You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
55 points

Because there are screens in the way? The choice was to either not have the viewer’s eyes be visible, or use a screen to display eyes (not even real eyes, you can supposedly have cat eyes for an example). Considering the device is meant to be AR (augmented reality) and not VR, it kinda makes sense to show the user’s eyes since they’re still “connected” to the outside world. Otherwise you’d have a bunch of blank visors walking around and then people can’t tell if you’re looking at them or your furry waifu.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

You know how Microsoft solved this problem?

With glass.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

And it sucked, fov of the augmented area was tiny, the projected images were see-through and you still couldn’t really see the persons eyes because of the tinted glass. Vr headsets with cameras are currently by far the best way to do AR.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

That was Google…

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Microsoft Hololens (glass and transparent screen) and Google Glass (tiny screen)

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Google had Glass. Windows Mixed Reality used glass. The material. Like a window.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

Then go and buy Microsoft’s product. Nobody forces you to get a Vision Pro

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

Lmao look at this bozo defending the shittiest apple product.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Memes

!memes@lemmy.ml

Create post

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

Community stats

  • 8K

    Monthly active users

  • 13K

    Posts

  • 288K

    Comments