Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway74432 | Hacker News Reader

If people wanted to wear a phone screen taped over their eyes out in public, the technical limitations wouldn't barely make a dent in that desire. But the vast majority of people want to have real in-person human interactions when they're out in the world. That's what the makers of these devices fail to see. But they can't see that because they're self-described VR enthusiasts. If they talk to non VR enthusiasts (which is everyone else), they'll see that the limiting factor isn't the hardware.

Think of it this way. Most people think it's rude to talk to each other indoors with sunglasses on. That's the slimmest form factor you're going to get, and it still steps on the toes of human connection.

View on HN

I’m in my late 30’s, and I was a high school educator for about a decade. Teenagers have become quite comfortable holding an entire conversation while wearing earbuds. As an ancient and outdated old person, my initial gut reaction was that it was… a bit rude(?); however, these teenagers just internalized that audio pass-through was a thing, and wearing earbuds didn’t indicate a lack of attention to the conversant. My point being, we may not be comfortable having a conversation indoors with sunglasses on today - but that could change in a flash and only ‘old people’ would even notice.

I appreciate this observation.

It identifies that rudeness comes from lack of attention and that communicating attention can change within a cultural context.

Maybe at some point society will interact with goggles like people chatting at a masquerade ball.

But that doesn't mean it isn't a bad thing. Being a crackhead in a crack house feels like being a fish in water...

Depends on your perspective.

People living in the 1920’s would say we are all crackheads.

Yeah, it could be a “bad thing”, but it won’t be a bad thing just because prior norms have been broken.

We’re already deep into the process of merging modern technology into every aspect of our lives, and in some cases it’s been bad. In some cases it’s been a necessary evolution to survive in a modern society. In some cases, it’s been good.

On the one hand, I worry that face helmets will further erode human connection, and people will live in a lower resolution reality than what is possible with direct human contact. On the other hand, the current reality is that more and more people are looking down into a slab of glass instead of up/out at the world around them.

It could be that the ultimate version of AVP (some kind of glasses that are barely more noticeable than AirPods) is what gets people to look up/out again.

The “bad thing” is arguably already here, and it’s just a question of whether future tech will make it worse, or do a better job of merging the real world with the digital world, enabling people to participate in both instead of disappearing into their pocket computer.

The AirPods are really the first mass-market augmented reality device. It's so well done that no one even thinks about them that way. That's how it'll need to be with visual augmentation, but there's no reason I've seen that we won't get there eventually. I'm bullish on Apple being the first major player here in part because they already are, by a huge, huge margin, the biggest player in augmented reality.

Apple is IMO the only company that seems capable of simultaneously tackling the form factor, outside-viewer perception factor (AirPods are fully socialized, as you mention), inside-viewer perception factor (AirPods on transparency really do feel 99.9% fully "transparent")

There is a major difference between earbuds and sunglasses. There is a lot of subconscious communication that goes on with facial gestures (including but not limited to eye gestures). This is where the sterotype of poker players wearing sunglasses comes from.

Would the new generation be get used to it? Probably. But that does not mean it is healthy. We have gotten used to a lot of things that are objectively bad for us.

> But the vast majority of people want to have real in-person human interactions when they're out in the world.

I think this statement is too strong. I see too many people every day in elevators, in lines, all sorts of different places that are on their phone and specifically avoiding eye contact with other human beings. That suggests that the term “vast majority” is probably too strong.

Right? Eyes down at their phone, Air Pods in, it's not easy to get their attention even if you need to. They're essentially already connected to a VR headset, just a poor version of one.

Seconded. One glance around coffee shops, buses, or the like is enough to show that screens dominate “out in the world” too. And looking at the trend lines for the past decade, it seems set to continue.

I would encourage you to try out both the Quest 3 and the Apple Vision Pro for an extended period of time. If you had asked people during the advent of the television, they would have expressed the same opinion about people wanting social connection instead of sitting in front of a box.

And they would be right. Television did fuck social connection. And the smartphone did it much worse.

No they clearly wouldn't be right. Even if we accept as fact the idea that both those things have had negative effects on society and on us, quite clearly huge numbers of people DO want TVs and smartphones, even if those things aren't leading to better, happier lives.

I'm not sure how we could possibly quantify and compare better, happier lives before and after TVs or smartphones, but it would be impossible to narrow down the metrics to peg the change over such a long period of time on just those technologies. The scale is just too big and the timeline to long to possibly know why happiness may have increased, if it did at all.

> quite clearly huge numbers of people DO want TVs and smartphones

This really ventures into the space of addictive behaviors. Do meth addicts really want meth, or are they using for some other reason? Can we assume that they DO want the meth and that's the primary driver simply because they keep using it?

Pretty sure meth addicts really want meth, based on the chemical reactions involved between the brain and meth.

I guess I just am not as certain that I'd classify chemical addiction as a true "want", but maybe that's wrong.

That’s shifting the goalpost, the original point was that nobody wants this, not that it’s bad for society

That's true. But as far as business and popularity go, TV and smartphones were a huge success. In the end what makes money will be sold without regard for social consequences.

i think the key difference is “out in public”

shrug I don't spend my entire life in company. Reading a book is hardly a group event....

Also, when shared experience hits the next version (or the one after that, or..) and I can watch Liverpool beat Man Utd with my brother on a different continent (with whatever lag being compensated for) I'll get more of a shared experience than I could have today.

This is a version-1 product. It's only going to get better - I have one of the original iPhones, and compared to the '15 Pro I have now, it's pitiful. Apple are generally a long-term game company, and they're not going to let this just drop.

So sure, in company down at the pub, I won't be wearing goggles like this. Funnily enough I don't think that's the target market, making your argument a bit of a strawman one. Apple (I expect) will focus is attention on where it can make a difference. And (again, I expect) it will.

I think the key to your last bit is "indoors." People don't consider it rude when talking to each other outdoors because it's mutually understood that wearing the device is beneficial.

All it takes is to get to that point with AR. So it's more a critique of the state of AR's present usefulness rather than an innate, immovable reflection on society.

I don’t think it’s just usefulness. I know that you can’t possibly be watching something else on your sunglasses when talking to me indoors or out.

At least with google glass it was trivial to see where the eyes were pointed.

I agree it is unfortunate that you can't tell where someone's eyes are at when talking with sunglasses on and I also agree that it detracts from the socialization experience.

I do not feel that this loss makes it rude to have an outside conversation wearing sunglasses in a sunny environment.

So, I still think that AR will find its way in. I'm not saying it won't reduce the socialization experience further. It'll just be perceived as semi-necessary, understandable, and life will move on.

Sunglasses may detract but they actually serve one purpose -- it's too damned bright out.

Having AR glasses on is totally different.

Maybe for this generation, but give it time. I think expectations will shift.

Children used to be told "don't sit so close to the TV" and now we're strapping monitors to our heads.

It's not totally different. It's very similar.

The main difference is that there might be any number of equally-or-more-valid reasons to have AR/MR glasses on than "it's too bright".

Like, "I'm on call for blahblah" or "I'm watching the baby monitor" or... whatever, a million possibilities.

So yes, AR glasses detract, but no, it's not different.

Also, lots of wearers consider that social interaction complexifier a feature, not a bug. Which is why you see a lot of cops wear sunglasses all the time, even with no sun. For a deep, heart-to-heart conversation with somebody important? Sure, take them off. For anything else...

Your arguments are from the PoV of the wearer. Sure, as a wearer, you know that you are paying attention to whoever you are talking to, but as someone on the other side, I don't know that.

That's not a problem with sunglasses because it's inherently impossible for you to be doing something else.

The issue that people have with AR glasses (and to some extent, people wearing sunglasses unnecessarily) is that AR glass wearers are thinking more about themselves than the perspective of other person. And then to defend AR glasses saying "I could be doing something important but actually I'm paying attention" is like doubling down on that lack of awareness.

I'm not opposed to AR glassses. I'm just explaining why they are a bit of a faux pas and the people who think they are OK are also the reason why they are not OK.

Except what is the benefit that it’s providing, that people asked to have solved?

I feel like if you went up to someone and asked “how can we improve this social interaction?” Literally nobody would suggest strapping a screen to your face anywhere in the list of improvements.

Here’s some other technology improvements:

What would make your TV experience better?

* make it bigger * allow it to use the internet to watch infinite shows * make it cheaper * make the colors brighter

What would make your analog home-phone experience better? * make it portable * make it smaller * allow me to save contacts within it * allow me to take other notes * now that I have this little thing in my pocket anyways, make it do more stuff

Then when we think of the problems that lead to AR being the solution, it’s almost entirely related to business problems. Surgery, manufacturing, carpentry, construction… all would benefit from a HUD that tells you what to put where. Those are real benefits.

But anything that people would do in a social situation? Almost never will the answer to a human interaction problem to be “attach a screen to your face”. In that scenario, all of the solutions are really in search of a problem.

I think a convincing example is to show a heads-up display of what two people last talked about as to enrich the conversation.

I already do this but more manually. For example, I don't try to remember everyone's birthday. Instead, I put their birthday's in my calendar, get a notification when it's close, and use this information to enrich our relationship.

It seems reasonable to believe this could be extended much further if the barrier to recording and recalling the information was reduced.

> I think a convincing example is to show a heads-up display of what two people last talked about as to enrich the conversation.

Perhaps. It might be a generation or two before the "that's ... creepy" vibes fade. Reminds me a bit of that scene in minority report after the eye swap and the protagonist passes by a billboard and the avatar asks him about how the pants he purchased worked out.

I do something similar to the calendar thing too. I reach out a few days ahead of time so it doesn't seem like I'm just doing it reflexively like an unfeeling robot because facebook prompted me to do so day of.

> Then when we think of the problems that lead to AR being the solution, it’s almost entirely related to business problems. Surgery, manufacturing, carpentry, construction… all would benefit from a HUD that tells you what to put where. Those are real benefits.

I think you're on to something. Glass was an expensive flop from the word "go" but the second generation did live on in these specialized sectors.

I suspect that - at least for this decade - AR is still going to be the specialized/industry tech and that VR is going to be the consumer oriented tech.

The problem isn't the form factor, it's the purpose. Wearing sunglasses is beneficial because it protects my eyes and makes it easier to look at you when you're talking to me.

Wearing an AR device is like telling you something more important than our conversation might come up and I need to be able to quickly shift my focus from you to it.

Maybe it's my age (early 40s) but it's common for our friend/family group to shame each other (in a half-kidding-half-not way) when somebody gets into their phone too much during a social event. "If you're going to be here, be here" is a mantra we tease each other with. We hold each other accountable enough to where when my elementary-age son picks out a movie for us to watch, if one of the adults in the room starts scrolling on their phone he'll pause the movie and ask them if they're going to pay attention or not.

My assumption is that this expectation will shift as time passes.

I can see a future where people use AR, there's a setting that indicates "full focus" vs "distracted", and people will ask others to stay in "full focus" mode when talking. This would minimize the number of notifications the user receives in an effort to lend focus to the conversation.

It'll be the same general expectation as what you're describing, but with a step towards concession and acceptance of the tech.

There will also probably be an in-between period where people who remain glued to their phone try to take the morale high ground against those who are using AR goggles by saying they're giving more focus to the conversation :)

Full focus mode would have to be passthrough with no notifications or external information. I feel like anything less would just be the current phone status quo.

I dunno. Some people have trouble reading emotions from other people's facial expressions. A heads-up display that conveys this sort of information in real-time could help improve the conversation. Or pulling up highlights from the last time a conversation occurred so you can more easily pick up where you left off.

Of course, some people will feel like these changes reduce the humanity of the interaction because you're letting the device do too much of the work and others will disagree and say that the tech is just helping automate and improve a task they were already performing. Both camps will have fair points.

These sorts of behaviors which augment the conversation seem distinct from concepts like "be shown new text messages while mid-conversation" which I do think should be able to be silenced and conveyed as being silenced.

I agree that a CRM mode would indeed be very valuable, but I'm skeptical of such a feature shipping given that a similar thing could be surfaced on the phone but I've never even heard of people using it.

I agree it would be breaking some new grounds. The only things that I can think of right now are tech like Babel Fish earbuds, which strive to translate conversations in real-time, and Google Lens for real-time visual translations.

I did make good use of Google Lens when traveling to France last year. I found myself engaging with the world by looking through my phone's camera frequently as it made understanding restaurant menus much easier.

We don't have that with phones now, what makes you think AR will be any different?

Can you clarify? I'm not sure I understand.

iOS and Android both have Focus Mode:

https://blog.google/products/android/android-focus-mode/

https://support.apple.com/guide/iphone/set-up-a-focus-iphd62...

I guess I don't use this feature when having a conversation with another person because it would require me to get out my phone and change modes when the conversation begins. That's too much of a barrier. In some settings, though, like when going to watch a movie in public, there's a dedicated window where people are expected to shift their phones to a socially acceptable mode. I do respond accordingly in those situations.

With AR, it would seem this process could be automated through facial recognition / voice detection. If there was a setting that said, "Don't notify me of text messages when the system detects I am conversing with another person. Do this automatically" then it seems quite practical to have that enabled. It also seems reasonable that it would be implemented because the concept of "disable notifications temporarily" already exists on phones.

Why do you think VR makers think people are going to wear the thing all the time? Not being appropriate to use everywhere doesn’t hurt computer monitors, or game consoles, or cars, etc. It’s not going to replace phones, but that isn’t what it needs to do to succeed as a product.

This is why linux perpetually has <5% adoption. It's made and maintained by linux enthusiasts who are incapable of understanding how the average person wants to use a computer.

But, how the average person wants to use a computer is extremely, irreconcilably different from how the 5% (or 2% probably but whatever, doesn't matter) want to use their computers.

So... sniff sniff what's that smell? The market working is it then?

Both Vitamix blenders and recumbent bicycles have less market share than desktop Linux. Is that because recumbent bike makers just really have no idea how people want to ride bicycles, or...

yeah

Gnome is the outlier with beautiful design and they get soo much shit from Linux neckbeards for it haha

> This is why linux perpetually has <5% adoption. It's made and maintained by linux enthusiasts who are incapable of understanding how the average person wants to use a computer.

No. That's a gross generalization. You have all sorts of people using Linux, including leading UX experts.

What you don't have is a single governing body pulling everyone in the same direction, so efforts get diluted(even when prioritized).

> It's made and maintained by linux enthusiasts who are incapable of understanding how the average person wants to use a computer

They understand, but they don't care. The 5% want to have a system that is designed for themselves and not the other 95%.

I think you could make the exact same argument about almost any tech device, like the iPhone itself which is wildly popular along with the spinoffs.

Also VR isn’t what companies, Apple at least, care about. It’s a stepping stone to AR which is why the AVP does a “fake AR” of sorts as its primary mode of operation. You have to walk before you run which is also why Apple pushed VR/ARKit so hard even before they had a device to really take full advantage of it (as in a device that’s not just holding an iPad up and pointing it at table, all of 5 people care about that).

The Overton window will shift if people get true utility out of VR/AR in the same way it’s shifted on everything else. Right now there just isn’t anything compelling enough to force that shift but I think it will happen quickly when there is.

And before “I find X compelling”, ok, that’s great for you, for the vast majority of people the tech and/or use-cases are not there yet.

> Also VR isn’t what companies, Apple at least, care about. It’s a stepping stone to AR

I couldn't care less about AR. I want VR and only VR.

I don't want digital overlays of the world around me at all. That's completely useless and will be filled with ads and noise. I want to live and breathe in imaginative fantasy worlds and escape the real world completely.

I want to be a character in interactive movies. Have realistic D&D sessions with friends where the real world disappears completely. To create entire planets and universes and populate them with stories and adventures.

I don't want labels on cooking ingredients, advertisements for Taco Bell while I walk around, or email notifications popping up during conversations. AR might have industrial use cases, but the real world implications are annoying.

And they’ll all be in VR if it ever gains success too.

But maybe there will be a few years of bliss, like the early internet. Or maybe that bliss has already happened.

> you could make the exact same argument about almost any tech device, like the iPhone itself

I don't think this is true. There was a massive appetite for the iPhone for decades leading up to its release, and there was no question that mobile was going to have a giant role in the future of computing. If you look back, most nay-sayers didn't doubt the value or utility of pocket-computers, but rather just that Apple specifically would be out-competed by established vendors.

It used to be extremely rude to not take off headphones when people talk to you. Nowadays it is quite accepted for earbuds and "transparency mode" is even a selling point.

My guess would be that once AR allows easy sharing, e.g. showing others a funny AR cat video, it will quickly become socially accepted to wear frequently.

> Nowadays it is quite accepted for earbuds

Hard disagree. Except for brief interactions like ordering a coffee, I don’t think it is at all socially common for people to keep headphones on when they talk with others. Maybe it varies by culture, or social circle.

It varies. I’m totally fine with it if it’s clear the person can hear and interact with me, and the people I interact with a lot do it to varying degrees, and no one’s offended.

FWIW, I’ve observed in high schoolers that many leave their earbuds in all the time. At this point it’s a fashion statement too.

It’s not socially acceptable to me. If someone talks to me with their AirPods in they are already at -100 in my opinion of them.

Not sure that's changed for millenials, maybe it's more acceptable in gen z/alpha?

There's an important difference: the subtle face mimicry is extremely important for sub-conscious (and conscious) communication. Having headphones on is rude because it indicates that the other person is not interested in hearing what you have to say. The problem with having an opaque visor covering your face is not that it's rude, it's that you completely lose the non-verbal part of communication. This is why email and phone communication can be so easy to misunderstand. Without seeing the face and body languages of the other person, your mind will have a tendency to overlay biases and prejudices on what is being communicated. A simple "sure, whatever" can be interpreted as obnoxiously dismissive, as a surrender, or friendly banter. If you can see the body language of the other person, the intent is usually clear. If you can't, it isn't.

It used to be rude because people understood it to signal that.

With younger people earbuds seem more like a fashion statement (you also don't take off ear rings to talk to people) and the noise cancelling/transparency will actually do the opposite: filter out background noise so that you can be heard more clearly.

Similarly taking out a Nokia used to signal that you will not be paying attention for a while. Nowadays it might instead be you taking a nice photo, showing off something to others etc.

VR headsets are definitely not at this point yet, but I am not so sure they never will be.

My point is that with the current VR implementation the problem is not about rudeness, but fundamentally hampering personal communication.

If I go and meet with someone in person, I generally do it because I want to see them up close, face to face. If we are both wearing VR headsets that hide our faces, the whole premise goes out the window.

Eventually, VR headsets might overcome this problem by accurately portraying the other person's face in some way, but we are nowhere there yet.

I find that it is sadly getting socially acceptable to be worse than that: to talk straight out loud with someone over the phone over the airbuds while around other people, even making eye contact with other people. When someone makes eye contact with you and speak, you can no longer expect that they intend to speak with you.

The people with the worst behaviour are pushing the norm.

The second paragraph seems silly. Nobody thinks its rude to talk with normal glasses on, and that's the same form factor. Meta's AR glasses are already available as both sunglasses and normal glasses (though obviously lacking in actual AR).

Meta AR glasses Beta software has actual AR:

https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/meta-launches-expanded...

https://www.meta.com/smart-glasses/early-access-program/

I disagree, there is a difference between desire and practicality.

For example, I would love and could easily justify the 12.9 inch iPad but the logistics of traveling with it make no sense for me.

I could justify the benefits of traveling everywhere with my high powered gaming pc but logistically it makes no sense.

These devices are still largely impractical for long term use, and particularly outside use. They won't be until the hardware catches up with what we are working on with the software and it is an almost invisible technology except for a mostly standard looking pair of glasses.

People already walk around with their phone almost attached to their face, it isn't hard to imagine wanting an AR headset.

I'm confused by comments like this one. Apple very specifically designed Vision Pro to address this problem, going to great lengths to make the outside world visible to the user and the user's eyes visible to others, and marketing that they don't want to create isolation. It is also described in the article (where the author thinks they went too far).

What do you think of how the Vision Pro addresses this problem?

Most decent NC headphones have audio passthrough which allows you to temporarily easily hear the outside world without problem.

Do you enjoy talking to a colleague while they still have their headphones on, even if you know they have this setting on?

The "user's eyes visible to others" part has been widely panned, even by the most enthusiastic reviews. There are two major problems with it.

One, it's not the actual user's eyes, it's just a bad rendition of some eyes - without any of the extremely subtle facial expressions that happen with the skin around the eyes, and without any amount of certainty from the other that they are correctly reflecting exactly what you're looking at. We are extremely good at noticing exactly which direction another human is looking in, and when theire gaze shifts, so even minor inaccuracies or lag are jarring.

Much worse, the screen they used is so bad that the eyes are barely visible in almost any amount of lighting.

Either way, even if this "solution" actually worked, the visor still covers far too much of the face to be able to get a normal expression.

The OP didn't pan it.

I don’t buy this. So many people walking around absolutely glued to their smartphones. Neck crooked down, ignoring the world, even inside businesses, social situations, at home, at work, and the taboo is very quickly softening! I often notice couples sitting in a restaurant, basically ignoring each other in favor of their phones for an entire meal. No human connection going on here!

People want human connections less and less, especially with strangers, service providers, “NPCs” as some would lovingly call them. I think good AR will accelerate this, not fail due to a shrinking taboo.

IMO people on their smartphones are generally experiencing 10-100x the human connections that people without their smartphones are experiencing. That's exactly why they're so addictive. Smart phones let people push themselves right to the very edge of Dunbar's limit for social connectivity, which is why it can get stressful and exhausting, and is probably damaging when done in extended periods.

Putting your phone down for a few hours to stare at the trees, or the water, or the clouds passing by, and maybe chatting up a couple nearby people doing the same, that is now the epitome of disconnected blissful ignorance.

> > But the vast majority of people want to have real in-person human interactions when they're out in the world.

> I don’t buy this. So many people walking around absolutely glued to their smartphones.

I think it is right-ish, and just needs refinement:

Where people have to have human interactions when they're out in the world, the vast majority of them want them to be real in-person.

If I choose to interact with someone, or accept their attempt at interaction, I don't want a device between me and them. I often don't choose that, but this doesn't minimise my preference for non-tech-filtered integration if interaction does happen.

If I'm out on a trail run or trek I'm perfectly happy to exchange pleasantries with others out and about, I'm quite happy to give directions or similar assistance to a tourist while meandering locally (if asked politely, otherwise you will get sent well out of your way), but far less so if they are not looking me in the face.¹

> especially with strangers, service providers, “NPCs”, …

…, bloody survey people, charity muggers, those who think that because they believe [deity] loves me I'm somehow beholden to care, local press outside the station when I get off a train delayed by a significant incident, …

[1] caveat: I'm away that some people are very uncomfortable with direct eye contact, that is quite different from not entirely paying attention because of a bit of tech.

I've always found examples like "couples sitting in a restaurant, ignoring each other in favor of their phones" as kind of hilariously judgemental. Almost in the same way that ignorant extroverts view introverts.

If they're a couple, why would they feel the need to always talk? You don't need to always be talking to enjoy just doing your own thing in each other's presence. Even prior to the proliferation of smartphones this was pretty normal in my experience, you spend most of your time having the ability to talk to the people you like, at some point you run out of things to say and are comfortable enough with each other to just do your own thing while in each other's company. It says nothing about their connection with each other.

> But the vast majority of people want to have real in-person human interactions when they're out in the world.

Is this true? Most of the time when I'm out and about I'm going from point a to point b and I'm not really interested in talking to anyone I dont already know. If I'm already at a specific place to do a specific thing... I'm not going to have a vr headset on and I'm not really interested in interacting with people I dont already know.

Apple Vision wasn’t designed to be used outdoors in public settings with moving backgrounds.

Those were just viral memes of people using it like that for fun.

That video of the guy in san jose wearing one of these, tapping at the air while crossing the road, was both hilarious and disturbing.

Ok but compare it with a phone call. That's much worse than sunglasses.

Whereas VR equivalent of a phone call with eye and face tracking and eventually full body tracking is much closer to an in-person interaction.

these things change quiet quickly. Ask any zoomers (which i might add arent young anymore either, the first ones'll start turning 30 next year!) if its rude to glance at the phone mid conversation. Gen Y/X generally considered that extremely rude, while gen Z started to see it as completely normal.

People used to think it's rude to stare at a phone screen too, but here we are.

I'm not saying VR will become as normalised as smartphones, mind you, just that it's a possible outcome. That said, VR / AR as we know it now has been a thing for a while now and it hasn't taken off as much.

It still is rude... it's just become commonplace.

I wouldn’t mind wearing glasses outdoors as long as the environment could provide me with useful information. From a nearby shop that has discounts, to real time traffic updates. What AR was supposed to deliver but never really materialized.

Yet.

What we consider acceptable changes all the time. A lot of people have conversations with earbuds in. And in the 90s it would have been inconceivable to go out for dinner and have half of the people hacking away on their phones.

What's wrong with AR glasses in a form factor akin to actual prescription glasses? It seems from my perspective a cool way to augment our perception about the world, not to diminish it.

> Most people think it's rude to talk to each other indoors with sunglasses on.

Nobody finds it rude to talk to each other with actual glasses on. If AR had similar utility and minimal impact on seeing each others eyes, then the same would be true. Sunglasses prevent people from tracking where people are looking which is why they come off as rude.

> That's the slimmest form factor you're going to get, and it still steps on the toes of human connection.

The minimalist form factor for AR is contact lenses not glasses. Several companies are working on them though it's a long way from a consumer product.

Prescription glasses are a necessity. Sunglasses or AR glasses are not.

Reading glasses aren't.

You may not have realized it, but the glasses on tip of nose thing where people lean forward to look at you is because reading glasses make things blurry at conversation distance. Basically this: https://levinsoneyeclinic.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/shu...

However, sometimes people don't bother and they really can't see you very clearly. But, you can still track the body language from where they eyes are looking so it's fine, that's the difference clear lenses make.

> The minimalist form factor for AR is contact lenses not glasses.

That is extremely unlikely to ever be possible. A chip that size that did both high-bandwidth radio AND wireless charging (since you're not gonna have wires dangling from your eyes) AND high refresh rate display would fundamentally have to get extremely hot, with anything resembling current electronics.

You'd have to invent an entirely different transistor to do something like this.

You don't need a high bandwidth connection for AR. Vector graphics + text dramatically reduces the bandwidth requirements.

That's not immersive 3D, but the useful bit of AR would be things like putting peoples names above them at a party as if you where in an MMO. Countdown timers over cooking pots, a map or just an arrow when walking somewhere etc.

Remember how stupid AirPods looked when they first came out?

They still do to be fair

True, but it's a familiar stupid.

> Most people think it’s rude to talk to each other indoors with sunglasses on

…really? I have prescription glasses/sunglasses and I often don’t bother switching them during a quick excursion- such as daycare pickup/drop off. It’s never crossed my mind that I could be perceived as rude. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that anyone with such opinions do not have the level prescription that are required for driving and just general consent use. And for anyone thinking transition lenses would be the solution- those do not work in vehicles with UV blocking windows.

How many people have you seen wearing sunglasses inside an office, or talking at home?

If you're having a quick interaction like popping in and out of a building to pick up / drop off someone or something, sure. But otherwise, it's quite universally rude.

This is the trap of when a company needs a user to buy a product more than the user needs the product.

This was something jobs was adept at navigating around along with Jonny Ive.

Tim Cook is a product idiot. Or maybe more to the point he is adept at making factories and has run out of products for them to manufacture. So what’s more important to him his giving the factory more to do vs designing the right product.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com