This might be a bad take but it seems like a worse version of HoloLense. Just glancing at the pros/cons list seems like HoloLense already covered this ground at a similar price point
this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2024
245 points (91.0% liked)
Technology
71463 readers
2191 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
HoloLens have much worse display quality
That's a fair point but HoloLens also didn't block your vision to the environment. I imagine with today's tech, it would've been able to deliver comparable or at least 80% of the image quality while still not needing passthrough and still allowing you to pin screens everywhere.
That's the trade-off. Vision uses the passthrough approach to have a much better display at the cost of actual vision & others seeing your uncanny eyes. Hopefully AR or EyeSight improves.
I skimmed some article in which the author said the vision pro is for work, but I would argue it's the public alpha version of what will eventually be a sleek, relatively inexpensive product for all the people who grew up with iPads and iPhones in their hands since they were in diapers.
Whoa whoa whoa ~~ozempic~~ it's magic