151
submitted 10 months ago by daniyeg@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

i wouldn't normally be concerned since any company releasing a VR product with this price tag is obviously going to fail... but it's apple and somehow through exquisite branding and sleek design they have managed to create something that resonated with "tech reviewers" and rich folk who can afford it.

what's really concerning is that it's not marketed as a new VR headset, it's marketed by apple and these "tech reviewers" as the new iphone, something you take with you everywhere and do your daily tasks in, consume content in etc...

and it's dystopian. imagine you are watching youtube on this thing and when an ad shows up, you can't look away, even if you try to they can track your eye movement and just move the window, you can't mute it, you certainly cannot install adblock on it, you are forced to watch the ad until it satisfies apple or you just give up and take out the headset.

this is why i think all these tech giants (google meta apple etc) were/are interested in the "metaverse". it holds both your vision and your hearing hostage, you cannot do anything else when using it but to just use the thing. a 100% efficiency attention machine, completely blocking you from the outside world.

i'm not concerned about this iteration as much as people are not hyped about this iteration. just like how people are hyped about the next apple vision, i'm more worried about the next iterations with somewhat lower price tag and better software availability. i hope it flops and i know it probably won't achieve any sort of mainstream adoption even if it's deemed a success because it probably can't get less bulky and look less dorky, but the possibility is still worrying. what are your thoughts?

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] bagfatnick@kulupu.duckdns.org 5 points 10 months ago

For what it’s worth, Apple has had an attention API ( for checking if the user is interacting / viewing ) since the debut of their facial tracking sensors on the iPhone X. Although, Apple makes its very clear it’s not to be used for ads and the such. If it helps I don’t know of any developers / Apple abusing that API.

[-] fluckx@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

What is it used for then? Face recognition?

Edit: honest question before I come off as agressive :)

[-] bagfatnick@kulupu.duckdns.org 3 points 10 months ago

Thanks for the question, it actually made me look for the api. Looks like I misremembered it, and there aren’t actually any exposed APIs for developers regarding attention. Internally it’s used by iOS for checking when you’re looking at the screen for faceID and keeping the screen lit when you’re reading.

There are APIs for developers that expose the position of the users head, but apparently it excludes eye information. Looks like it’s also pretty resource intensive, and mainly for AR applications.

The faceID / touchID api essentially only returns “authenticated”, “authenticating”, and “unautheticated”. The prompts / UI are stock iOS and cannot be altered, save showing a reason.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] blargerer@kbin.social 5 points 10 months ago

If it succeeds, apple will pave the way, and then other options will emerge much like has happened with smartphones. There will be some FOSS version perfectly capable of blocking ads.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] CybranM@kbin.social 5 points 10 months ago

People were complaining when newspapers were new that itd take everyones attention and make people distant. I think its great that more VR stuff is happening because the tech can be used for so much and lets people experience things they might not have otherwise.
If you were hospitalized for a long period would you rather watch the ceiling/small TV or would you want to travel the world via VR?
All new tech can be used for good or bad but we shouldnt stop progressing

[-] rekabis@lemmy.ca 5 points 10 months ago

If the Apple Vision Pro is going to replace smartphones in the way Smartphones replaced flip phones, we wouldn’t have flip phones anymore.

Spoiler alert: we still have flip phones.

Lots of them, actually, albeit not “dumb” ones anymore… they all run either Android or KaiOS, and come with all the commensurate risks of having all your usage stats beamed up to the mothership for third-party sales and monetization.

Hell, we now have a rotary cell phone - the rotary un-smartphone - which is enjoying decent popularity and mental rent-free status among lots of techy people, despite being nothing more than a 1970s rotary dialler with an ePaper display for incoming text messages. And a few buttons for hard-set quick-dial options. I would love one myself if it wasn’t so expensive compared to a smartphone.

[-] const_void@lemmy.ml 5 points 10 months ago

People are going to use these things irresponsibly like when they're driving.

[-] Crotaro@beehaw.org 3 points 10 months ago

My gf already sent me an instagram reel of just that and I wanted to just rip their new toy off their faces so bad.

This is the one, if you're interested.

[-] ULS@lemmy.ml 5 points 10 months ago

Just like how the iPod was the invention of the mp3 player.

The truth is society is really really malleable and stupid. That's just human nature. And of course it's going to be manipulated by people for power and wealth.

It'll go the same way as cable TV, and phones. It's the same exact path. We live within systems specifically created to market unneeded "wants". Just go outside and mingle with people... Some people literally seem like they have little humanity left in them, the just live for consumption. It's like addicts. It essentially is addiction for dopamine. Any product or nation/society that allows basically lawless marketing function will be the same.

So you're thoughts imo are accurate. BUT there's also another side of life. Once you stop falling for marketed bullshit and pop culture/media you can tune out all the bullshit. They will always prey on the weak. While I said all that keep in mind technology is like our civilizations pyramids or creation of democracy. Personally I have some hope in transhumanism, but you know pop news and marketing shit is going to make it all a divisive argument. Lol I'm probably doing that now. They do this partially as publicity and a advertising.

It's not about this or that it's about allowing growth of all things?

Idk... Just some rambling.

[-] Scew@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

We live within systems specifically created to market unneeded “wants”

Isn't it interesting that it's taught as supply and demand, and not demand and supply?

[-] xenomor@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

I have so much to say about this, I hardly know where to start. A few brief points:

Yes, this product direction is problematic in many many ways. There is a reason why science fiction has been speculating about these types of devices for decades and nearly always portraying the technology as an escape mechanism for a horrifying dystopian reality.

We’ve experienced several really big technology revolutions in just a few decades (pc, internet, social, mobile). All have brought wonderful improvements to life, but all have had profound, and unanticipated side effects. In all instances, we would have benefited as a society by interrogating consequences more completely at the beginning, rather than just letting market forces alone to drive them into mass adoption.

The good news is that none of this is really new. This appears to be a pretty good implementation of a UI model that consumers have been largely rejecting for over 30 years. There are absolutely very useful, very good uses for these UIs, but these are niche markets overall all.

In many ways, XR (a catch all term for both VR and AR) is a retro futuristic idea. This is a vision of the future as seen 40 years ago. Really innovative human computer interfacing doesn’t look like this anymore. Actually useful innovation involves things like agents, voice ui’s and so on (think Jarvis from the MCU).

The question is, can Apple’s marketing prowess and effectively infinite budget push a largely unpleasant, unneeded, and expensive product into mass adoption? I am hopeful that they can’t. I am hopeful that reality isn’t sci-fi dystopian enough to create a wide market for this. If they can, it may say more about how dystopian our real reality has become. That’s the really worrisome part to me.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] victorz@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Looking away in a headset doesn't make sense, no. But you can always close your eyes. Why wouldn't you be able to mute though? That would be insane, even by Apple in my opinion.

I'm not too worried. Only rich fools [meant to type "folks" but I'll let it stand] can afford it, and they can let themselves be brainwashed, I'm not too bothered.

[-] streetfestival@lemmy.ca 4 points 10 months ago

I think for me this thing is a symbol of where we are and where we're heading in terms of not being able to look away from ads

[-] JimmyBigSausage@lemm.ee 5 points 10 months ago

Don’t use devices. Go outside and walk, climb a trre or something. Don’t buy one.

[-] kibiz0r@midwest.social 3 points 10 months ago

The attention economy already has people hostage and blocked off from the outside world. No goggles required.

To play devil's advocate: If we're gonna have a tech-centric society, I can see where being able to make eye contact with people nearby and keep your hands free could make for a more wholesome experience than staring down at your phone for 80% of your waking life. And for people who are remote, being able to feel like you're occupying the same space and breathing and laughing together could be a solution for our extreme isolation.

But on the other hand, these are all problems that capitalism and big tech created in the first place, so...

[-] lowleveldata@programming.dev 3 points 10 months ago

If anything weird happens some hacker man would probably put up a tutorial on how to disable the eye tracker.

[-] PonyOfWar@pawb.social 3 points 10 months ago

You could probably just put tape over it, but it wouldn't be great as you control the entire OS with the eye trackers.

[-] whenigrowup356@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

I just don't understand how Apple, a company known for their sleek, elegant design aesthetics above all else, put their name on something that looks so dorky

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Shurimal@kbin.social 3 points 10 months ago

any company releasing a VR product with this price tag is obviously going to fail…

Varjo is doing very well and offers probably the best VR sets. Prices start at around 3000€

[-] nicetriangle@kbin.social 3 points 10 months ago

And IIRC those are all PCVR sets and not standalone.

[-] aniki@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago

I worry about how consumerism and capitalism will kill us all but I don't give a shit about this in particular. If I saw one in the wild the first thing I would do is give the owner and endless stream of shit for buying such a stupid waste of money.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2024
151 points (79.4% liked)

Asklemmy

44123 readers
449 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS