To be fair, a lot of the Vision Pro is a copy of all the AR/VR things that came before it. Even the eye tracking and gesture tracking is/was not new by any extent when Apple implemented it. That's kind of how these things work (whether it should or not is a different discussion). There's very little actual innovation because innovation is risky, and the bigger the company the less real appetite there is for risk because that's how executives get fired. The direction flows down from there. Most engineers at these companies who have good ideas and really want to innovate have to (and often want to) leave and do their own startup. These big companies are quite happy to let the startups do the innovating and take all the risk, and then just buying them out or ripping them off once there's a demonstration that there's a market. With increased regulatory scrutiny, the latter seems to be getting more common, but that's also a different discussion.
Also relevant, queue the spiderman pointing at spiderman meme.
The renders of the Samsung device in the Verge article look _very_ close to Vision Pro, and unlike most of other AR/VR/XR/whateverR headsets on the market.
And headsets aren't super saturated and mature market like phones, where you can make the argument like "oh there's just so many ways to make a rectangular slab of glass". No other headsets look like that!
So the crappy face in the front, the pods for the sound, the dedicated chip for all the AR functions, and the separation of battery and headset are copies of everybody else?
I do agree that the biggest innovation comes from the software, but come on.
> So the crappy face in the front, the pods for the sound, the dedicated chip for all the AR functions, and the separation of battery and headset are copies of everybody else?
Do you really consider those things innovations? I mean, the whole transparent eye thing is new for a production product like AVP, but still a pretty old idea. Maybe it originally came from Apple, I don't know. But dedicated chip for AR is definitely NOT a new idea nor innovative, nor is separation of battery and headset. It's definitely a lot more polished with those things than anything that's been built before, but polish != innovation
It’s very convenient that anything newly brought to market is not an innovation because it was presented as a concept somehwere but anything that isn’t new is simply a copy.
There’s no room in that kind of discussion space to talk about the actual details of implementation or anything with nuance that differentiates products.
> Project Moohan felt like a mix between a Meta Quest 3 and Vision Pro headset.
> In the Moohan headset, I can say, “Take me to JYP Entertainment in Seoul,” and it will automatically open Google Maps and show me that building. If my windows get cluttered, I can ask it to reorganize them. I don’t have to lift a finger. While wearing the prototype glasses, I watch and listen as Gemini summarizes a long, rambling text message to the main point: can you buy lemon, ginger, and olive oil from the store? I was able to naturally switch from speaking in English to asking in Japanese what the weather is in New York — and get the answer in spoken and written Japanese.
