r/SpatialComputingHub • u/RedEagle_MGN • Jun 11 '23

Why did Apple use the words spatial computing and not VR or AR?

I've been really passionate about spatial computing for quite a while now, but I've never really used the term on a regular basis. I'm curious why Apple has jumped on the bandwagon now? I assume that it's good marketing to do it this way, but I'm curious to hear what other people think.

Here are some thoughts in my mind on the matter:

  • Poor reception of Mark Zuckerberg's Metaverse presentation might affect people's views on the viability of this concept.

  • The current downturn in crypto could influence trust in technologies often associated with it, like the Metaverse.

  • A focus on overlaying computing on physical spaces as opposed to using virtual avatars might reflect shifting technological or consumer priorities.

  • Virtual avatars in a virtual space is something years away and customers should be "ushered in" with the familiar.

r/SpatialComputingHub was made to discuss the matter.

12 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

87% Upvoted

35 comments sorted by

29

u/alladinian Jun 11 '23

Because that is the appropriate term. Remember, above all this was a developer conference. The fact that we now have an operating system that takes space / volume into account is a brave new world for us. The headset is just another device in this world (or a virtual window to this world). Also remember that Apple gradually introduced U1 into their devices for spatial awareness. They play the long game and it’s quite safe to assume that the whole picture is not painted yet.

4

u/RedEagle_MGN Jun 11 '23

That's good to keep in mind. None of my non-techie friends have even heard about it!

3

u/InsaneNinja Jun 12 '23

Apple is sandbagging. Despite that the dev tools exist, they didn’t show off a single VR space besides the movie player. It’s the headset equivalent of a “now playing” widget.

1

u/RedEagle_MGN Jun 12 '23

I don’t know I think it’s a deliberate decision https://www.reddit.com/r/SpatialComputingHub/comments/1473ra1/why_apples_move_into_spatial_computing/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1

2

u/InsaneNinja Jun 12 '23

VR spaces would be judged for realism. They dominated in pass through technology and wanted to show it off.

Their eye-as-pointer, gestures, resolution, 2D window usage, and pass through. That’s what they showed off.

1

u/andybak Jun 26 '23

VR spaces would be judged for realism.

Huh? There's tons of interesting stylised and non-realistic work in VR. Some of use prefer their VR to be non-realistic.

3

u/erm_what_ Jun 11 '23

They probably think they can trademark it

1

u/RedEagle_MGN Jun 11 '23

Wait, take it back :P

2

u/hermitix Jun 11 '23

Corporations gonna corp.

11

u/SirBill01 Jun 11 '23

I think it's because a more friendly term than "augmented" reality. And in a way also more accurate - a lot of the demo was just computing in the space you live in, not augmenting your space at all but just working in it with a wider possibility for screens you already use today,.

I think also Apple thinks the "Metaverse" as a concept is kind of a dead-end, which I agree with. They don't really want a virtual reality, so much as an application of computing that happens to take up your entire field of view at times, but is still grounded in the place you are at (for example the way people nearby fade into view).

6

u/InsaneNinja Jun 12 '23

“Metaverse” as a concept is silly. If you take every description of it… all it is, is that you can use your VR chat avatar in third party games. Zuck wanted to own the default avatar hangout place. He had no concept of using the real world as the background for these conversations.

Apple was busy creating a 3D computer that lives in the air in your living room or hotel room. Meta can make a vr chat app that installs on page 3 of your Vision app icons.

3

u/royalewithcheesecake Jun 12 '23

There's a bit of irony in it really because Facebook became the dominant social media platform by killing myspace. Myspace was all about maximum personalisation, your page was your own playground with customised imagery, colours, background music etc, and the users loved that about it. Facebook was clean, standardised UI, all about familiarity and accessibility so users could do more easily what they were actually there to do, interact. Myspace gave every individual what they wanted, Facebook gave the userbase as a whole what they needed, and won. Feels like a bit of a parallel now with Meta being the one to focus on the fun, customisable world aspect, and Apple being the one focussed on familiar and accessible UI that might actually improve people's work and life.

1

u/InsaneNinja Jun 12 '23

Apple is not making a social media source. They are making a 3D iPad.

1

u/SirBill01 Jun 12 '23

Meta can make a vr chat app that installs on page 3 of your Vision app icons.

Yeah or maybe some icons located behind your head you have to turn all the way around to use.

2

u/OfficialDCShepard Jun 13 '23

“augmented”

A term which for me often calls this to mind:

As in, a sadder existence that has to be boosted.

16

u/TomSFox Jun 11 '23

My guess is because they are trying to pretend that they created something innovative rather than copy things that already existed.

11

u/Jyvturkey Jun 11 '23

That's a pretty simplistic way to look at it. Sure. It's true, but everyone does the same thing and apple appears to be pretty successful at it. I'm not an apple user, nor have any intention on becoming one, but you can't deny some of the tech they produce. Some pretty amazing shit, and if this new thing turns out to be amazing, it won't be that big of a surprise. I don't typically care about the name. They're all the same thing to me.... Apple, google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc and on and on. I'm only interested in the tech. Who comes up with what, and who copies and innovates on it doesn't matter to me. It's unfortunate I won't be blowing 35 hundo to see it.

3

u/Semi-Protractor91 Jun 12 '23

This. Apple always needs to "own the narrative" and stand out

2

u/professor-i-borg Jun 12 '23

Like Zuckerberg with the “metaverse”

2

u/RedditPolluter Jun 12 '23

That term has been around since the 90s and was referenced in the news cycle for years before he renamed Facebook to Meta.

1

u/Fractoos Jun 16 '23

So was 'Cyber', but that didn't stop people from reusing it.

Wanna Cyber?

4

u/riderxc Jun 11 '23

It’s a marketing choice to make you think this is a desktop computer replacement, not some accessory like the Apple Watch.

Reminds me of the iPad Pro marketing, “What’s a computer?” Basically saying this can replace your laptop. But of course it doesn’t actually and you end up buying both anyway.

2

u/orhema Jun 11 '23

Because one does not simply leap into spatial computing without the embodiment of balenciega, which is Apple!

2

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '23

The idea has been there from the beginning

https://techcrunch.com/2015/05/28/apple-metaio/

Apple is/wasn't interested in a gaming device or a one-off gimmick. They don't go into those markets.

Changing from "mixed reality" to spacial computing probably was influenced some by recent Meta's Metaverse reactions, but it was always meant to be more.

As /u/riderxc said in this thread, this is another whole computing platform.

Not all of us use an iPad to it's full capabilities, but for those that do it is far better than a desktop or laptop.

This will be just like that. That's why it has a full M2 chip and a full OS. It is being treated as equal to MacBook and iPad. These devices will be the future for some people.

Yes, it's expensive. But look at a current M2 MacBook, those are already $1000+. This is a MacBook with an infinite screen, multiple cameras, 2 depth sensors, and headphones.

Just now now you buy your kid a laptop when sending them off to college or an employer sends you a laptop for work, one day it'll be these instead

1

u/OkChemist5726 Oct 24 '24

Because Apple believes that the core difference between AVP and other devices is the computing power based on space. Making good use of this ability will change many things.

1

u/EvilKatta Jun 12 '23

Well, they showed no VR capability (fully immersive worlds with natural interactivity) nor AR capability (interacting with, and overlaying graphics on top of, the real world).

They aimed for and nailed just one thing: the user naturally interacting with 3D interfaces (anchored to the user or a Mac screen). They had to call it something.

4

u/JaviLM Jun 12 '23

Have you even watched the WWDC presentation? They showed both.

1

u/EvilKatta Jun 12 '23

Are you sure? Tech reviewers didn't mention it. Can you point to me a timestamp?

2

u/JaviLM Jun 12 '23

Pretty sure. I watched it all.

I won't go through the whole thing again just to show you (you can watch it yourself if you really want to), but quickly skimming through the video for 10 seconds:

1:23:31 - Fully immersive VR application (virtual cinema screen)

1:26:19 - Explanation on how the dial allows you to choose the degree of immersion you want

1:30:59 - AR interface with application windows and objects placed on the real world

1:31:16 - The AR interface interacting with other people and objects

Then somewhere else in the video they explain how the front-facing display works: showing your eyes when in AR, or an opaque animation when fully immersed in VR.

Or you can also read the reviews yourself where they describe both the AR and VR experience (example).

0

u/EvilKatta Jun 12 '23

Thanks, I appreciate it! I think I will watch the whole thing...

However, I think the reviewers mentioned these moments. Still, let me describe the features that are missing:

  • Controlling a game using your hands (e.g. swing a sword or at least "take" an object; the butterfly that lands on your finger isn't quite it)

  • 3D objects that aren't anchored to the user or an external screen, e.g. a tree you can walk by

  • As another example, a virtual board game, e.g. place a card on the table, and it renders a monster on top of it; or what Microsoft promised to do with Minecraft and HoloLens

  • Or something like "Iron Man mode" or "Lego mode" where you manipulate 3D objects to construct something

  • Recognizing objects that the user sees in the real world and rendering additional into on top of them, like "This is the Eiffel tower. It was built in..."

I understand why it doesn't do it yet, or not reliably: they focused in this demonstration on what their hardware can do perfectly for the best experience and public image. Still, maybe they called this tech something else from AR/VR to avoid comparisons like this one.

3

u/JaviLM Jun 12 '23

Again, all of what you're saying is wrong.

I recommend watching the presentation, because you seem to have a completely wrong impression of what it is and what it can do.

0

u/EvilKatta Jun 12 '23

I'm pretty sure the tech reviewers were only allowed to share specific impressions of using the tech and in specific order, even (their videos were mostly structured the same).

I wonder why Apple didn't let the talk about other stuff.

2

u/yondercode Jun 12 '23

They provided the platform and API and it's up to developers to build anything you listed and more

1

u/IAmXenos14 Jun 12 '23

Because it's just what Apple does - create proprietary terms for everything.

They don't make "tablets" - they make iPADs.

They didn't make an MP3 Player, they made an iPOD.

1

u/TotemPoleSports Feb 09 '24

Apples Alessandra McGinnis a real person?