I remain convinced that AR glasses will never ever be mainstream no matter how good the hardware is. They just don't solve any actual problem. Interacting with UI using voice or gesture is just way too hard.
My understanding is the current tech is not sharp enough for serious productivity, is too heavy for extended wear, and has a short life due to overdriving tiny OLEDs, so I'm not ready to purchase one yet. But some day those problems will be solved and I'm absolutely going to jump on that.
This is the one aspect that is hard to find info about online. Everyone talks about the weight and what size the virtual display is, but if I am going to seriously use it for productivity then I need at least 3 files open side by side, fully legible, with 100-character-wide lines at the bare minimum to be considered.
Either way, I'm not going to purchase until they solve the longevity problem, but I am curious if the sharpness is at the point where I can stop worrying about it.
I use them to do work, the issue I have is, having owned three pairs (for reasons), the lenses can be hit-or-miss. The pair I own now is more on the miss side, and some part of the lens is blurry. You don't notice it when watching films, but it's noticeable for text. The other two pairs were OK, this one I got less lucky with.
This one also seems to tire out my eyes if I wear the glasses for more than an hour, and I don't know why (it might be the blurriness). It's not the focal distance, they did a good job there, it's about 5m as far as I can tell.
Anyway, overall I like the glasses. They're worth the 200 € I paid used, but I probably wouldn't pay 400 € for them, I only use them on flights. They'd be great if I watched lots of movies or played games on a Steam Deck, though.
I have an incredibly hard time remembering faces and names. Close to disability level. People I have known for 20 years and interact with monthly can take a bit for me to recall their names and it requires a ton of mental tricks to do so.
I used to go to a decent number of trade shows, and the number of folks who casually knew me and my name but I couldn’t place was embarrassing. And crippling for business purposes.
I always thought if I had someway to overlay a persons name over their head it would level the playing field and allow be to avoid a lot of personal embarrassment.
Now that the future is here I’m not so sure. One of those things I want for me but not for thee.
People seem to underestimate how wonderful it to be able to touch and tap an interface and how minimal effort is exerted.
People prefer it. Pure and simple.
Clearly there's a disadvantage to using text in that situation, and I think it's that it almost always takes longer to express thoughts/intents using text. ISTM a sufficiently advanced computer voice interface would have the same advantage.
Am I really having to explain basic stuff like this? Lmao.
It's a convenience/necessity thing, pure and simple.
Zero benefit interacting with voice with an AI. Pure and simple.
Nobody cares about an agent when they are the principal - this is not remotely the same as interfacing with a human that is valued much higher.
I guess I could also follow suit and return your weird toxic/patronising insult here too since you clearly didn't understand my original comment, but perhaps it would be nicer if we didn't do that?
Let's start with text intended to convey information. Good documentation-type text that acts as a one-way communication channel is an example of this. A small number of writers and contributors to something that can be read by thousands or more can be incredibly powerful and can be incredibly information dense and valuable if written well.
Text intended to entertain? Well, that's just art and people will choose to engage in that way when they prefer the medium itself, so that's really just personal preference and enjoyment.
Text as the de-facto replacement for voice/face-to-face feels like something that's been forced into a lot of situations now. It's beneficial (or really required) when it's the only option such as for long-distance communication, and favours slow-changing content. But I think in a lot of cases we've been forced into having to use text over voice for raw human communication (thinking of course about remote working now).
I think text has a lot going for it. It can be incredibly information dense, it's easier for writers to take time to prepare something well, it's persistent, it's searchable, it's easy to make available historically. But I'm not convinced that it's a blanket replacement in every way. As the equivalent of voice it's also just slower.
As for video telephony, well David Foster Wallace had a bit to say about that [1]
[1] https://ochuk.wordpress.com/2015/08/20/my-favorite-pieces-of...
Lots of my friends send voice notes these days. I prefer them. Especially if they’re auto transcribed so the person on the other end can choose how to consume them.
While I accept some will take issue with calling it an "AR device", the current Meta RayBans have sold very well with major YoY growth and I only expect them to get more popular as they get more capable and add more "AR"-esque features in future versions. I see them already as a first step on road to real AR products much, much more than I do the Quest line.
Realtime on-demand satnav in ar, onscreen messaging, news updates etc, the facial recognition is just one aspect, having automatic connections with people looking at you across a room signifying interest.
This is dystopian to me but I don't see how it doesn't eventually become mainstream.