But it absolutely is AR. If you can see the real world in real time, with additional information on top of it, that’s AR. Your requirement that it not be on a screen is completely arbitrary and has no basis behind it whatsoever.
With the Vision Pro you can sort of see the real world in nearly real time with some distortions because the cameras don’t match your eye positioning, and the dynamic range is clamped to what is supported by the cameras and displays, and everything is at the same focal distance, and your peripheral vision is limited. It’s definitely not the same class of device as what has traditionally been called AR.
A small number of people have been to varying degrees living in VR headsets and they’ve been alright, but it’s not for everyone. Besides the weight and having to manage the battery, you run into issues like the cameras having difficulty in dark environments or when objects are very close. After enough hours the motion sickness goes away.
“AR” has always been sci-fi. The details you’re discussing have never been part of the discussion because it was fiction.
This is far more AR than any of the shitty displays that project on glasses (all of which also are distorting and changing the light from the real world) and don’t have meaningful capacity to interact with the real world inputs. Any reasonable definition of AR absolutely is including the Apple Vision. It’s the real world, in real time, with all the inputs and processing capability required to interact with it.
All your other complaints have nothing whatsoever to do with your silly definition of AR made for the sole purpose of excluding the most exciting piece of tech in the space ever. Weight and battery capacity are also completely unrelated to any possible valid definition of what AR is.
Apple hasn’t called it AR.
But it absolutely is AR. If you can see the real world in real time, with additional information on top of it, that’s AR. Your requirement that it not be on a screen is completely arbitrary and has no basis behind it whatsoever.
With the Vision Pro you can sort of see the real world in nearly real time with some distortions because the cameras don’t match your eye positioning, and the dynamic range is clamped to what is supported by the cameras and displays, and everything is at the same focal distance, and your peripheral vision is limited. It’s definitely not the same class of device as what has traditionally been called AR.
A small number of people have been to varying degrees living in VR headsets and they’ve been alright, but it’s not for everyone. Besides the weight and having to manage the battery, you run into issues like the cameras having difficulty in dark environments or when objects are very close. After enough hours the motion sickness goes away.
“AR” has always been sci-fi. The details you’re discussing have never been part of the discussion because it was fiction.
This is far more AR than any of the shitty displays that project on glasses (all of which also are distorting and changing the light from the real world) and don’t have meaningful capacity to interact with the real world inputs. Any reasonable definition of AR absolutely is including the Apple Vision. It’s the real world, in real time, with all the inputs and processing capability required to interact with it.
All your other complaints have nothing whatsoever to do with your silly definition of AR made for the sole purpose of excluding the most exciting piece of tech in the space ever. Weight and battery capacity are also completely unrelated to any possible valid definition of what AR is.