175
Report: Apple CEO “cares about nothing else” Than Building Breakout AR Glasses Before Meta
(www.roadtovr.com)
this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2025
175 points (94.4% liked)
Technology
69451 readers
3394 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Gotta need some insane resolution for that right? And 1000hz refresh to make things good I guess.
I mean for text editing, coding etc.
The resolution thing is actually almost solved IMO. I used my Quest 3 in AR mode almost every single day and the screens are perfectly fine for reading text or having a video on in the background.
Yeah there's still some screen door effect but it's really only noticeable when I look for it, it disappears in normal use.
And I genuinely can't think of a reason you would need 1000hz displays. Human eyes start to get steady motion at like 50-60 and 90-150 is when the normal eye starts to hit the limit.
Yep I've played with virtual monitors in VR space and I don't even like watching movies on them, the loss in resolution and the way the dynamic aspect of it (using a moving screen to simulate a static screen) makes it a shitty solution. Eventually it'll be good enough to watch TV in but I can't imagine doing serious work in it.
If you tried on anything lower than a Quest 3 with Virtual Desktop, you were right.
Quest 3 was the first VR headset to make virtual screens worth it. The clarity of pancake lenses cannot be overstated. The Quest pro technically had them too, but it wasn't quite good enough in some of the other aspects.
A Quest 3 with Virtual Desktop has replaced my TV and monitor because it was an upgrade to both. Even if all I did was placed those screens statically exactly where they used to be in real life. But of course, they can be anywhere, any size. The screens are 4k 120hz, good enough for pretty much anything. Once you get to about 80 degrees field of view, every pixel of a 4k 60hz signal can be temporally represented. Your head micromoves enough that you aren't missing any detail between each frame of the reference taking up two of the headsets frames. And when playing a game in actual 120 fps, you won't notice that you aren't seeing every single pixel directly physically represented every single frame, it looks good. Worth doing. 4k still looks much nicer than 1440p, which can be fully properly represented at that size and framerate.
Using anything other than Virtual Desktop, there is no need to set a monitor any higher than 1080p since they can't even draw that well enough to be properly represented. Virtual desktop is the only one that uses timewarp layers. If you were around for Carmack, you'll know that was always his first advice to every piece of VR software he reviewed, "please use timewarp layers for anything you want to look clear face-on" it's a huge difference.
Interesting. Ok, I will give it another go at some point. I had an Oculus Rift and there was a ton of promise but the tech was just not ready.
Oh yeah, for sure. The rift was great for it's time, but it is straight up comparitively garbage compared to what is out now. Wireless is now even more stable than the rift was at tracking, and the screens are so high res and they can decode at such speed that a wireless feed is almost as low latency and is much higher fidelity than what the Rift could do. There are still wired headsets that would be more clear nowadays, but with Virtual Desktop, the downsides to streaming wirelessly are pretty minimal.
Definitely get a demo of a Quest 3 if you can, or better. Though keep in mind the 3s isn't better, despite being newer, it is "s" in the same sense that smart phones tend to use it, it's a newer generation, but a cheaper lower end headset. A really good value. But it doesn't have pancake lenses, the most important part of the Quest 3, and clearly most expensive part, lol.
Wireless headsets can just be used anywhere, especially when you are in AR mode or playing something mixed reality. But they are still at their best when using your computer through them. Although, you don't have to. Their standalone games are basically xbox 360/PS3 level graphics, not amazing, but not really a problem. Most of what graphics have advanced by since then is just less "faking" stuff to look almost exactly right anyway and more rendering it in insanely computationally demanding ways to make it look 10% more right.
With Virtual Desktop, my computer is now in every room of my house, including the ones where I get to lay back in a recliner. And my computer is also at all my friends and family's houses. And with cell-phone tethering, it can be on a bus, or a hotel room where I don't want to use their wi-fi. Sometimes the cell connection is bad enough that I have to lower the resolution or framerate, but often times 4k 120hz is still viable on cell. Just has a bit more latency, so some game types are contraindicated. A 4k 120hz stream only needs about 25mbit to be clear enough to be worth using over a lower resolution or framerate. And cell latency can be as low as 5ms nowadays. 4g could only go as low as 200ms, 5g can theoretically go as low as 1ms, but obviously in practice that is almost impossible.
I did have fun with the novelty of moving multiple screens around like Minority Report but it really is just a novelty at this point