarantee the camera on another phone is good enough, unless you require everyone to have a phone from the last 1-2 years.
I put my MacBook down in front of me, ready to use it. But for me, the owner and user, the apple on the lid is upside-down.
I open the lid and look at the screen. Now the apple is right-side-up, for everyoneelse to look at.
I love MBPs but when I notice that it makes me think I’m secretly participating in a promotional video set in a coffeehouse full of hip people with loud sweaters and knee high boots.
I mean, it would look pretty dumb if the logo was upside down while the product was in use. Particularly to appease the person who can't even see the logo while they're using the product.
Who cares how other people see it? This always messes me up to. I want to place it down with the logo correctly orientated for _me_, the owner of the device.
Like you said, once I flip it up and its wrong, I won't be able to see it as I'm using the product.
It's not like I experience the logo on my laptop that much. I experience others' much more. I think I do care about my experience... Seeing all the upside down apples would be irritating.
Sometimes our sci-fi dreams are just that and don't make sense or aren't possible in the real world. Like flying cars, teleportation, faster than light travel, the year of the Linux desktop. I think VR is always going to be like that. It's good for some niche applications, but it just doesn't fit the form factor of humans like a monitor and keyboard or controller does. Our headsets are good enough now that we can't keep saying "well if it just had more X" where X is resolution or whatever moving goalpost they want to put out there. We just don't like crap on our face.
And then what? We just get a different way to interact with screens?
Phones and tablets can leverage their size to pack bright displays, tactile controls and large batteries. Targeting the Ray-ban form factor is going to require some ugly sacrifices, and even an optimal solution is going to be a hard sell compared to the miniaturized technology of it's day.
I keep hearing the "make AR glasses" shtick, but I don't think there will be real demand for it. You either wear the heavy, light-blocking fighter-pilot headset for full immersion, or you get the dinky 15 degree FOV washed-out Google Glass. And both of them cost a mortgage compared to the smartphone.
Time will tell, most of your objections are temporary and don't represent any fundamental limit to the technological possibilities, only the current reality. Personally, if nothing else, I would gladly trade a bulky phone for something less intrusive.
I think many of my objections are fundamental. How will eyeglasses control external light bleed without physical blockers? How will battery technology adapt to a wire-thin design language? How will the field-of-view extend beyond the glasses? How will you manage the user's interpupillary distance and allow it to be manipulated on the fly?
The greatest trick the devil pulled was convincing the world technical limitations don't exist. Flying cars sound cool, until you consider every single logistical limitation that prevents it from being a commercial reality. Yes they exist, but are they practical? Will they ever be?
People say this but I don't see how that will achieve VR, since light will be streaming in around the edges. AR sure I guess but I'm not sold on AR at all, nor am I certain we can ever get around the physical laws of our universe issues Magic Leap had.
Good article, about Gibsons great book. But I got a bit stuck on the start of the article.
It states: "I’ve plowed through the first wave of AVP (Apple Vision Pro) reviews, and it seems pretty obvious that, at the current price and form factor, it’s not gonna be a best-seller."
That was 20m of their 7th-9th headsets (after DK1, DK2, Rift, Rift S, GearVR, Go). Other than the Quest 2, I don't think any VR headset has sold at the rate the AVP is currently selling at.
I've been having a similar thought. The future isn't lugging your computer around on your face. Desktops will stay desktops, just like a workbench. It's about computing the physical world.
When I went "remote" in the late 90s/early 2000s, pulling out your laptop at a coffeeshop in America (remember those? the ones that weren't chains?) wasn't even common enough to be considered antisocial or an abuse of the space yet. Doing so at a bar at 3pm in a third world country was exotic enough to get you kidnapped. Since then, society went through a phase where it was almost like a showy thing that people could be working away from the office, to the point where everyone started doing it, and then eventually to where if you want to work on a laptop, you self-segregate with everyone else into a starbucks or whatever, and make sure to keep buying coffee or limit your time.
We're, in other words, way past the point in human history where walking around with tech on your person is cool because you can do productive things on it, or even cool because you have something new, or cool because the tech itself is cool. It is actually impossible for Apple or anyone else to recapture that now, because everyone now knows that everyone with one of these things is just watching cat videos and looking stupid. Apple seems to be chasing the tech-as-jewelry market with larger and larger ticket items and diminishing returns. Because tech was never jewelry and or status symbol to the people who use it to be productive... and the only card you could ever play in a bar with a laptop, even 25 years ago, was that you were being productive. Not entertaining yourself. I would've been ashamed to sit there and watch cat videos and tune out the world while other people were talking, but I could show them what I was building and get into conversations. This tech violates that norm which Apple assumes is dead - that of not sitting in a social space and walling yourself off from it in a fundamentally antisocial way.
For coffee shop computing, I’d like a computer than is clearly only for programming/creative work.
When you saw Hemingway with a typewriter in a cafe, or Feynman with pages of squiggles in a bar, it was obvious at a glance they were creating. And 30 years ago, a programmer could also look like that, but laptops have been ruined by entertainment.
My kind of mid-2010s hack to that end was to use an app that put my whole screen into red monochrome on a black background. It didn't abuse my eyes and, since the whole screen was usually filled with tiny code, people assumed I was doing something important.
But more importantly, I think, I came from an epoch where if you're going to take your work out with you, you'd better be prepared to be interrupted and be gregarious and conversational with people. No headphones, no cold shoulder. People ask what you're doing and you take a 30 minute break and show them. Maybe make plans to get drinks after work. I used to meet other coders that way - it was actually how I met most of the really solid people I worked with over the years. Otherwise why would you be out?
At the time of writing of this comment this story is number one on hacker news front page.
While it’s an interesting read, it’s hard for me to want to view it as an interesting take because there is no indication that the writer has ever actually tried the hardware being discussed.
I don't see how that is particularly relevant really. Reviews of the hardware being discussed are abundant. The point of this article is to share this look back - a book review, taking what we thought of AR in the past and relating it to the present. I had never heard of this book before. That's what I got out of this. MKBHD, Casey Neistat, and all the others have done a fine job of covering the present already.
I think it’s relevant specifically because the book itself and the points in the article are talking about physical reactions and responses to the hardware. If it was conceptually more about other things that weren’t directly related to the physical aspect of the interface I would agree with your take. Especially because the article ends with what could be constituted as a somewhat sweeping generalization that directly speaks to the physical interface aspect of the device.
This isn’t like reviewing Christopher Nolan’s new psychological thriller in that you can get the basic gist of it from the SparkNotes and say something pithy about society. You need to actually try it to form an opinion when you are talking about how far or not it has come in meeting some science fiction fantasy
It's totally reasonable that one can observe the many videos of the AVP in use and in many real world situations with plenty of evidence of "physical reactions and responses to the hardware," and draw their own conclusions about how those compare with the book they read without owning the damn thing.
— Every reader has for sure noticed that, in my description of the device, I rely quite heavily on a multitude on reviews, which I extensively quote. The reason is now clear: in spite of its occasional brilliance, the device is ultimately not worth trying, which is why I also wrote this review without trying it.
The impression I got from it was it was intended more to highlight how people conceived these kinds of devices in the past rather than a review of an one of the specific devices on the market today, and in that it did a good job imho.
fwiw, I have tried it and I agree with their assessment. I do think reviews pretty accurately capture the experience of using it.
My only real comparison though is the Quest 2. The fidelity of AVP graphics is through the roof and the eye and hand tracking for focusing on UI elements is very good, smoother and more stable than using a controller on Quest 2.
I don't think you could wear it all day comfortably though, but it won't be long before you can if Apple sticks with it.
I can imagine them being useful for auto mechanics, surgeons, fighter pilots -- while doing their jobs -- but it will be a tool for those jobs, not a regular part of everyday life, and these people will look forward to taking them off at the end of the day.
If I'm wrong, and the Apple Cult is able to rebrand glassholes so they're socially acceptable (like they got so many lemmings to wear AirPods), then I may just have to leave human civilization. How intolerable will life be? You walk down the street and there's a social credit score hovering next to you? Your saccades are tracked at a jillion hertz and sold to marketers? No thanks!
The current trend of projecting information onto our eyes through devices is a primitive form of sensory enhancement.
It is time to make a leap towards a more transformative innovation, which could be achieved by transmitting knowledge directly into our brains. This way, we could simply know the name of a plant by looking at it.
Reading is primarily about acquiring knowledge. I am personally excited about the idea of augmented intelligence, which would not require strapping a couple of TVs to our faces.
> Watching TV, by yourself, on a huge screen, is not the future. Augmenting reality is.
I guess the main reason why this novel (and the trilogy that it's part of) is centered on AR is that Gibson had already done the completely immersive "hyper-VR" thing in Neuromancer (and the trilogy it was part of), so he probably wanted to explore something new...
When there's a working, wearable, hoomin-friendly A/R available, I want a dial on the top to permit more or fewer annotations, kind of like the dial (slider?) on the AVP that fades reality in & out. Sometimes I want visual info-clutter and sometimes I do NOT.
So basically, the current iteration of the AVP is the Apple Newton: you can kind of see where the product could lead to but right now it's held back by the realities of current technology.
The iPhone (2007) was essentially what the Newton (1993) wanted to be, and even it was severely held back by the tech available. It was pretty bad until the 3GS or the iPhone 4.
I think it's fair to say the Newton was ~15 years ahead of its time, and any amount of investment could not have significantly accelerated that. You need all the incremental semiconductor industry advancements along the way.
I always got the impression that Newton was plenty great for what it was and dearly loved by its users. The Palmpilot was much simpler and it saw great success and was very useful.
The best part of Johnny Mnemonic (film) is what it is based on Johnny Mnemonic (short story) which is just 41kB or ~10 A4 pages at 12pt. Not so much to fill 96 minutes of the runtime.
> I want to be in a park at night and see fiery snakes climbing all the trees.
Why the fuck do you want that? Corporate graffiti on nature?
I don't mind fairy lights on a tree in some situations. I like tree houses. I like a tree swing. Sometimes real graffiti. Because someone built something, it has value.
Some random AI shoves random snakes on trees? Why not sit at home and watch TV on your couch if you don't like trees.
An AR reality everyone shares at once with snakes in trees. Like a concert or a light show by an artist. Yep, but it will cost $ to visit. And it'll cost millions to create.
> I want to walk into a big-box store and have a huge glowing balloon appear over the Baking Supplies.
Who's going to record the data for you? People have tried to map stores for years and it'd work fine with AirPods telling you where to go, or a map on your phone.
> I want floating labels to attach to all the different parts of the machine I’m trying to fix.
Ikea struggles to make useful paper instructions. Brickit looks interesting, if it was done for mosaics and art like that - https://brickit.app/
> AVP is VR not AR
AVP is AR, a strange comment.
If you look at the only working commercial AR, it's doctors using it to have a screen next to where they do surgery so they don't have to look away. AVP having a big display anywhere might be it's best hope.
I've had a to-do item to build a collaborative AR experience for people to graffiti the world and find the creations of others.
I picked up the domain OutHere and spent some time drafting the initial experience because I think it's a compelling idea, but life has gotten in the way of late.
“What does it mean to be a partner with indoor Google Maps?
Google Maps Indoor partners can include their floor plans and labeled layouts of their venues in Google Maps for desktop and mobile. Visitors can see indoor maps on their mobile devices to conveniently find points of interest in supported venues.”
“Easily create detailed maps of your indoor spaces and let visitors see where they are right in your app. Organizations with large public and private spaces like airports, shopping centers, arenas, hospitals, universities, and private office buildings can register for the Indoor Maps Program. Indoor maps are built using industry standard tools and require only your existing Wi-Fi network to enable GPS-level location accuracy so visitors can navigate your spaces with ease.”
>> I want floating labels to attach to all the different parts of the machine I’m trying to fix.
I agreed with your earlier point about how the only reason to take something in as a meaningful artistic experience is that someone else built it with intention. However I do think these AR things can be useful as professional tools. That's really where they belong, not slapped to the faces of rich dipshits wandering down 5th Avenue. For industrial design - I could see that. Personally if they dropped the price by 4/5ths, I could justify it as an alternative to constantly greasing up my tablet searching through PDFs of 1980s Chiltons manuals. If it showed me where the screws or wires went and was even correct half the time that could be worth it too.
But it's one thing to dream about a world where you don't have to go read the car manual, and another thing to dream about a world where you don't have to live in reality.
Something that sounds cool in theory but Apple will eventually drop in future models as it just adds extra complexity/cost for little benefit.