I am not sure what you are saying. I was talking about the Digital Crown (on the Apple Watch, primarily.). The functions assigned to it have changed substantially over the years. For example, remember when you could rotate it to advance the time, and your complications would update accordingly? Now it brings up the widget list when you rotate it. The functionality keeps changing.
The functionality of it has remained the same. In apps it’s used differently according to what app it is: Maps and Photos it zooms in and out, Messages it scrolls through a list, etc.
Again: for a product that needs to display more information than occasionally looking at what song is playing, your finger obstructs the display. Pinch to zoom cant even work on a display that small. It provides a good input method for interacting with a small screen.
which is what I’m saying with various i input methods being designed for each category.
Sure. But until I see some new thing that isn’t just ipad-gui sitting vertically in my field of view, then “spatial computing” hasn’t brought much to the table yet.
Sure, but to be fair there’s a lot that can’t be effectively shown in 2D videos. It can only be explained by using it. Spatial and Immersive Videos are two examples, with Immersive practically transporting you into a different place and it looks like you’re there because Of its tech (8K, HDR, 3D, 180 degree view, and Spatial Audio).
I disagree. There is no inherent advantage to doing this with a giant pair of ski goggles versus, say, a nice pair of shades.
The problem is technical for the moment. I started writing a very long Article (like you do with CPU stuff
) on here talking about this very thing, but I abandoned it.
Passthrough AR tech is superior to Waveguide AR tech for a ton of reasons. But Without delving into the reasons for sake of length, the ski goggle form factor, whilst not being the most convenient (and it will come down in weight and size), blocks out light and that allows for fully immersive experiences unlikely, especially for the moment, for Waveguide AR tech to do. So there is an advantage over Waveguide AR.
The reason it’s a giant pair of ski goggles right now is not because it is inherently advantageous - it’s because that’s the only way apple could get it to work.
True and not true. They want an AR product in a dramatically smaller form factor. Apple hates non-portable portable technology.
As I stated above, blocking out light with Passthrough AR allows for experiences unlikely on Waveguide AR tech.
This is very different than the form factors you mention above - Mac has inherent advantages over ipad (built in keyboard, easy to set screen angle, built-in trackpad, lots of ports, etc.). iPad has inherent advantages over Mac (touch screen works better if device is flat, lighter weight is inherently better for many uses, etc.). iPhone has advantages over mac and ipad (pocketable, light weight, etc.). Apple Watch has advantages (wearable, lightweight, etc.)
I was saying this, and that it was different form factors do different things. Glasses might be very well suited to 80% of the tasks done on ski goggles, but ski goggles do 20% of stuff that glasses can’t.
My point is like GUI, there are room for different form factors even beyond wearable products.
If a pair of glasses could do everything AVP did, nobody would pick AVP.
Absolutely I agree. But they don’t at the moment. “Glasses” today don’t even do 10%, both in functionality and quality of images wise. And it’s not clear that they ever will. If it is possible, Apple will be the first to do it. Which brings me back to what I was saying, which different form factors allow for different experiences.
Ive also stated in my reply that it expands beyond wearables. Computing in 3 dimensions is limited today to screens recreating or putting images into your eye.
But computing in 3 dimensions as a concept is not limited to that. HoloDeck, Prime Radiant, etc. are examples of 3 dimensional computing but not done through tech today, just like GUI is not limited to a mouse.
And
You have two different products based on GUI. They’re designed to do a lot of the same, but some stuff differently. Comparing iPhone to Mac to make your point misses what I was trying to say. There’s a reason I included iPod In that list.
