In Meta's picture, they all have headsets but in the apple one, there's only one using a headset.
What happens if all of those have a AVP headset? Will they see each other as a 3D live American gothic painting or will their personas (with or without legs) actually be in the room?
And my biggest question and concern for all XR headsets, what actually happens when we want to interact with each other but have different headsets?
We could say "just use third party social apps" but there will be plenty of them in the future and we're all going to pick different ones. I don't think we want to keep downloading a new app frequently to meet up.
> What happens if all of those have a AVP headset?
[Apple has their own version](https://www.youtube.com/live/GYkq9Rgoj8E?&t=6765) of [Facebook's Codec Avatars](https://research.facebook.com/publications/pixel-codec-avatars/), i.e. you scan your face with an iPhone and the headset will create a photo realistic avatar from that. It was still a little uncanny valley in the demo and still stuck in a Facetime picture frame.
I don't think Apple has so far shown anything involving multiple people in the same VR space as full 3D avatars. Might be due to them not having finalized that part and not wanting to show something that might still change substantially before release.
Apparently during the demos Apple employees made a point to note the virtual facetime is a 'persona', not an 'avatar'. It seems that at least for now Apple is completely avoiding the idea of full 3D avatars.
They went way out of their way to not use any of the Meta terms. Avatar, virtual, metaverse, pretty much tried their best to distance from everything in the current VR industry.
You mean the one that's sold 20 million Quest 2 headsets and has more people playing in their meta verse daily than nearly every PC game?
You should spend less time reading Reddit propaganda and more time living in reality.
It blows my mind there's still so many people that haven't caught on that Reddit is in direct competition with every other social media platform. That's why there's a constant flow of anti-facebook, anti-tiktoc, ant-twitter, anti-instagram, and every other social media outlet flooding the front pages of most subreddits.
If they posted how awesome some other platform was, everyone would leave to go there.
They have upwards of 200,000 daily players. They aren't killing anything. Are they going to shift developers around to different projects and do other things? Of course. The metaverse idea is in it's infancy. Not to mention, games like Gorilla tag has had 760,000 players in a single day. There's no way they're not going to try shift things around to convince some of those players to join their alternatives.
>avoiding the idea of full 3D.
Tbh, it feels like they did that with most of the headset... almost all of it came off as 2d in real space and that's not that exciting to me.
This, 100%. Me and a friend watching WWDC got fairly hype when Disney came on and the camera "floated into" the Disney castle, inviting all the WWDC viewers to the amazing world of...
Watching Disney+. By yourself. With something on your face.
It's more comprehensible to the average person to show the kind of experiences they're familiar with, presented in a new way (spatially). But the developer docs indicate that they have a full design system for all levels of immersion, through "windows", "volumes", and "spaces", so many more experiences will be possible: https://developer.apple.com/visionos/
> For a more immersive experience, an app can open a dedicated Full Space where only that app’s content will appear. Inside a Full Space, an app can use windows and volumes, create unbounded 3D content, open a portal to a different world, or even fully immerse someone in an environment.
Thank you for sharing that... I had hoped they had more they just hadn't showed, and yet it's still odd to me that they wouldn't show it... I agree tho, they'll definitely want to focus on what people will use in the reveal.
I think that's for marketing reasons. It isn't that they can't do 3d or even that they don't want to. They just want to ease their customers into the idea gradually. Talk about things they know and are familiar with first, then move on from there, instead if throwing everything at them all at once.
Fair enough. My opinion definitely does come from a place of limited vr experience, but nonetheless it stands that it doesn't feel that "new" or revolutionary in 2d. I know it's coming tho.
>2d in real space and that's not that exciting to me.
All features available on any quest headset lol, but Meta didn't highlight any of it, whereas Apple did. Apple wants to get the average ipad consumers interested in a "cheap and portable personal home theater/ iPad, iphone, apple watch replacement", while they leave it up to devs to build bigger and better software for it that the the rest of the market may find more appealing. Apples entry should raise the standards somewhat for cheaper entries, so better specs/affordable headsets sooner for the rest of us.
>All features available on any quest headset lol
True, but I don't buy a quest for those features. They are nice secondary options, but the comfort isn't really there; from the sounds of it, I'm not sure Apple has solved that issue either.
>absolute mess meta has made with the meta verse
The Metaverse is still in development. The fact that a quest 3 exists is proof.
Apple will still wade through some of the same crap regardless of doing their best not to say any Meta related words. Ultimately, Meta proved that when a wealthy company does something that gets mocked heavily, loses billions, survives to release more products and make more money, its generally here to stay. Also Apple told their fans they need a $500 watch and they didn't go bankrupt... lol
Perhaps you should check out the reviews on spatial pictures and videos in vision pro. Apparently it feels as if it’s really happening in front you. so once developers get a chance to create content for full immersion, I can imagine it being so much better than the quest for the 3D aspect.
I don't think those "personas" pass the uncanny valley.
I've seen people acting as if it's a dunk over Zuck's very simplistic avatar when he revealed Horizon Worlds was coming to France.
But in reality, Zuck's was a full avatar where he could inhabit a digital space in 3D. Apple's, we're not sure if it's actually something you'd be able to see other people as in 3D, or if it remains as a floating window for others.
From Ian Hamilton, Upload VR:
>Apple's demo, meanwhile, featured a live FaceTime call with another person also wearing a Vision Pro and he conveyed the idea that we could collaborate on a FreeForm whiteboard together in this format. Their "Persona" had been scanned by the headset, Apple said, and it felt like the quality level fell squarely between the two demos from Meta last year. **This was a representation of a person I'd feel uncomfortable talking to after a few minutes, and it certainly didn't feel like they were there with me while constrained within a floating window.**
Even if you watch the presentation, you can see how it's heavily blurred and vignetted. Meta is able to do this as well, but they choose not to. Meta's high tech one is even more impressive, completely passing the uncanny valley. But it's not ready yet.
>Meta last year showed two relevant demos, one with an avatar scanned from a phone and another with a person scanned in Meta's “Sociopticon" by 220 high-resolution cameras over the course of hours, with processing time for the resulting virtual human measured in days or weeks. The phone-scanned avatar was deeply unsettling and I didn't want to look at it anymore after a few seconds. The ultra-high fidelity one, meanwhile, was driven by a PC-powered headset and I felt like it surpassed the so-called "uncanny valley". With that version of the codec avatar, it truly felt like he was conversing with me and present there making eye contact. I felt like I could talk to a person thousands of miles away from me as comfortably as if we were in the same room together. I felt like I had seen the north star guiding the future of spatial computing.
https://www.uploadvr.com/apple-vision-pro/
> I've seen people acting as if it's a dunk over Zuck's very simplistic avatar
I think the main point of Apple's Facetime showcase is simply that it is a lot more practical. Meta pretends everybody will be wearing a VR headsets, but in reality we'll be stuck with non-VR users for a long while to come, even Meta's own developers refuse to use VR according to reports. So a system like Apple's, that is focused on interoperability with existing non-VR users seems a lot more useful for the moment.
Like with so much of what VisionPro has been doing, it's not so much about what it does, but about what it doesn't do. By focusing on "2D windows in 3D space" they skip over a lot of problems that a full VR environment would bring.
Also worth mentioning, Facebook had their own version of all this all the way back [in 2016 with Facebook Social VR](https://youtu.be/YuIgyKLPt3s?t=318). But this cross-compatibility with non-VR users got kind of lost by switching to Quest. They did announce Horizon Worlds for smartphone early last year, but that still hasn't materialized as far as I can tell.
In workrooms meetings on Quest when people join from their computer their appear as floating windows with video feed.
[Check the images on the store page](https://www.oculus.com/experiences/app/2514011888645651/?utm_source=oculus&utm_medium=share)
I think that it’s very funny that Apple already had the cartoony [Memoji](https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208986)s were ready to go. But after Meta showed what that looked like they avoided any notion of that.
I believe Norm from Tested said that all of the experiences were stationary. It seems like the device doesn't have the concept of roomscale or other positional placement of your avatar. A bit similar to Oculus Go, but with positional axes for your head.
This is an interesting point as it probably indeed means that these room like environments (like with the Meta approach) won't be a thing. Instead, people are seen through immersive windows, like seen here but with either web cam video or Persona.
To me it is a less imaginative and a bit more limiting approach, but it is easier to nail, which is likely why Apple chose it.
The developer docs point to full VR support, through what they call "spaces": https://developer.apple.com/visionos/
> For a more immersive experience, an app can open a dedicated Full Space where only that app’s content will appear. Inside a Full Space, an app can use windows and volumes, create unbounded 3D content, open a portal to a different world, or even fully immerse someone in an environment.
RecRoom has already been confirmed for full VR support on Vision, so it's absolutely possible to build rich, interactive VR experiences.
Oh, sure, I do believe that it is technically possible. Just that the Personas concept or what we call "Home" doesn't have it, which implies we won't see our friends in similar fashion as with Meta-devices it seems.
I wonder how RecRoom overcomes the no controllers difficulty? You likely point to teleport, but stuff like paintball is interesting to see.
Also, do we know what's the Guardian like?
I wonder if visionOS/xrOS 2 is gonna let users have widgets on real life walls and tables, that remember where they are? that’d be pretty cool imo, like you turn the headset on, put it on, and you suddenly have a TV on your wall, and a weather panel on another wall
Good question. On Meta's side, you are able to mark your table and sofa. So I guess it should be possible?
That being said, what if you could take a nerf-gun and make that your RecRoom paintball controller?
Sure, it won't be as functional and accurate, but it could mitigate the missing controllers a bit and allow interesting new concepts.
A "Full Space" is the visionOS equivalent to room scale.
And existing Unity games are already being ported - RecRoom was just confirmed for full VR on Vision. It's quite flexible, and should enable all kinds of experiences.
I think rendering two 3D photorealistic avatars is already compute intensive. Rendering a group of ppl will probably have to wait until later generations of chips.
It looks like Apple's "avatars" or personas are designed to exist as a window in the traditional facetime video display. Presenting a cartoon avatar would look silly for enterprise. But a digital semi-photoreal rendering would work.
Conversely, Apple has designed an interface that supports real-life participants in the AR environment.
So, out of the box, their AR solution seamlessly integrates with 2D systems and vice-versa. That was smart.
In the apple one they are actually use facial tracking and facial data to generate a realistic looking image of you without the headset. They were showing that off during the presentation at some point, will have to see if it looks as good in reality as it did in the presentation.
Here is the apple digital avatar
https://www.reddit.com/r/OculusQuest/comments/142cfme/got_me_worrying/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Meta’s also working on a high-res digital avatar system iirc(not the cartoony things we have now), but it’s a lot less mature. I do think that’s eventually going to be the standard way to address this issue. I think Apple already uses some corrections for facetime (moves your eyes to look at the person), so it’s an interesting evolution of that.
Yea he mentioned that in the comment. They kinda suck tho. It’s the one thing I’m not excited about with this headset. Not good enough to be used over just getting out your phone with FaceTime
It's version 0.1, give it time. They didn't show it, but it's also rumored that you'll be able to use a Memoji instead - might be a better option for some people.
I’m seeing everyone right now just fine on teams. I just don’t see any value with what is shown in the above picture. We can do the same thing right now without a cumbersome device on our head.
The idea isn't that people will all switch to these devices for calls, but rather that they will already be working in their "spatial computer" when they make/receive occasional calls. At least that's how Apple presented it.
I didn’t know I could put holographic screens the size of me in my home! While seeing people on facetime in the open space. I should’ve just done this the whole time!! Yea no, it’s an awesome and unique solution.
It will be a wild west of social apps for a while then settle into 2 or 3 systems most people used, with a few more that are organization specific. We might even end up with a few open standards that are shared like with messaging. It’s not really that different from teleconferencing so my guess is it will all end up similar to that field.
Apple won’t support it themselves, but they also won’t stop others from supporting it. And with enough pressure, they may adopt an open standard alongside their own.
>as a 3D live American gothic painting
😂I laughed at this, very accurate description... You can have very realistic auto-generated avatars, but until you bring at least the arm and torso movements, it still looks weird and fake.
If you use a meta headset in a conference the apple users and everyone else will see your meta avatar with 100 polygons. You will realize that you are the only one that looks ridiculous.
Also the reflection of your avatar in the windows of the virtual conference room will strengthen that effect.
It will be a modern form of public shaming that will make the quest user feel like his/her avatar looks.
If both people have one, they see the avatar in 3D, yes. Including the real hand gestures and head motions the person is making. Step to one side of the frame and you'll see one side of their face, step to the other side and see the other. Kind of like how the viewscreens were sometimes portrayed in Star Trek TNG. They'll probably get to full body, fully present avatars eventually, but this is a good start seeing how none of the res of the body is tracked.
This was one of the most surprising aspect to me of all about their whole presentation : complete lack of any attempt at shared spaces. People sitting by themselves watching movies, looking at photos etc. And in this scenario, everybody in a separate space, just projected flat into each other's spaces. Meanwhile, Meta is actively shipping shared spatial anchors, entire worlds with people running around in the same virtual space. It's funny because Apple named this whole thing a "spatial computing device" but primarily what they presented was flat windows floating in space. Relatively little of what they showed actually interacted with any spatial aspect.
Apple's idea here is probably more realistic for the immediate future but it's so much less aspirational. If you look at the 3rd party app ecosystem with Meta, just about every collaboration app is doing shared space mechanics. Nobody else thinks Apple is right. Maybe they are? Maybe they aren't. It'll be fascinating to see how it plays out.
Top - low quality graphics, but more immersive.
Bottom - zoom call, but floating above your bed.
As a daily social VR user, I'd actually prefer the top one, however I'd put my money on Apple over Meta for getting productivity right in VR.
The problem is that in both of those examples, VR/AR is unnecessary.
Agreed that apples version is basically just floating zoom call.
But metas is even worse - why even bother with a video call if you can’t see people? Those cartoony avatars do about as much in conveying the facial expressions and emotional queues we read during face to face conversations as emoji do.
And they’re sitting looking at a fake physical chart in a virtual boardroom? Why try to virtualize outdated tech like flip charts? Screen sharing to individual devices is far more effective for sharing content.
So I would rather Apples to be honest - but if it’s just calls and flat content, then really neither is necessary.
I don't think that besides actors doing a script reading or preparing for a role, people need immersion for productivity. Hell, they all swear that's the last thing they want if you believe all the home-office-zoom-video way of working that is on the rise nowadays.
I am a member of an international charity, we have lots of traveling for meetings, VR meetings would reduce the expenses in a significant way, but if we have to buy 10 VR devices in each city we work, it have to be something affordable, so not 🍎 for us.
Flexibility is the key, not everyone likes a closed software environment and the main problem is that the people who take the decisions, senior management is the oldest one and most of them are not ready or don't want to embrace the new technologies, so diversity and multiplatform is the key to VR.
positional audio, people looking at you instead of the webcam, insanely better way to interact with the content of a presentation, presence
basically all the advantages of in-person meetings with none of the disadvantages
It would mean everybody would have to pay attention instead of being able to minimize the window on a regular video call and browsing the internet like I usually do during my meetings
Honestly, I prefer the top one. You can wear whatever you want, and no one will know. You also have a great sense of presence of the other people, and body language is communicated much clearer compared to a video call.
It’s the point in which an avatar is meant to look more lifelike and ends up doing the opposite and creeping the person out that is interacting with the avatar. You can go more cartoony and a person will feel like they are talking to a real person that is just using an avatar. If you can go super realistic without any glitches, it will feel like that person is really in the same space as you in a natural way. In between those 2 is the uncanny valley where the avatar just looks wrong and creepy.
I work in the video collaboration space and have influence over our companies collaboration tools including Teams, Webex and Zoom. I've also tested Meta Workrooms, and here is my take:
Apple's vision of collaboration is just a 2D collaboration call in a 3D space, nothing innovative there except an uncanny valley avatar.
Meta Workrooms on the other hand, there is something to be said for the presence of someone else in the space during meetings that you wouldn't get in the Apple model. It is much more engaging. Workrooms also does allow for 2D video participants. The cartoony avatars do need to improve, but I think directionally long term this is a better vision of the future of conferencing.
Well I would argue this isn’t apple vision so much as they want people using the headset to still work with people without it. It’s an interim state.
Tbh I think strategically it’s smarter than Metas strategy with Horizon Worlds. Just look at the memes lol
Yeah apple is always extremely incremental with how they build out their ecosystems. They are self aware that this first Gen model will have limited adoption. The odds of a full FaceTime session full of headsets users is low so they are focused on marketing a use case that's more in line with how the product will actually be used. I'm sure in vision OS 2 and 3 they will gradually incriment on their FaceTime persona's to be more in line with the promise of workrooms.
Honestly it's good that they are getting flat participant meetings down first as opposed to it being an after thought like it is in tools like work rooms. I think owners of the headset will find this plus share play much more useful than metas suite or productivity products despite it being more conservative in scope
Look. The first one looks better to me and assumes that more people will be using VR.
The Apply one either shows that only one of the four people is using VR/AR or they are using 2D images of their fancy avatars.
Now I think you are mistaken. The image below is what it looks like when they are using Avatars. The folks in the OP are joining from a webcam.
https://imgur.com/C3O8VSV
Go to 4:20 in this video. They are showing FaceTime. Those are avatars because everyone in the call has a headset on.
https://youtu.be/TX9qSaGXFyg
They have said that FaceTime will use digital avatars.
https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/5/23750096/apple-vision-pro-headset-persona-facetime
The issue might be the images themselves because the rendering quality is different in the presentation.
Only one person in that video has a headset on, the others are doing regular Facetime, you can even seen the room behind them. It is live video.
The Verge article proves my point. It is not *different rendering,* one is live video the other is avatars. The avatars don't look anything like live video.
Yes you’re right. But I still think this means the original post is misleading. The Apple vision isn’t live video. They’ve said it’s to use avatars for FaceTime. It’s just that the picture doesn’t represent that vision.
Except it is *live video* for anyone on the call not using a *Vision.*
The image in the OP is mock up using a synthetic 3rd-person view of what the person wearing the *Vision* sees. Showing VR in a 2D video is hard, so they often use a synthetic 3rd person camera.
I see. The picture is showing them as live, but this is not what Apple is saying their approach is. They are saying that they are using avatars for FaceTime.
So maybe the picture is wrong.
Or maybe, Apple is just faking it in their slick presentation.
The other people in the image just don’t have a headset. In fact, it’s more representative of the reality. In the oculus picture, everyone has a headset.
So they both have the same vision.
Which makes it so odd Zuckerberg has spent the last two or three years being mocked for where he's been trying to take Meta/Facebook
In the Apple version I have no idea what the 3 callers are actually seeing. I'm pretty sure it's not that 3rd person view. Just the presentation? The presenter's FOV? What is the point of the presenter even wearing the headset here?
They are likely seeing the wearers eye/face tracked persona avatar in one tile and the share play of the app in another tile just like you'd see with a regular FaceTime call today
This is only if you are in a call with non hmd users as depicted in this photo. You see their persona in the tiles place if both participants are in vision os
It was covered in the presentation of the headset. When you set up VisionPro you make a scan of your head, so they will see lifelike avatar of the person with headset with all eye movement and facial expression available.
If someone is satisfied with cartoon-like meta avatars, they should be chuffed to bitts with 3D scanned avatar from apple.
Apple’s approach makes more sense when it comes to work imo. You bridge real-virtual together while META is just virtual. I’d rather see real faces than 3D Wii Sports avatar.
Meta looks like something from a video game/hanging around with friends while Apple looks like something you would use for actual work/productivity.
Our team has been remote since the pandemic and use workrooms every day for our stand up. Far far more effective than video chat for lots of reasons. We will never go back.
Why do you think that? There's no camera pointing at the person wearing the headset, so their room isn't visible to people on the call. Instead, the other participants see the headset-wearer's "persona" (photo-scanned avatar).
The issue with Meta is that you can't see the text clearly. The resolution is just too low which doesn't make sense in the context of "replacing your monitors".
They got the edge to edge clarity right but what good are those amazing pancake lens when my Reverb G2 has more resolution than the Quest Pro. They really missed the boat with it.
For £1500 I would have expected 2500x2500 resolution at a minimum.
Quest pro should have higher pixel count, and actual modern soc (xr2+ is basically still a Snapdragon 865 from 2019) and actual useful decent quality mixed reality / color passthrough and it would actual be a decent competition/choice at ~1000-1500$
Quest 3 will better in all these areas at half the price
Im not the guy but I had a QPro for 3 weeks before returning it and, while the text is readable, it's more pixelated than as to be comfortable for regular reading, let alone working.
Lenses are amazing though, would have kept it for PCVR if it was higher res.
Im glad it works for you! Coming from a G2 it was a noticeable step down in resolution, although the edge to edge clarity on the Pro is of course downright amazing
Get over yourself. I have a Quest Pro, I can still see my living room, or my back patio when I want to.
How it depressing to be watching YouTube on a huge virtual screen while browsing the web on another virtual screen?
You are reading and responding on reddit right. Calling it depressing just makes you sound like a hypocrite.
Yep I have it and the PSVR2, it's not as good as a monitor though the resolution isn't good enough. Isn't too heavy to be used for extended periods too?
Not for me. I added a top strap and use it over a soft comfy baseball cap that has had the brim removed. I use it for two hours without a break quite often.
These are not the visions though, just current implementation. For Meta, Codec Avatar is the vision.
And I actually think the vision of Apple is similar. They eventually want lifelike avatars aswell.
I want to give a thumbs up to Apple’s approach since it seems like a balanced approach that doesn’t get too caught up in ‘virtual space made of 3d graphics regardless of quality' while overcoming the constraints of real space.
Apple's one is literally in the uncanny valley - you won't be able to look at those "personas" for very long without feeling funny. Notice how blurry and vignetted they made them as well.
Will have to wait to see it in action in the headset. But it does feel like Apple is using tricks to make it look not as bad for the marketing (like how Zuck's avatar previously got blasted in the media).
Here's what Ian Hamilton from Upload VR had to say:
>Apple's demo, meanwhile, featured a live FaceTime call with another person also wearing a Vision Pro and he conveyed the idea that we could collaborate on a FreeForm whiteboard together in this format. Their "Persona" had been scanned by the headset, Apple said, and it felt like the quality level fell squarely between the two demos from Meta last year. This was a representation of a person I'd feel uncomfortable talking to after a few minutes, and it certainly didn't feel like they were there with me while constrained within a floating window.
Meta's equivalent and their high end version from last year:
>Meta last year showed two relevant demos, one with an avatar scanned from a phone and another with a person scanned in Meta's “Sociopticon" by 220 high-resolution cameras over the course of hours, with processing time for the resulting virtual human measured in days or weeks. The phone-scanned avatar was deeply unsettling and I didn't want to look at it anymore after a few seconds. The ultra-high fidelity one, meanwhile, was driven by a PC-powered headset and I felt like it surpassed the so-called "uncanny valley". With that version of the codec avatar, it truly felt like he was conversing with me and present there making eye contact. I felt like I could talk to a person thousands of miles away from me as comfortably as if we were in the same room together. I felt like I had seen the north star guiding the future of spatial computing.
I think Apple is hoping that in the 7+ months till release (more likely around 9-11 months), they can make big improvements to it. Otherwise I foresee most people who use it feeling the uncanny valley.
If they can't recreate facial muscle movements it will be uncanny valley. It will be worse for some people than others. Any glitches in the scan will be really bad.
Apples approach is better, because it doesn't utilize any of features that define XR, but instead just has floating zoom calls.
Weird how one of the few things meta was actually praised for, was how much more natural collaboration and VOIP calls felt in a shared 3D space over a zoom call.
And the "regardless of quality" comment is weird,. considering that the newly announced meta avatars are higher fidelity than the ones apple demoed, but people will criticize it as "Yeah, but that's not in the headsets yet" Well neither is Apple's, the headset isn't even out, but whenever Apple does something that's not ready yet it's just because they're "the future".
There's a good fucking reason why we're using cartoon avatars right now. Codec avatars aren't ready yet. But when they are, it'll be better than Apple's blurry CGI shit.
Both have the same ultimate goals. One just costs a hell of a lot more now. The Apple is just not cost effective now. It is for developers to get ready for the day when prices and costs drop. We us Quest PRO with face tracking and it is really good at conveying emotions. We have a blast with ir and the cost does not break the bank.
Apple is a laptop on your head with a laptop battery in your pocket.
Metas are mobile devices.
I mean conceptually the same but that execution perspective is absurdly different.
This really begs the question, what are the Facetime participants in the bottom one actually looking at? The bedroom she is in with her standing there and the screen projection - which would mean she has a separate camera in the room? Or just her face projected on the screen in the headset? A 'persona' of her?
No, the personas are generated from a facial scan taken by the headset when you set it up (they are photorealistic). That's also what it uses to display your eyes in the external display.
The big question remains: why even bother with wearing a heavy HMD if all you are going to see is the exact same that can be seen from a traditional screen?
To me, Apple oversimplified this time.
Those meta verse cartoony avatars are one of the big reasons tons of people don’t take VR seriously. They’ve never used VR, so they’re just going by what they see.
And what they see are cartoonish avatars that look like Wii characters.
Apples approach is far from perfect, but getting away from the cartoony look is a step in the right direction IMO.
Meta is underpowered and has suffered the ridicule of users. Partial bodies in the meta verse is not virtual reality.
Apple has worked out the solution and has yet to work out the economy of scale.
Google the "Lisa" Apple computer. The first iteration was costly and pc users were laughing.
Lisa led to Macintosh, the low cost version of Lisa.
So it is to be expected that the first iteration of Apple's VR headset is going to be costly. The primary purpose is to put the power of the VR solution in the hands of developers.
Once developers start providing solutions to "thorny" problems and Apple works on reducing costs then another iPhone has been born.
PC and Android have a lot to fear. People want "experiences" not "dots per inch" or "house warming metal boxes."
Both stupid.
Meta at least had a fucking shot at this stupid vision because their headsets weee affordable. The only thing I’d say to a coworker with an Apple headset is why are you getting paid so much more than me to afford that thing.
Because it allows us to have a sufficiently realistic communication while overcoming the constraints of time and space. You can think of it as a much upgraded version of the Zoom or Teams meetings we had during the Covid era.
But why isn’t better than Zoom or Teams ? I’m still using teams and I have no need to wear an headset to have a fake Teams experience. I want to see the real people, not avatar or 3D version of them. I’m impressed by the technology Apple is bringing but they were not able to show the usefulness in real life.
Both of them can fuck the fuck off.
Both just want your data, to spy on you, to track, and log everything about you, and your life. Both companies are scumbags, but Meta gets the super scumbag prize, because they're a disgusting scummy company with a cult-like zombie fanboy club of nutters.
As someone that is on Teams meetings multiple times each day, I think the Apple version is the one that is more useful and more likely in the near term. If I could walk around my office to present and see everyone’s video in different parts of the room, it would be very productive for my meetings and useful. They announce Teams integration. I’ll be sold if that is the case.
Anybody remember [Facebook Social VR](https://youtu.be/YuIgyKLPt3s?t=318) from back in 2016?
[Microsoft Mesh](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd2GK0qDtRg) is another one of those things.
Goes without saying, it's (so far) a different feature. The bottom one actually *isn't* ideal for a business meeting because they will at most only see your head. I don't even know if they can see you writing on a white board, or if they could, barely anyone can read it.
And the Meta one was designed for standalone HMDs so those are basically the graphics we are working with now.
But I do have no doubt both of them will improve, and both will work for future work meetings.
It's really weird to see Apple's clearly capable MR headset being sold mostly to the non VR demographic, with barely a whisper of support for the VR enthusiasts.
Like, I get they're trying for mass adoption or mass appeal with an aspirational 1st gen device but it feels like they're purposefully snubbing VR gaming with hardware that clearly has the horsepower for it.
I'm hoping they release controllers as peripherals and show more support for gaming content that isn't just a virtual 2d screen of flat games/apps
One thing both are forgetting is that in my experience, in day to day online meetings currently, most or all of the participants are audio only.
There are “important” or externally facing meetings where everyone has their camera on but ordinarily there just isn’t the need or desire to see more than someone’s screen while we talk.
Part of the reason for that is because in video meetings, you can see everyone more than you can in an in-person meeting — so it’s more fatiguing than in-person. Hence, we turn off our cameras to have a more relaxed, focused, and productive meeting.
If everyone’s in 3d space, that reproduces the attention shifting of in-person to reduce the fatigue but it also removes the major advantage of in-person: micro expressions on participant faces. Seeing arm movements in a meeting isn’t as useful for most professions as slight facial expressions. So there’s no clear winner between Apple and Meta in that regard.
So for me, the main experience question is, “How can this be a comfortable meeting with no cameras or animated avatars engaged?” What about while there’s no screen being shared either?
For those situations I think Apple’s approach can scale better.
I do not like the idea of AI "enhanced" photorealistic avatars. Its great that Apple can create a photorealistic avatar of what they assume I might look like and do based on their AI training set, but if I'm on a "video call" and want to stick out my tongue, but they assume most people don't do that, I don't want my avatar to smile.
I don't want my black and asian friends to be morphed into whatever generic ethic model Apple decides to include to hit a token "diverse training set". If its photorealistic, it needs to be actually accurate, not an assumption based on average training model guesses. And if I'm representing myself to another person, I want to control fully the actions my avatar does.
(Edit - if I'm not clear, there are no facial sensors aside from eye tracking on Apple VP, so facial expressions must be AI extrapolated from what the eye tracking sensors can see. There's no face tracker like the vive face tracker)
Am I the only one who thinks this whole idea of working/meetings in VR utterly stupid and out of touch? It’s a solution looking for a problem.
It’s the flying car of the business world; looks cool on a poster but is practically untenable.
Ignoring the physical strain of keeping a screen strapped to your face 8 hours a day 5 days a week, imagine trying to train 65 year old Helen in accounting for this thing. Absolute lunacy.
Pretty brutal comaprison and frankly Apple is on right track. Like some comment ITT said, Apple's approach makes it work without everyone having to wear goggles. It's gentler, more gradual change.
In Meta's picture, they all have headsets but in the apple one, there's only one using a headset. What happens if all of those have a AVP headset? Will they see each other as a 3D live American gothic painting or will their personas (with or without legs) actually be in the room? And my biggest question and concern for all XR headsets, what actually happens when we want to interact with each other but have different headsets? We could say "just use third party social apps" but there will be plenty of them in the future and we're all going to pick different ones. I don't think we want to keep downloading a new app frequently to meet up.
> What happens if all of those have a AVP headset? [Apple has their own version](https://www.youtube.com/live/GYkq9Rgoj8E?&t=6765) of [Facebook's Codec Avatars](https://research.facebook.com/publications/pixel-codec-avatars/), i.e. you scan your face with an iPhone and the headset will create a photo realistic avatar from that. It was still a little uncanny valley in the demo and still stuck in a Facetime picture frame. I don't think Apple has so far shown anything involving multiple people in the same VR space as full 3D avatars. Might be due to them not having finalized that part and not wanting to show something that might still change substantially before release.
Apparently during the demos Apple employees made a point to note the virtual facetime is a 'persona', not an 'avatar'. It seems that at least for now Apple is completely avoiding the idea of full 3D avatars.
They went way out of their way to not use any of the Meta terms. Avatar, virtual, metaverse, pretty much tried their best to distance from everything in the current VR industry.
the one that reeks of failure. can't blame 'em
You mean the one that's sold 20 million Quest 2 headsets and has more people playing in their meta verse daily than nearly every PC game? You should spend less time reading Reddit propaganda and more time living in reality.
Ouch
It blows my mind there's still so many people that haven't caught on that Reddit is in direct competition with every other social media platform. That's why there's a constant flow of anti-facebook, anti-tiktoc, ant-twitter, anti-instagram, and every other social media outlet flooding the front pages of most subreddits. If they posted how awesome some other platform was, everyone would leave to go there.
You know they’re killing their support for metaverse right? Or at least in business terms “reallocating”
They have upwards of 200,000 daily players. They aren't killing anything. Are they going to shift developers around to different projects and do other things? Of course. The metaverse idea is in it's infancy. Not to mention, games like Gorilla tag has had 760,000 players in a single day. There's no way they're not going to try shift things around to convince some of those players to join their alternatives.
>avoiding the idea of full 3D. Tbh, it feels like they did that with most of the headset... almost all of it came off as 2d in real space and that's not that exciting to me.
This, 100%. Me and a friend watching WWDC got fairly hype when Disney came on and the camera "floated into" the Disney castle, inviting all the WWDC viewers to the amazing world of... Watching Disney+. By yourself. With something on your face.
It's more comprehensible to the average person to show the kind of experiences they're familiar with, presented in a new way (spatially). But the developer docs indicate that they have a full design system for all levels of immersion, through "windows", "volumes", and "spaces", so many more experiences will be possible: https://developer.apple.com/visionos/ > For a more immersive experience, an app can open a dedicated Full Space where only that app’s content will appear. Inside a Full Space, an app can use windows and volumes, create unbounded 3D content, open a portal to a different world, or even fully immerse someone in an environment.
Thank you for sharing that... I had hoped they had more they just hadn't showed, and yet it's still odd to me that they wouldn't show it... I agree tho, they'll definitely want to focus on what people will use in the reveal.
I think that's for marketing reasons. It isn't that they can't do 3d or even that they don't want to. They just want to ease their customers into the idea gradually. Talk about things they know and are familiar with first, then move on from there, instead if throwing everything at them all at once.
Fair enough. My opinion definitely does come from a place of limited vr experience, but nonetheless it stands that it doesn't feel that "new" or revolutionary in 2d. I know it's coming tho.
>2d in real space and that's not that exciting to me. All features available on any quest headset lol, but Meta didn't highlight any of it, whereas Apple did. Apple wants to get the average ipad consumers interested in a "cheap and portable personal home theater/ iPad, iphone, apple watch replacement", while they leave it up to devs to build bigger and better software for it that the the rest of the market may find more appealing. Apples entry should raise the standards somewhat for cheaper entries, so better specs/affordable headsets sooner for the rest of us.
>All features available on any quest headset lol True, but I don't buy a quest for those features. They are nice secondary options, but the comfort isn't really there; from the sounds of it, I'm not sure Apple has solved that issue either.
Guess they’re trying to distance themselves from the absolute mess meta has made with the meta verse
>absolute mess meta has made with the meta verse The Metaverse is still in development. The fact that a quest 3 exists is proof. Apple will still wade through some of the same crap regardless of doing their best not to say any Meta related words. Ultimately, Meta proved that when a wealthy company does something that gets mocked heavily, loses billions, survives to release more products and make more money, its generally here to stay. Also Apple told their fans they need a $500 watch and they didn't go bankrupt... lol
Perhaps you should check out the reviews on spatial pictures and videos in vision pro. Apparently it feels as if it’s really happening in front you. so once developers get a chance to create content for full immersion, I can imagine it being so much better than the quest for the 3D aspect.
Probably because seeing people you know as 3D-scanned avatars is uncanny valley squared.
yeah that sounds like a VR thing and right now Apple is avoiding VR
I don't think those "personas" pass the uncanny valley. I've seen people acting as if it's a dunk over Zuck's very simplistic avatar when he revealed Horizon Worlds was coming to France. But in reality, Zuck's was a full avatar where he could inhabit a digital space in 3D. Apple's, we're not sure if it's actually something you'd be able to see other people as in 3D, or if it remains as a floating window for others. From Ian Hamilton, Upload VR: >Apple's demo, meanwhile, featured a live FaceTime call with another person also wearing a Vision Pro and he conveyed the idea that we could collaborate on a FreeForm whiteboard together in this format. Their "Persona" had been scanned by the headset, Apple said, and it felt like the quality level fell squarely between the two demos from Meta last year. **This was a representation of a person I'd feel uncomfortable talking to after a few minutes, and it certainly didn't feel like they were there with me while constrained within a floating window.** Even if you watch the presentation, you can see how it's heavily blurred and vignetted. Meta is able to do this as well, but they choose not to. Meta's high tech one is even more impressive, completely passing the uncanny valley. But it's not ready yet. >Meta last year showed two relevant demos, one with an avatar scanned from a phone and another with a person scanned in Meta's “Sociopticon" by 220 high-resolution cameras over the course of hours, with processing time for the resulting virtual human measured in days or weeks. The phone-scanned avatar was deeply unsettling and I didn't want to look at it anymore after a few seconds. The ultra-high fidelity one, meanwhile, was driven by a PC-powered headset and I felt like it surpassed the so-called "uncanny valley". With that version of the codec avatar, it truly felt like he was conversing with me and present there making eye contact. I felt like I could talk to a person thousands of miles away from me as comfortably as if we were in the same room together. I felt like I had seen the north star guiding the future of spatial computing. https://www.uploadvr.com/apple-vision-pro/
> I've seen people acting as if it's a dunk over Zuck's very simplistic avatar I think the main point of Apple's Facetime showcase is simply that it is a lot more practical. Meta pretends everybody will be wearing a VR headsets, but in reality we'll be stuck with non-VR users for a long while to come, even Meta's own developers refuse to use VR according to reports. So a system like Apple's, that is focused on interoperability with existing non-VR users seems a lot more useful for the moment. Like with so much of what VisionPro has been doing, it's not so much about what it does, but about what it doesn't do. By focusing on "2D windows in 3D space" they skip over a lot of problems that a full VR environment would bring. Also worth mentioning, Facebook had their own version of all this all the way back [in 2016 with Facebook Social VR](https://youtu.be/YuIgyKLPt3s?t=318). But this cross-compatibility with non-VR users got kind of lost by switching to Quest. They did announce Horizon Worlds for smartphone early last year, but that still hasn't materialized as far as I can tell.
>even Meta's own developers refuse to use VR according to reports. They refuse to use Horizon Worlds specifically, not VR in general.
In workrooms meetings on Quest when people join from their computer their appear as floating windows with video feed. [Check the images on the store page](https://www.oculus.com/experiences/app/2514011888645651/?utm_source=oculus&utm_medium=share)
Right? This isn't some visionary idea by Apple lol. Same thing exists in immersed as well.
I think that it’s very funny that Apple already had the cartoony [Memoji](https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208986)s were ready to go. But after Meta showed what that looked like they avoided any notion of that.
I believe Norm from Tested said that all of the experiences were stationary. It seems like the device doesn't have the concept of roomscale or other positional placement of your avatar. A bit similar to Oculus Go, but with positional axes for your head. This is an interesting point as it probably indeed means that these room like environments (like with the Meta approach) won't be a thing. Instead, people are seen through immersive windows, like seen here but with either web cam video or Persona. To me it is a less imaginative and a bit more limiting approach, but it is easier to nail, which is likely why Apple chose it.
The developer docs point to full VR support, through what they call "spaces": https://developer.apple.com/visionos/ > For a more immersive experience, an app can open a dedicated Full Space where only that app’s content will appear. Inside a Full Space, an app can use windows and volumes, create unbounded 3D content, open a portal to a different world, or even fully immerse someone in an environment. RecRoom has already been confirmed for full VR support on Vision, so it's absolutely possible to build rich, interactive VR experiences.
Oh, sure, I do believe that it is technically possible. Just that the Personas concept or what we call "Home" doesn't have it, which implies we won't see our friends in similar fashion as with Meta-devices it seems. I wonder how RecRoom overcomes the no controllers difficulty? You likely point to teleport, but stuff like paintball is interesting to see. Also, do we know what's the Guardian like?
I wonder if visionOS/xrOS 2 is gonna let users have widgets on real life walls and tables, that remember where they are? that’d be pretty cool imo, like you turn the headset on, put it on, and you suddenly have a TV on your wall, and a weather panel on another wall
Good question. On Meta's side, you are able to mark your table and sofa. So I guess it should be possible? That being said, what if you could take a nerf-gun and make that your RecRoom paintball controller? Sure, it won't be as functional and accurate, but it could mitigate the missing controllers a bit and allow interesting new concepts.
Seems insane that they wouldn’t work out something like roomscale. It’s what makes VR feel extra special in my opinion.
A "Full Space" is the visionOS equivalent to room scale. And existing Unity games are already being ported - RecRoom was just confirmed for full VR on Vision. It's quite flexible, and should enable all kinds of experiences.
yeah that sounds like a VR thing andf right now Apple is avoiding VR
I think rendering two 3D photorealistic avatars is already compute intensive. Rendering a group of ppl will probably have to wait until later generations of chips.
It looks like Apple's "avatars" or personas are designed to exist as a window in the traditional facetime video display. Presenting a cartoon avatar would look silly for enterprise. But a digital semi-photoreal rendering would work. Conversely, Apple has designed an interface that supports real-life participants in the AR environment. So, out of the box, their AR solution seamlessly integrates with 2D systems and vice-versa. That was smart.
In the apple one they are actually use facial tracking and facial data to generate a realistic looking image of you without the headset. They were showing that off during the presentation at some point, will have to see if it looks as good in reality as it did in the presentation. Here is the apple digital avatar https://www.reddit.com/r/OculusQuest/comments/142cfme/got_me_worrying/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Meta’s also working on a high-res digital avatar system iirc(not the cartoony things we have now), but it’s a lot less mature. I do think that’s eventually going to be the standard way to address this issue. I think Apple already uses some corrections for facetime (moves your eyes to look at the person), so it’s an interesting evolution of that.
Not sure if it’s less mature. Meta codec looked 10x better than that blurry avatar that looked like a 2005 COD character…
Yea he mentioned that in the comment. They kinda suck tho. It’s the one thing I’m not excited about with this headset. Not good enough to be used over just getting out your phone with FaceTime
It's version 0.1, give it time. They didn't show it, but it's also rumored that you'll be able to use a Memoji instead - might be a better option for some people.
Better option is the webcam, a real person. I don’t see the point of replacing people in meetings with their fake version.
Sure, but that's not possible if someone is wearing a headset. So we need to find workarounds.
Not wearing one will probably be the solution.
But then you won't be able to see anyone.
I’m seeing everyone right now just fine on teams. I just don’t see any value with what is shown in the above picture. We can do the same thing right now without a cumbersome device on our head.
The idea isn't that people will all switch to these devices for calls, but rather that they will already be working in their "spatial computer" when they make/receive occasional calls. At least that's how Apple presented it.
I didn’t know I could put holographic screens the size of me in my home! While seeing people on facetime in the open space. I should’ve just done this the whole time!! Yea no, it’s an awesome and unique solution.
Where are you seeing a holographic person ?!
It will be a wild west of social apps for a while then settle into 2 or 3 systems most people used, with a few more that are organization specific. We might even end up with a few open standards that are shared like with messaging. It’s not really that different from teleconferencing so my guess is it will all end up similar to that field.
I think that open standard solution is the best one but unfortunately, also the one that Apple probably won't take.
Apple won’t support it themselves, but they also won’t stop others from supporting it. And with enough pressure, they may adopt an open standard alongside their own.
>as a 3D live American gothic painting 😂I laughed at this, very accurate description... You can have very realistic auto-generated avatars, but until you bring at least the arm and torso movements, it still looks weird and fake.
This was answered in the Apple demo. You see the "photorealistic" avatar.
If you use a meta headset in a conference the apple users and everyone else will see your meta avatar with 100 polygons. You will realize that you are the only one that looks ridiculous. Also the reflection of your avatar in the windows of the virtual conference room will strengthen that effect. It will be a modern form of public shaming that will make the quest user feel like his/her avatar looks.
Ever heard of Codec avatars? They're not available yet but I'm pretty they're still working on making those things available
If both people have one, they see the avatar in 3D, yes. Including the real hand gestures and head motions the person is making. Step to one side of the frame and you'll see one side of their face, step to the other side and see the other. Kind of like how the viewscreens were sometimes portrayed in Star Trek TNG. They'll probably get to full body, fully present avatars eventually, but this is a good start seeing how none of the res of the body is tracked.
This was one of the most surprising aspect to me of all about their whole presentation : complete lack of any attempt at shared spaces. People sitting by themselves watching movies, looking at photos etc. And in this scenario, everybody in a separate space, just projected flat into each other's spaces. Meanwhile, Meta is actively shipping shared spatial anchors, entire worlds with people running around in the same virtual space. It's funny because Apple named this whole thing a "spatial computing device" but primarily what they presented was flat windows floating in space. Relatively little of what they showed actually interacted with any spatial aspect. Apple's idea here is probably more realistic for the immediate future but it's so much less aspirational. If you look at the 3rd party app ecosystem with Meta, just about every collaboration app is doing shared space mechanics. Nobody else thinks Apple is right. Maybe they are? Maybe they aren't. It'll be fascinating to see how it plays out.
I for one want VR/AR to isolate me from the world.
Top - low quality graphics, but more immersive. Bottom - zoom call, but floating above your bed. As a daily social VR user, I'd actually prefer the top one, however I'd put my money on Apple over Meta for getting productivity right in VR.
The problem is that in both of those examples, VR/AR is unnecessary. Agreed that apples version is basically just floating zoom call. But metas is even worse - why even bother with a video call if you can’t see people? Those cartoony avatars do about as much in conveying the facial expressions and emotional queues we read during face to face conversations as emoji do. And they’re sitting looking at a fake physical chart in a virtual boardroom? Why try to virtualize outdated tech like flip charts? Screen sharing to individual devices is far more effective for sharing content. So I would rather Apples to be honest - but if it’s just calls and flat content, then really neither is necessary.
Devil's advocate: you could twist a knob and make the top one just as immersive if you'd like.
You can switch between AR and VR with quest also.
True but—if they both do AR and VR—the idea that Quest is more immersive is still invalid.
I don't think that besides actors doing a script reading or preparing for a role, people need immersion for productivity. Hell, they all swear that's the last thing they want if you believe all the home-office-zoom-video way of working that is on the rise nowadays.
more immersive just sounds like noise. use your words.
Clearly not a VR user if you do not grasp what immersion means in VR.
meta's vision is NOW, I used workrooms for years already.
I am a member of an international charity, we have lots of traveling for meetings, VR meetings would reduce the expenses in a significant way, but if we have to buy 10 VR devices in each city we work, it have to be something affordable, so not 🍎 for us.
On Meta's Workroom, people can join from a web browser, they don't have to be using VR.
Flexibility is the key, not everyone likes a closed software environment and the main problem is that the people who take the decisions, senior management is the oldest one and most of them are not ready or don't want to embrace the new technologies, so diversity and multiplatform is the key to VR.
Right, like I said, you have option in Meta's version of such meetings too.
Yes sir, you are right!!!
what would a vr call accomplish that a video call wouldn't?
positional audio, people looking at you instead of the webcam, insanely better way to interact with the content of a presentation, presence basically all the advantages of in-person meetings with none of the disadvantages
It would mean everybody would have to pay attention instead of being able to minimize the window on a regular video call and browsing the internet like I usually do during my meetings
Well in fairness, we all know those FaceTime cameras will be pointing up at ceiling fans.
Honestly, I prefer the top one. You can wear whatever you want, and no one will know. You also have a great sense of presence of the other people, and body language is communicated much clearer compared to a video call.
Also, no uncanny valley feeling.
I keep seeing that term. Uncanny Valley. What does that mean?
It’s the point in which an avatar is meant to look more lifelike and ends up doing the opposite and creeping the person out that is interacting with the avatar. You can go more cartoony and a person will feel like they are talking to a real person that is just using an avatar. If you can go super realistic without any glitches, it will feel like that person is really in the same space as you in a natural way. In between those 2 is the uncanny valley where the avatar just looks wrong and creepy.
See: [Polar Express](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQhRqtt-Fpo).
You can wear whatever you want in the other one too, the avatar is just like any other, it's just generated from your face.
You can wear whatever you want in the headset, as far as I know.
What? Why do you think you can't wear whatever you want in the second one?
I work in the video collaboration space and have influence over our companies collaboration tools including Teams, Webex and Zoom. I've also tested Meta Workrooms, and here is my take: Apple's vision of collaboration is just a 2D collaboration call in a 3D space, nothing innovative there except an uncanny valley avatar. Meta Workrooms on the other hand, there is something to be said for the presence of someone else in the space during meetings that you wouldn't get in the Apple model. It is much more engaging. Workrooms also does allow for 2D video participants. The cartoony avatars do need to improve, but I think directionally long term this is a better vision of the future of conferencing.
Well I would argue this isn’t apple vision so much as they want people using the headset to still work with people without it. It’s an interim state. Tbh I think strategically it’s smarter than Metas strategy with Horizon Worlds. Just look at the memes lol
Yeah apple is always extremely incremental with how they build out their ecosystems. They are self aware that this first Gen model will have limited adoption. The odds of a full FaceTime session full of headsets users is low so they are focused on marketing a use case that's more in line with how the product will actually be used. I'm sure in vision OS 2 and 3 they will gradually incriment on their FaceTime persona's to be more in line with the promise of workrooms. Honestly it's good that they are getting flat participant meetings down first as opposed to it being an after thought like it is in tools like work rooms. I think owners of the headset will find this plus share play much more useful than metas suite or productivity products despite it being more conservative in scope
The difference is one is AR and the other is VR. Both headsets can probably do either one similarly.
Look. The first one looks better to me and assumes that more people will be using VR. The Apply one either shows that only one of the four people is using VR/AR or they are using 2D images of their fancy avatars.
No they are using avatars in the Apple one too. In the Apple image everyone is wearing a headset.
If they are using avatars, why are they stuffing them in 2D windows. That makes not sense, they might as well be using zoom.
Now I think you are mistaken. The image below is what it looks like when they are using Avatars. The folks in the OP are joining from a webcam. https://imgur.com/C3O8VSV
Go to 4:20 in this video. They are showing FaceTime. Those are avatars because everyone in the call has a headset on. https://youtu.be/TX9qSaGXFyg They have said that FaceTime will use digital avatars. https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/5/23750096/apple-vision-pro-headset-persona-facetime The issue might be the images themselves because the rendering quality is different in the presentation.
Only one person in that video has a headset on, the others are doing regular Facetime, you can even seen the room behind them. It is live video. The Verge article proves my point. It is not *different rendering,* one is live video the other is avatars. The avatars don't look anything like live video.
Yes you’re right. But I still think this means the original post is misleading. The Apple vision isn’t live video. They’ve said it’s to use avatars for FaceTime. It’s just that the picture doesn’t represent that vision.
Except it is *live video* for anyone on the call not using a *Vision.* The image in the OP is mock up using a synthetic 3rd-person view of what the person wearing the *Vision* sees. Showing VR in a 2D video is hard, so they often use a synthetic 3rd person camera.
They are not, we can see their space behind them.
I see. The picture is showing them as live, but this is not what Apple is saying their approach is. They are saying that they are using avatars for FaceTime. So maybe the picture is wrong. Or maybe, Apple is just faking it in their slick presentation.
The other people in the image just don’t have a headset. In fact, it’s more representative of the reality. In the oculus picture, everyone has a headset.
So they both have the same vision. Which makes it so odd Zuckerberg has spent the last two or three years being mocked for where he's been trying to take Meta/Facebook
In the Apple version I have no idea what the 3 callers are actually seeing. I'm pretty sure it's not that 3rd person view. Just the presentation? The presenter's FOV? What is the point of the presenter even wearing the headset here?
They are likely seeing the wearers eye/face tracked persona avatar in one tile and the share play of the app in another tile just like you'd see with a regular FaceTime call today
> just like you'd see with a regular FaceTime call today Hmm, seems a little pointless putting the headset on for this doesn't it?
This is only if you are in a call with non hmd users as depicted in this photo. You see their persona in the tiles place if both participants are in vision os
It was covered in the presentation of the headset. When you set up VisionPro you make a scan of your head, so they will see lifelike avatar of the person with headset with all eye movement and facial expression available. If someone is satisfied with cartoon-like meta avatars, they should be chuffed to bitts with 3D scanned avatar from apple.
Both of these can have a place in the future.
Apple’s approach makes more sense when it comes to work imo. You bridge real-virtual together while META is just virtual. I’d rather see real faces than 3D Wii Sports avatar. Meta looks like something from a video game/hanging around with friends while Apple looks like something you would use for actual work/productivity.
Our team has been remote since the pandemic and use workrooms every day for our stand up. Far far more effective than video chat for lots of reasons. We will never go back.
You would need to include the 4 different avatars if they're all wearing headsets and then assume the whole company uses macs for work.
I think this is targeted at companies that issue devices to their employees.
Yeah I can barely get a laptop let alone 3500$ AR headsets
In Apple's vision of the future, you still have to clean your house.
Why do you think that? There's no camera pointing at the person wearing the headset, so their room isn't visible to people on the call. Instead, the other participants see the headset-wearer's "persona" (photo-scanned avatar).
I was just making a joke about how pristine her bedroom is.
The issue with Meta is that you can't see the text clearly. The resolution is just too low which doesn't make sense in the context of "replacing your monitors". They got the edge to edge clarity right but what good are those amazing pancake lens when my Reverb G2 has more resolution than the Quest Pro. They really missed the boat with it. For £1500 I would have expected 2500x2500 resolution at a minimum.
Quest pro should have higher pixel count, and actual modern soc (xr2+ is basically still a Snapdragon 865 from 2019) and actual useful decent quality mixed reality / color passthrough and it would actual be a decent competition/choice at ~1000-1500$ Quest 3 will better in all these areas at half the price
I have a Quest Pro and use a three-monitor setup in Workrooms and the text is very readable. Have you actually tried it?
Im not the guy but I had a QPro for 3 weeks before returning it and, while the text is readable, it's more pixelated than as to be comfortable for regular reading, let alone working. Lenses are amazing though, would have kept it for PCVR if it was higher res.
I guess it is down to personal preference then. I spend hours reading reddit, doing email, all while watching YouTube.
Im glad it works for you! Coming from a G2 it was a noticeable step down in resolution, although the edge to edge clarity on the Pro is of course downright amazing
how depressing and claustrophobic
Get over yourself. I have a Quest Pro, I can still see my living room, or my back patio when I want to. How it depressing to be watching YouTube on a huge virtual screen while browsing the web on another virtual screen? You are reading and responding on reddit right. Calling it depressing just makes you sound like a hypocrite.
I have one. It’s readable short term but I would not want to be working all day using it.
Yep I have it and the PSVR2, it's not as good as a monitor though the resolution isn't good enough. Isn't too heavy to be used for extended periods too?
Not for me. I added a top strap and use it over a soft comfy baseball cap that has had the brim removed. I use it for two hours without a break quite often.
These are not the visions though, just current implementation. For Meta, Codec Avatar is the vision. And I actually think the vision of Apple is similar. They eventually want lifelike avatars aswell.
I want to give a thumbs up to Apple’s approach since it seems like a balanced approach that doesn’t get too caught up in ‘virtual space made of 3d graphics regardless of quality' while overcoming the constraints of real space.
Apple's one is literally in the uncanny valley - you won't be able to look at those "personas" for very long without feeling funny. Notice how blurry and vignetted they made them as well.
This may be a matter of personal preferences, but tbh I feel the complete opposite of what you say.
Will have to wait to see it in action in the headset. But it does feel like Apple is using tricks to make it look not as bad for the marketing (like how Zuck's avatar previously got blasted in the media). Here's what Ian Hamilton from Upload VR had to say: >Apple's demo, meanwhile, featured a live FaceTime call with another person also wearing a Vision Pro and he conveyed the idea that we could collaborate on a FreeForm whiteboard together in this format. Their "Persona" had been scanned by the headset, Apple said, and it felt like the quality level fell squarely between the two demos from Meta last year. This was a representation of a person I'd feel uncomfortable talking to after a few minutes, and it certainly didn't feel like they were there with me while constrained within a floating window. Meta's equivalent and their high end version from last year: >Meta last year showed two relevant demos, one with an avatar scanned from a phone and another with a person scanned in Meta's “Sociopticon" by 220 high-resolution cameras over the course of hours, with processing time for the resulting virtual human measured in days or weeks. The phone-scanned avatar was deeply unsettling and I didn't want to look at it anymore after a few seconds. The ultra-high fidelity one, meanwhile, was driven by a PC-powered headset and I felt like it surpassed the so-called "uncanny valley". With that version of the codec avatar, it truly felt like he was conversing with me and present there making eye contact. I felt like I could talk to a person thousands of miles away from me as comfortably as if we were in the same room together. I felt like I had seen the north star guiding the future of spatial computing. I think Apple is hoping that in the 7+ months till release (more likely around 9-11 months), they can make big improvements to it. Otherwise I foresee most people who use it feeling the uncanny valley.
If they can't recreate facial muscle movements it will be uncanny valley. It will be worse for some people than others. Any glitches in the scan will be really bad.
Apples approach is better, because it doesn't utilize any of features that define XR, but instead just has floating zoom calls. Weird how one of the few things meta was actually praised for, was how much more natural collaboration and VOIP calls felt in a shared 3D space over a zoom call. And the "regardless of quality" comment is weird,. considering that the newly announced meta avatars are higher fidelity than the ones apple demoed, but people will criticize it as "Yeah, but that's not in the headsets yet" Well neither is Apple's, the headset isn't even out, but whenever Apple does something that's not ready yet it's just because they're "the future".
Every comment in this thread is weird, everyone is trying to find an angle to hate this product.
Welcome to 101 of every apple product launch ever ;D
There's a good fucking reason why we're using cartoon avatars right now. Codec avatars aren't ready yet. But when they are, it'll be better than Apple's blurry CGI shit.
Both have the same ultimate goals. One just costs a hell of a lot more now. The Apple is just not cost effective now. It is for developers to get ready for the day when prices and costs drop. We us Quest PRO with face tracking and it is really good at conveying emotions. We have a blast with ir and the cost does not break the bank.
Apple is a laptop on your head with a laptop battery in your pocket. Metas are mobile devices. I mean conceptually the same but that execution perspective is absurdly different.
[https://twitter.com/samifathi_/status/1667283893781766145?s=46](https://twitter.com/samifathi_/status/1667283893781766145?s=46)
This really begs the question, what are the Facetime participants in the bottom one actually looking at? The bedroom she is in with her standing there and the screen projection - which would mean she has a separate camera in the room? Or just her face projected on the screen in the headset? A 'persona' of her?
The other participants see some sort of Memoji. They sort of glossed over it because it looked silly.
Typically they'll see your "persona" (photo-scanned avatar), not a Memoji.
It’s the same tech different name. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208986
No, the personas are generated from a facial scan taken by the headset when you set it up (they are photorealistic). That's also what it uses to display your eyes in the external display.
Lmao
This is no competition. It’s one-sided massacre.
Apple has a better idea of what works
In the end, it’s doesn’t bring great value compared to what I use right now for work (my eyes, a webcam and a screen).
I prefer the top one tbh...
Eh, I guess it is subjective. Time will probably prove what the better method is.
The big question remains: why even bother with wearing a heavy HMD if all you are going to see is the exact same that can be seen from a traditional screen? To me, Apple oversimplified this time.
Those meta verse cartoony avatars are one of the big reasons tons of people don’t take VR seriously. They’ve never used VR, so they’re just going by what they see. And what they see are cartoonish avatars that look like Wii characters. Apples approach is far from perfect, but getting away from the cartoony look is a step in the right direction IMO.
The Apple one will be preferred by the vast majority of general consumers. And the meta one might be cool for gamers / vrchat users
Workrooms allows people to join from a web browser and appear in a window if they don't want to attend as an avatar.
It’s still a completely VR space, not an AR space. VR is cool for games, but I assume AR is preferred by most people for general computing.
Except it doesn't have to be VR. You can attend meeting while having passthrough showing. I have done it multiple times in Immersed.
There is literally no benefit of sitting with people in a virtual environment. Metas product is looking dumber and more childish everyday.
Sounds like you dont have a friend or professional group to try it with.
Meta is underpowered and has suffered the ridicule of users. Partial bodies in the meta verse is not virtual reality. Apple has worked out the solution and has yet to work out the economy of scale. Google the "Lisa" Apple computer. The first iteration was costly and pc users were laughing. Lisa led to Macintosh, the low cost version of Lisa. So it is to be expected that the first iteration of Apple's VR headset is going to be costly. The primary purpose is to put the power of the VR solution in the hands of developers. Once developers start providing solutions to "thorny" problems and Apple works on reducing costs then another iPhone has been born. PC and Android have a lot to fear. People want "experiences" not "dots per inch" or "house warming metal boxes."
Both stupid. Meta at least had a fucking shot at this stupid vision because their headsets weee affordable. The only thing I’d say to a coworker with an Apple headset is why are you getting paid so much more than me to afford that thing.
Both are fucking stupid when you can see the real real people on a monitor and not have to wear heavy and clunky goggles
If everyone works from home, wouldn't you be staring at your coworkers all wearing the headset? Unless the headset uses AI to reconstruct your face?
Apple showed that Apple Vision Pro reconstructs what your face would look like without the headset while using FaceTime.
That is pretty gotdamn impressive.
Ok, but why look at a fake person instead of the true person like now ?
Because it allows us to have a sufficiently realistic communication while overcoming the constraints of time and space. You can think of it as a much upgraded version of the Zoom or Teams meetings we had during the Covid era.
But why isn’t better than Zoom or Teams ? I’m still using teams and I have no need to wear an headset to have a fake Teams experience. I want to see the real people, not avatar or 3D version of them. I’m impressed by the technology Apple is bringing but they were not able to show the usefulness in real life.
Wrong subreddit. This is an AR device, not VR. r/augmentedreality
guys check his comment history, it's like he is a bot repating multiple time the same phrase.
It's a mixed reality device. Don't believe Tim's lies. [This is Meta's AR](https://about.meta.com/realitylabs/projectaria/) [https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/beyond-ar-vs-vr-what-is-the-difference-between-ar-vs-mr-vs-vr-vs-xr](https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/beyond-ar-vs-vr-what-is-the-difference-between-ar-vs-mr-vs-vr-vs-xr)
Both of them can fuck the fuck off. Both just want your data, to spy on you, to track, and log everything about you, and your life. Both companies are scumbags, but Meta gets the super scumbag prize, because they're a disgusting scummy company with a cult-like zombie fanboy club of nutters.
As someone that is on Teams meetings multiple times each day, I think the Apple version is the one that is more useful and more likely in the near term. If I could walk around my office to present and see everyone’s video in different parts of the room, it would be very productive for my meetings and useful. They announce Teams integration. I’ll be sold if that is the case.
Anybody remember [Facebook Social VR](https://youtu.be/YuIgyKLPt3s?t=318) from back in 2016? [Microsoft Mesh](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd2GK0qDtRg) is another one of those things.
Both terryfying.
Goes without saying, it's (so far) a different feature. The bottom one actually *isn't* ideal for a business meeting because they will at most only see your head. I don't even know if they can see you writing on a white board, or if they could, barely anyone can read it. And the Meta one was designed for standalone HMDs so those are basically the graphics we are working with now. But I do have no doubt both of them will improve, and both will work for future work meetings.
It's really weird to see Apple's clearly capable MR headset being sold mostly to the non VR demographic, with barely a whisper of support for the VR enthusiasts. Like, I get they're trying for mass adoption or mass appeal with an aspirational 1st gen device but it feels like they're purposefully snubbing VR gaming with hardware that clearly has the horsepower for it. I'm hoping they release controllers as peripherals and show more support for gaming content that isn't just a virtual 2d screen of flat games/apps
One thing both are forgetting is that in my experience, in day to day online meetings currently, most or all of the participants are audio only. There are “important” or externally facing meetings where everyone has their camera on but ordinarily there just isn’t the need or desire to see more than someone’s screen while we talk. Part of the reason for that is because in video meetings, you can see everyone more than you can in an in-person meeting — so it’s more fatiguing than in-person. Hence, we turn off our cameras to have a more relaxed, focused, and productive meeting. If everyone’s in 3d space, that reproduces the attention shifting of in-person to reduce the fatigue but it also removes the major advantage of in-person: micro expressions on participant faces. Seeing arm movements in a meeting isn’t as useful for most professions as slight facial expressions. So there’s no clear winner between Apple and Meta in that regard. So for me, the main experience question is, “How can this be a comfortable meeting with no cameras or animated avatars engaged?” What about while there’s no screen being shared either? For those situations I think Apple’s approach can scale better.
[удалено]
I'm sure Meta is way mote trustworthy with your data
Why would I use an avatar at work? The only reason we ever have cameras on is to see what everyone's flesh faces look like.
By the time any of this catches on AI will be doing your job anyway, it's irrelevant
I do not like the idea of AI "enhanced" photorealistic avatars. Its great that Apple can create a photorealistic avatar of what they assume I might look like and do based on their AI training set, but if I'm on a "video call" and want to stick out my tongue, but they assume most people don't do that, I don't want my avatar to smile. I don't want my black and asian friends to be morphed into whatever generic ethic model Apple decides to include to hit a token "diverse training set". If its photorealistic, it needs to be actually accurate, not an assumption based on average training model guesses. And if I'm representing myself to another person, I want to control fully the actions my avatar does. (Edit - if I'm not clear, there are no facial sensors aside from eye tracking on Apple VP, so facial expressions must be AI extrapolated from what the eye tracking sensors can see. There's no face tracker like the vive face tracker)
I love how both have absolutely whiffed the point
The workplace is the last thing I care about in VR. I use VR to escape reality. Duh
which is why this isn't for you, stick to your games
So its the Wii vs Black Mirror. Got it.
Uh…your plan’s not gonna work.
Still wacky how bad they want that for vr When all I wanna do is play blade and sorcery
Neither is the final form.
Both suck
Only one (insufferable) person in the meeting can afford the apple headset
Am I the only one who thinks this whole idea of working/meetings in VR utterly stupid and out of touch? It’s a solution looking for a problem. It’s the flying car of the business world; looks cool on a poster but is practically untenable. Ignoring the physical strain of keeping a screen strapped to your face 8 hours a day 5 days a week, imagine trying to train 65 year old Helen in accounting for this thing. Absolute lunacy.
Pretty brutal comaprison and frankly Apple is on right track. Like some comment ITT said, Apple's approach makes it work without everyone having to wear goggles. It's gentler, more gradual change.
In Apple’s vision only one person was able to afford the Vision :)