0:00

Are you trying to do like a vision pro layout

0:02

or what? Just don't worry about it.

0:04

I needed John to be here. I waited longer

0:06

than normal expecting Captain Late to be here and

0:08

I'm wrong. Oh my god, it's you. Wait,

0:12

what is behind me? I don't even

0:14

know what that background is. Maybe, does Zoom

0:16

add that or does Apple add that? I

0:18

think Zoom's doing it. I don't even know if

0:21

there's a way to change what's behind me. So

0:24

I am currently using AirPods. I am recording my real

0:26

mic and I will change as soon as I have

0:28

John freak out about how ridiculous I

0:30

look and then I will turn all this off and rejoin on

0:32

my computer. Okay. But

0:35

it was worth it for the fun of it. Oh look, there's

0:37

my, there's-ish my hand? Nope, nope, there it is. There it is.

0:40

You do the trademark Casey thumbs up. I mean, the problem

0:42

is your smile doesn't get big enough. What

0:46

are you gonna do? Ain't nobody perfect. Hi John. Hello. What's

0:49

going on? Last night,

0:51

it was a, did a podcast and I

0:53

did my normal Zoom recording. Hello, scary face.

0:56

And uh- That's all you get.

0:58

It didn't record anything. The

1:01

thing listeners that you have to learn about

1:04

trying to surprise or shock John

1:06

Cirecusa, you will never

1:08

get the reaction you want. We

1:10

know this from being friends with John for what, 13

1:13

years or whatever it's been? We know this.

1:15

A long time, yeah. But whatever

1:17

reaction you want to get out of John- You

1:19

will not receive it. Like

1:21

I believe you got what, about one and a

1:23

half words of a reaction? As

1:26

I said, I've seen a lot of personas now. We

1:28

hadn't seen Casey's persona. Anyway, that's

1:31

not to say that I'm not ever surprised about

1:33

things. Marco was very carefully trying to say you

1:35

won't get the reaction you expect. So maybe I'll

1:37

be way more surprised than you expected or way

1:39

less. There you go. We

1:43

have some follow-up. Apparently John does not

1:45

know how to do calculations. I presume

1:47

mental calculations or perhaps arithmetic beforehand. But

1:50

one way or another, you screwed up

1:52

your PPD. So tell

1:54

me what PPD is and how'd you screw it up, sir? The

1:57

problem wasn't with calculations because I wasn't doing these calculations.

2:00

It was with the little PPD calculator,

2:02

which is pixels per degree. We linked

2:04

the calculator in last episode show notes

2:06

and had a bunch of sliders and

2:08

text fields. Apparently, I messed up

2:10

one of the sliders or text fields when I

2:12

was doing the iPad Pro PPD because last episode

2:14

I said it was 28 PPD. If

2:17

I have my iPad, my 11-inch iPad

2:19

Pro sitting on a pillow on my

2:21

lap in the bed, measure the distance,

2:24

size of screen, resolution, enter it all in,

2:26

and I got 28 PPD, I had one

2:28

of the sliders just incorrectly set. The

2:31

correct number is 67 PPD. So

2:34

that kind of changes things because last episode I

2:36

was like, wow, the Vision Pro is 34 PPD,

2:38

which is pretty good for a headset. And

2:41

the iPad that I watch my TV shows on is only 28,

2:44

and that's less than the Vision Pro. Turns out,

2:46

not so much. Turns out, the Vision Pro is 34-ish, iPad Pro

2:48

11-inch, 67, 4K TV, 5 feet away, 76, Pro display

2:54

XDR, 2 feet, 100. So

2:56

it's making me feel a little bit better

2:58

about my future OLED iPad Pro purchase. Tell

3:01

me about Field of View and eye movement, if you don't

3:03

mind. This was something that occurred

3:06

to me after recording last week's episode.

3:08

We were talking about the Field of

3:10

View, the Vision Pro, and how

3:12

it compares to the headsets, and so on. And

3:15

also, Marco mentioned, like, sometimes

3:18

when he was looking at targets to like

3:20

the left and right side of the Field of

3:22

View, it was having trouble with the eye tracking,

3:24

whatever, at the extremities. And

3:26

it occurred to me that those two things combined,

3:28

that when we talk about Field

3:31

of View and how narrow it is in the headset,

3:33

as opposed to like, you know, just your eyes out

3:35

in the world or even some other headsets, it's

3:38

compounded by the fact that when you do what

3:40

Marco was describing, which is like, keep your head

3:42

still, but turn your eyes to like, you know,

3:44

in the Vision Pro, target button that's in the

3:46

upper left corner of your Field of View. When

3:50

you do that, you know, it kind of

3:52

makes sense. It's at the extremes of the edges

3:54

of the screen. You're looking through the

3:56

edges of the lenses that are in the Vision Pro.

3:59

I can understand how... eye tracking might be more difficult

4:01

there. But when you do that in real life,

4:03

and you have your head staying still, and you

4:05

move your eyes to the left to see something

4:07

in the upper left corner of your monitor without

4:09

moving your head, guess what? Your

4:12

field of view moves with your eyeballs, but

4:14

this does not happen in the Vision Pro.

4:18

So you see what I'm saying? When you shift

4:20

your eyes to the left, your whole field of

4:22

view is always centered on where your eyes are

4:24

pointed. But when you shift your eyes to the

4:26

left in Vision Pro, the field of view does

4:28

not move with your eyeballs. If

4:30

you're not moving your head, the screens are

4:32

in the same place. And

4:34

that's obvious if you think

4:37

about it, but it really does make the narrow

4:39

field of view feel more

4:41

narrow because as you shift your eyes, the field of

4:43

view doesn't shift with them. And I'm not saying it's

4:45

easy to do that. What are they gonna do to

4:47

have a little motorized? The screens that travel around would

4:49

be very difficult to do that, but it does make

4:52

the field of view feel even narrower. And it is

4:54

also why a lot of people who have used Vision

4:56

Pro for a longer time now get

4:59

into the habit of, or suggest that other people

5:01

get into the habit of moving their head more,

5:04

both to avoid Marco's issue, which is like, you know, the eye

5:06

tracking seems like it's the best kind of around the middle-ish of

5:08

the screen. And also because if

5:11

you do want to, for example, take in a

5:13

window that you have floating to your left, merely

5:15

glancing your eyes over there is not going to

5:17

reveal any more of that window. It would in

5:19

real life because the center of your field of

5:21

view would shift, but in Vision Pro, you actually

5:23

have to turn your head to move

5:25

the little screen so they know if you change what they're

5:27

displaying. That's a good point. And I also wanted

5:30

to bring up, I was talking to somebody about this, and

5:32

I think I know who it is, but they all remain

5:34

nameless, but I was talking

5:36

to somebody about this, and I believe it

5:38

was that last episode that you seemed very

5:40

disgruntled about the idea of moving your head

5:43

really in any direction, but I think particularly

5:45

laterally, in order to use

5:47

my fantasy, which is actually kind of

5:49

reality, magical world where

5:51

you've got panels of windows all around

5:53

you, and you seemed, don't

5:55

let me put words in your mouth, if

5:58

I'm mischaracterizing what you said, I apologize. It

6:00

seemed like, John, you were very perturbed about the idea of moving your

6:02

head a lot. And I was thinking about this and talking to somebody

6:05

that we know. Do you not move

6:07

your head when you're looking at that humongous

6:09

XDR? Like, do you really keep your head

6:11

dead center, locked in straight ahead? Because I've

6:13

got three 5K displays here because I'm a

6:16

weirdo and because Marco sent me one.

6:19

I'm pitching my head laterally constantly,

6:21

like all the time. Granted, not up and down,

6:23

but it's only

6:25

laterally. But I am always moving my head. Do you

6:28

not do that with your XDR? I mean, I'm sure

6:30

I do move my head, but considerably less. I'm definitely

6:32

a one monitor in front of me kind of person

6:34

because if I feel like, oh, I

6:36

have to look over there, which I guess there's some

6:38

minimum amount of head moving that makes me feel like

6:40

that. What I want to feel like is that everything

6:42

is there in front of me. Now, obviously, the bigger

6:44

the monitor gets, it's not all in front of you.

6:46

And the part of your vision that is in focus

6:48

is very small anyway. But I can

6:51

flick my eyes over to various... I

6:53

feel like I can take in my whole XDR. Obviously, I can't

6:55

because of the way human vision works. But I feel like I

6:57

can very easily flick my eyes to any corner. And

7:00

when I do that, I'm sure my head moves, but

7:02

doesn't move a lot. Whereas if you have

7:04

a second monitor, you have to make that choice that you've

7:06

made in one way and not be able to pull it

7:08

out otherwise, which is like, do I make it so the

7:10

seam between the two monitors is directly in front of me?

7:12

Or do I put one monitor directly in front of me

7:14

and then one monitor to the side? And if you have

7:17

a big monitor in front of you, the monitor to the

7:19

side is in head turning zone because you really have to

7:21

rotate. Especially if you want to see the

7:23

upper left corner of the monitor that is to the

7:25

left of the large monitor that's directly in front of

7:27

you, you're turning your head a lot and you'll feel

7:29

it. So I prefer obviously the one

7:32

big monitor. I don't know what the limit is. It's

7:35

not 32 inch, right? I'll tell you when I

7:37

get to it. I bet if I put my 65 inch

7:39

television on my desk, that would be past the limit and

7:41

I'd be turning my head just to look at the Apple

7:43

menu. But so far, from

7:45

anything that Apple has shipped that I've used with my computer,

7:48

32 inch fits within my field of view.

7:50

So when people are trying to compare

7:53

the Vision Pro and how it

7:55

might compare to regular computer

7:58

screens like this or how you might be able to... use

8:00

it as a virtual computer screen. The

8:03

sharpness and density, like John was saying

8:05

a minute ago about the PPD, the

8:07

density of a good computer monitor

8:09

is just way higher and it's

8:12

way sharper than the virtualized windows

8:14

that you create within the Vision

8:16

Pro environment. And so what

8:18

it feels like when you're making Vision

8:20

Pro windows, everything feels like

8:22

it is larger and further away usually than

8:24

how you would normally set up a computer

8:26

monitor. You can pull the windows virtually closer

8:28

to you in Vision Pro and you can

8:30

shrink them down so they match the size

8:32

and the position and the scale, but

8:35

the resolution is just not there. The displays

8:37

in the Vision Pro are not yet high

8:39

resolution enough to be able to simulate the

8:41

same density we get from computer displays that

8:43

are right there in front of us in

8:45

the real world. So you

8:48

kind of can't directly compare. So if

8:50

you wanted, for instance, if you wanted

8:52

to have the resolution of the 32

8:54

inch Pro Display XDR be

8:56

reasonably usable in the Vision Pro,

8:58

you would have to make the

9:01

window much larger than the

9:03

XDR actually appears in real life. And

9:05

you probably then either push it back from you a

9:08

little bit further in the distance, which then of course

9:10

shrinks resolution kind of even further because there's only

9:13

so many pixels on the physical displays, so that's

9:15

not really gaining any resolution, it's just changing the

9:17

perspective. Or you bring it really

9:19

close to you, in which case it's really

9:21

big and you have to turn your head

9:23

more. If you actually want to minimize head

9:25

turning as you're using a computer display, the

9:27

best way to do that is not in the

9:30

Vision Pro, it's by using a regular high

9:32

DPI external monitor. Yeah, you know, I

9:34

think another, like not bone

9:36

to pick, that's very antagonistic, but another

9:38

thing that I was reflecting on after

9:40

our last episode that I

9:43

just don't think I agree is that, you know,

9:45

the Mac Virtual Display, I think

9:47

it's perfectly fine. Like I don't really argue anything you

9:49

just said, Marco, but for my eyes, which I will

9:51

be the first to tell you, my eyes are not

9:53

great. I think I have like 2025 or 2030 or

9:55

something like that

9:58

Vision with my contacts in, which is pretty good.

10:01

which is basically the only way I live, but

10:03

they're not perfect. So consider your source here. When

10:05

I say that I think the Mac Virtual Display

10:07

is pretty darn crisp, and I think part of

10:09

that may be because I can blow it up

10:12

to be hilariously large if I so desire. And

10:15

again, I'm not arguing that the

10:17

effective resolution isn't lower than an XDR or

10:19

even a 5K machine, but I don't know.

10:21

I've used Mac Virtual Display in the Vision

10:23

Pro for a couple hours at a time,

10:25

and I didn't find it off-putting

10:27

or frustrating at all. It was perfectly

10:30

serviceable, if not an

10:32

improvement in terms of my ability

10:35

to get things done over my

10:37

14-inch display. My MacBook Pro is

10:39

onboard display. It's not an improvement in

10:41

terms of fidelity, to your point, but it certainly

10:43

felt like an improvement in terms of my ability

10:45

to get things done because I had so much

10:47

more real estate than my little 14-inch

10:50

MacBook Pro has. So I

10:53

don't know how to phrase this concisely. I'm not trying

10:55

to say you're wrong by any means, but I don't

10:57

know. My experience was a little bit different, I guess,

10:59

is the best I can say. Well, but we're actually

11:01

talking about two different things, and I think this is an

11:03

important distinction. What you are saying

11:05

is you can use it as a Mac Virtual

11:07

Display, and it works perfectly fine. You

11:10

even said the word serviceable. It works. You

11:12

can do it. It'll improve your productivity over a built-in

11:14

Mac screen, maybe. You are correct. And

11:17

I've spent a little more time with it since last week's episode.

11:20

I've tried different head-sealed shapes and foam

11:23

cushion shapes, and I've tried with and

11:25

without the reading glasses. And

11:27

there was actually a tip. Somebody put this on Reddit,

11:29

and people link us to it. In

11:32

the IPD adjustment thing, like when you put it on and it has

11:34

you hold on to the crown, and it goes, vroom, and it moves

11:36

the things in. In that

11:38

screen, if you tap the other button,

11:40

like the capture button, it can scoot

11:43

them manually back out. So

11:45

as far as I can tell, this is a

11:47

single direction adjustment. But

11:49

it does allow some degree of manual IPD

11:51

changes. And this person on Reddit had said

11:53

that this made a huge difference for them

11:56

in how sharp and clear it was to

11:58

use that eye strain. Of course,

12:00

I gotta try this. I tried a little

12:02

bit, I tried a lot. It didn't really

12:04

make any noticeable difference for me. I

12:07

have gone back to not using the

12:09

Zeiss Reader inserts, to just using it straight like

12:11

the way I had it in the lab. Sorry, I

12:13

went to a lab. That's all I can say

12:15

about that. But I still find the Vision

12:17

Pro sharp enough that I'm

12:19

pretty sure I'm not having eye problems by

12:21

not seeing it sharper. But

12:24

the Mac screen sharing is still not

12:27

nearly as sharp as a real Mac monitor. Now, this

12:30

is a totally separate discussion from whether

12:33

you can use it and whether it has utility

12:35

and whether some people can be totally fine using

12:37

it for many hours at a time. That's a

12:40

separate discussion. My claim is

12:42

that it is not as sharp as a

12:44

real Mac monitor. The kind of

12:46

sizing and positioning and focus distance

12:48

issues make it less practical for

12:50

me. And if given the choice,

12:52

I would take a regular Mac monitor any

12:54

day. I also try – people have reported,

12:57

if you have the developer strap, which we'll get to in a second, it

13:00

provides, I guess, a faster connection to the Mac

13:02

that it's connected to. And that apparently, Mac screen

13:04

sharing works better with the developer strap. I

13:07

tried it and honestly, I noticed no difference. So

13:09

I don't know if that's a thing or not. I

13:11

could tell no difference. And finally,

13:14

I tried editing this podcast on it last

13:16

week. And while it was

13:18

interesting to have that Mac screen space, I

13:21

didn't notice this when just doing basic email

13:23

and web browser and stuff like that kind

13:25

of productivity. But when I

13:27

started editing the podcast in Logic, I

13:29

immediately noticed lag. Just

13:31

like moving the mouse around because I'm doing lots

13:33

of fast mouse movements and fast keyboard and everything

13:35

when I'm using stuff in Logic. So the

13:38

lag was actually kind of a deal breaker for me

13:40

in addition to the fact that it's just – Almost

13:42

like you're using screen sharing. Yeah, it's also very awkward

13:44

trying to wear studio-sized headphones while using

13:46

the Vision Pro. That also proved to

13:48

be a problem. But there are

13:51

multiple issues with the Mac screen sharing that make it

13:53

noticeably less good than using an

13:55

actual Mac screen. And

13:58

some of those are probably just inherent. to

14:00

the technology. Some of those will probably be fixed

14:02

in the future or improved in the future with

14:04

higher resolution screens. So if you're looking for something

14:06

that's going to directly replace a

14:08

Mac screen, this won't do that, but

14:11

this can serve as a Mac screen

14:13

with some compromises. And for many people,

14:15

that will be totally fine and worth

14:17

the tradeoff. But it's not

14:19

a direct replacement. I think that's

14:22

the key, the way you ended that. That,

14:24

yeah, it isn't a direct replacement. I guess

14:26

that's true. However, it is more

14:29

than serviceable, and I know I said that

14:31

before, but it to me has been pretty,

14:33

pretty good. Now, I've occasionally noticed lag. I've

14:35

actually noticed more pointer lag, where I think

14:37

it's a little confused if I'm trying to

14:39

control a Vision OS window or the Mac

14:41

window. I've noticed a little bit more pointer

14:43

lag than I've noticed display lag, but I'm

14:45

not editing stuff in Logic or whatever. But

14:47

I think your point is fair, that it

14:49

is not better than having a dedicated monitor,

14:52

but if you are ever somewhere other than

14:54

your desk and you would like to have

14:56

more screen real estate, I think that this

14:58

is more than just acceptable. I think it's

15:00

pretty darn good. Again, consider your source. My

15:02

eyes are not great. So it very well

15:05

could be that if I had Marco's eyes

15:07

that I would look at this and go,

15:09

ugh, this ain't great at all. But to

15:11

my eyes, which in general, as

15:13

much as I'm making fun of myself, generally speaking,

15:15

in day to day use of my

15:18

eyes, I can't think of a better way to

15:20

phrase this, I don't feel like things are generally

15:22

blurry. But I want

15:24

to make it plain that my eyes are

15:26

not stupendous. And so I think that the

15:28

fidelity is fine, the crispness is fine. I

15:31

think it works reasonably well. Again, I

15:34

mean lag could be an issue if you're editing in Logic, but for

15:36

the sorts of things that I do, I think the lag is fine.

15:38

I think this is really, really good. And I

15:40

was debating if I wanted to bring this up,

15:43

but I might as well do so. I actually

15:45

did take the Vision Pro to a local library.

15:47

I did this on Monday

15:49

morning. I booked

15:51

a little conference room sort of thing,

15:53

which did have a glass wall behind me, but

15:56

I booked a conference room for a couple hours, which was like

15:58

a two person study room, I guess I thought. I should call

16:00

it. And I had my back

16:02

to the outside wall. So the only thing

16:04

that anyone would be able to see is

16:06

like the weird headband behind me. And

16:09

I did work. I wrote code for a

16:11

couple of hours. And it was

16:14

great. Like it was absolutely great. I then

16:16

got booted from my conference room because my

16:18

time was up and I needed to spend

16:20

a little time in like the regular desks

16:22

and chairs and cubicles area. And I did

16:24

not have the gumption to put the vision

16:26

pro on at that point. But for

16:29

the time that I was somewhat

16:31

secluded and not completely conspicuous, I

16:33

thought it was wonderful. It was so much

16:36

better than my rinky dink, like what is

16:38

it, like 12 or 13 inch monitor that

16:40

I bring with me as like a second

16:42

display. It was so much better than that.

16:44

So again, I'm not trying to say that

16:46

anything you've said, Marco, was incorrect, wrong or

16:48

inaccurate. All I'm trying to say is for

16:50

me and my uses, it's been great. It's

16:52

been really, really good. Yeah. And

16:54

I think what you said at the beginning of that

16:56

is pretty important. You were talking about like,

16:58

you know, your eye quality for the

17:00

lack of a better way. If

17:03

you are accustomed to not

17:06

that sharp of vision, you

17:08

might not see the difference. And that's not an

17:10

insult. Like that's just

17:12

the reality. If you are accustomed to

17:14

sharp vision and you're accustomed to the

17:16

sharpness of Mac screens, when

17:19

you see the virtual screen, like one

17:21

of the effects I get is I

17:23

almost feel like I'm getting eye strain

17:25

because my eyes are trying to focus

17:27

harder to resolve the detail they expect

17:29

to be there, but that isn't actually

17:31

there because I'm accustomed to seeing

17:33

a certain level of sharpness on the physical

17:35

Mac displays. And so when I'm using something

17:37

in vision, in vision, probably in the Mac

17:39

screen sharing mode that is a little bit

17:42

soft, my eyes think they're not

17:44

focusing correctly and they try harder to focus on

17:46

it. Similar to what I was describing last week

17:48

about like when I try to focus on stuff

17:50

that's out that's in the soft depth of field

17:52

areas of a 3D movie. Like I'm thinking I

17:54

should be able to focus on this and it

17:56

kind of hurts my eyes to look at a

17:58

defocused area of the video that I think I

18:00

should be able to focus on. So it's that same kind

18:02

of effect when looking at the max screen. If

18:05

you have pretty sharp vision

18:07

in the physical world, that,

18:09

I think, makes it more noticeable to use the

18:11

max screen this way and to see its flaws

18:13

and to potentially maybe cause some eye strain. Marco,

18:16

about your lag when

18:18

editing the podcast, you just have to wait

18:20

for the Vision OS native version of Logic,

18:22

which based on the iPad schedule should be

18:24

here in 10 short years. So hang in

18:27

there. I mean, the screens are probably a

18:29

higher resolution by now. Yeah. Just to be

18:31

clear for people, like, oh, he's saying this lag is screen

18:33

sharing with the Mac. He's using a Mac program to edit

18:35

the podcast, so he's screen sharing with his Mac. Presumably, if

18:37

it was a native Vision OS version of the thing, there

18:39

would be considerable less lag if the app would actually be

18:41

running on the Vision Pro, which has an M2 and it

18:43

would be fine. Oh, I would expect no lag if it

18:45

was native. Right. Related to what you

18:47

were all saying about screens, this is also one final

18:50

note on the whole field of view and everything. And

18:52

you were kind of both touching on it. Even

18:55

before Vision Pro came out, there was lots of people speculating

18:57

about, well, you

19:00

have such and such size monitor on your laptop

19:03

or on your desk, but once you get the

19:05

Vision Pro, imagine you could make it 100 feet

19:08

tall in front of you. We heard

19:10

a lot of that both before the Vision Pro

19:12

was in anyone's hands and now after when people

19:14

have it. They still make statements like that. And

19:17

what both of you were touching on is the edges

19:19

of that. But it made me think about, what

19:22

does it mean to have a really big screen

19:24

in front of you? Obviously,

19:27

one aspect of it that we've discussed at length is,

19:29

OK, well, how many pixels can I see? Because when

19:31

you're doing stuff with max screen sharing

19:33

or something, what it comes down to is, look,

19:36

toolbars take up a certain number of pixels. And

19:39

if I want to see more stuff on my screen, I

19:41

need to have more pixels because I don't really care if

19:43

I can make something 100 feet if it's 640 by 480

19:46

pixels because there's just not enough information density there.

19:49

But it also got me thinking about things

19:51

like watching movies. Oh, you know,

19:53

well, you could watch movies on your little laptop

19:55

on a plane. But when I'm on the plane, I

19:58

can put a 20-foot screen in front. front

20:00

of me. And there are

20:02

a couple of aspects of what does it mean to

20:04

look at a big screen, especially when thinking about things

20:06

like movie screens. When you're in a movie theater, let's

20:08

say the screen is 100 feet diagonal or something. The

20:10

screens are really big. It's a really big movie theater.

20:12

It's not a dinky movie theater. It's a big movie

20:14

theater. That screen is really

20:16

big. How that manifests in

20:19

our viewing is, one, how much of your field of view does

20:21

it take up? And if you're in the front row, it takes

20:23

up all of your field of view because you can't even see

20:25

the whole screen without turning your head. And if you're in the

20:27

back row, it takes up less, but it takes

20:29

up a certain amount of your field of view. But

20:31

field of view is not the only thing

20:33

that makes a screen big. If it was,

20:35

we could take our phones and jam them

20:37

up to our eyeballs and be like, wow,

20:39

my phone screen is huge. It's taking up

20:41

my home with my entire field of view

20:43

because it's touching the bridge of my nose,

20:45

right? Field of view is

20:48

not the only thing that determines

20:50

a screen, a big, quote unquote, big

20:52

screen. The second thing is, how far

20:54

away is it from you? And

20:56

in the movie theater, if you're watching some

20:58

gigantic IMAX screen, that's hundreds of feet, right?

21:01

Hundreds of feet diagonal. It's just a massive

21:03

screen. It's multiple stories tall. It's

21:05

also not touching the bridge of your nose. It's

21:07

probably pretty far away because if it wasn't, you

21:09

wouldn't be able to see anything. Again, if you

21:11

were sitting in the front row and you cranked

21:13

your neck and you can't even see the entire

21:15

screen, depending on how well the theater is laid

21:17

out. Inside Vision

21:20

Pro, many things conspire to make it

21:22

not a good match for anything that

21:24

I've just described. Obviously, the physical

21:26

reality is there are screens like less than an inch from

21:28

your eyeball or whatever, but that's not how it feels because

21:31

of the lenses.

21:33

So the first thing is field of view. We

21:35

know the field of view of the entire Vision

21:37

Pro is like 100 degrees. The ideal movie viewing

21:39

thing is like 40 degrees over a field of

21:41

view, you're fine. You should be able to get

21:43

something that has the same field of view as

21:45

the biggest movie theater screen you've ever seen where

21:47

you have a good seat in the theater. So

21:50

I feel like we're covered, especially for a static thing like field

21:52

of view. Pixels we already know, it's

21:55

not quite adequate to give the kind of fidelity

21:57

we expect for a Mac monitor, but it's not

21:59

awful either. Then there's distance. One

22:02

of the things that makes that 100 foot screen

22:04

feel like it's 100 feet is the fact that

22:06

it's really far away from you. That it fills

22:08

a lot of your field of view, but also

22:10

when you try to look at it, you have

22:12

to focus, I don't know, 50 feet away or

22:14

whatever, like you have to focus the distance from

22:16

the middle of the giant theater to the screen.

22:18

And that's never going to happen in the current

22:20

Vision Pro because every single thing in there is

22:22

1.3 meters from you. So

22:25

no matter how much of your field of

22:27

view you make the television screen, the

22:29

movie or whatever, no matter how big you make it, even

22:32

if you make it like I'm sitting in the front row

22:34

and I can't even see the whole screen and it's just

22:36

overwhelming me, it's still going to be 1.3

22:39

meters away as far as your eyeballs are concerned because

22:41

you'll be focusing 1.3 meters away to be able to

22:43

see what's on the screen. This

22:45

is not to say that it's bad or good

22:47

or indifferent. Sometimes having it 1.3 meters

22:49

away is probably better than having it 50 feet

22:52

or away. But it explains

22:54

why when I was in there, I experimented

22:57

with like, can I make this video really big to

22:59

make it feel like I'm watching a big screen? And

23:01

I could make it big and I could make it

23:04

fill my field of view, but it

23:06

never felt like I was watching an IMAX screen. And

23:08

it's because the IMAX screen is not 1.3 meters

23:10

from my face. So I

23:12

don't know what the solution to this other than, you know, obviously

23:14

we talked about a headset that has

23:17

a variable focal distance or whatever. But keep

23:19

this in mind when you're thinking about what

23:22

you want out of a big screen experience. When

23:24

you're talking about the Mac, you probably want more

23:26

pixels that this thing can't

23:28

really deliver comfortably for you. When

23:30

you're talking about a movie screen, if

23:32

you like the feeling of sitting in a giant movie theater, you're

23:34

not going to get that when your eyes are focusing 1.3 meters

23:36

away. But in

23:39

Casey's case, or if you're on an airplane or

23:41

whatever, you can definitely get a larger screen 1.3

23:44

meters away than you comfortably can in a

23:46

physical environment. Either whether that means that you're not carrying

23:48

your XDR with you to the library to get the

23:50

view that Casey was getting or bring it

23:52

onto a plane or whatever. How

23:55

do we turn off a Vision Pro? I don't

23:57

even remember talking about this last episode. Was this

23:59

a point? during my demo when the person was

24:01

twisting the power connector to reboot the Vision Pro.

24:03

Oh yeah yeah. So when the person did that

24:05

I teasingly said, oh you know Apple never puts

24:07

power buttons on their things because wouldn't that be

24:09

marking me into a power button. And

24:11

then I suggested to the person when they were twisting

24:14

the little thing and taking it off, I'm like why

24:16

don't you just try holding down the the the crown

24:18

and the button at the same time. And they told

24:20

me no that's not how it works. And

24:23

then as a head head to head door a

24:25

week of people sending the message is saying you

24:27

should have just told the person to hold down

24:29

these two buttons because that will show the little

24:32

shutdown slider that you see in from iOS and

24:34

let you turn down. So anyway there is an

24:36

Apple support document explaining how you can turn off

24:38

the Vision Pro. I think it's just

24:41

called how to turn off the Vision Pro and

24:43

apparently you can do any of the following. Number

24:45

one, press and hold the top button in the

24:47

digital crown and I'll show like the little shutdown

24:49

slider. Number two, go to settings general shutdown and

24:51

then drag the slider. Number three, say dingus

24:54

turn off my Apple Vision Pro. And

24:56

finally take off Amazon Pro, place it on a secure

24:59

surface like a table or desk, then disconnect the power

25:01

cable. It's amazing that they tell you that disconnecting the

25:03

power cable is one of the ways you can turn

25:05

off. I mean that's true I guess but that's kind

25:07

of a let's say ungraceful shutdown

25:09

because all the other ones give software time to

25:11

do you know and a proper clean shutdown. Disconnecting

25:14

the power does not do that. It's just gonna

25:16

power it's like oh it's the Apple TV reboot

25:18

procedure. Just yank out the power cord. Which is

25:20

kind of interesting too because like no other iOS

25:22

based device has ever had this right? Yeah just

25:25

TV. Just TV are the ones. Apple TV that

25:27

like I remember when I first got the Apple

25:29

TV is like surely this is a support document

25:31

telling me how to like you know reboot it

25:33

or shut it down and it's like just yank

25:36

the cable. Although interestingly I understand that you grabbed

25:38

this from the Apple support document not trying to argue with

25:40

you but to my recollection when

25:42

you press and hold the capture in digital

25:44

crown for a couple of seconds then that

25:46

brings up a force quit menu. So maybe

25:49

you have to mash it down for even

25:51

longer. Yeah I think both UIs

25:53

are in the same thing. Why don't you just

25:55

try it? Alright hold on I gotta strap in

25:57

again hold on. Strap in. This

26:00

is not fun to do with headphones on. I

26:02

told you. Well, in case you're doing that, I

26:04

will bring up another point, which is this document

26:06

says you can do all these things, but

26:08

I am suspicious about whether all

26:11

of them are equivalent. I

26:13

do believe that disconnecting the power will turn it

26:15

off, because there will be no more electricity, and those

26:17

capacitors will discharge eventually, and as far as we

26:19

know, there's no backup battery. So turning off, disconnecting

26:22

the power should turn the thing off.

26:25

Every other one of these things, I'm suspicious that

26:27

it's like in a deep sleep mode, and it's

26:29

not really off, you know what I mean? It

26:31

doesn't say that that's the case here, but the bottom

26:34

line is when power is still attached, I always, I

26:36

mean, Max has done it for ages, I always wonder

26:38

what it's like. I'm mostly off, but I'm kind of

26:40

a little bit on, and occasionally I'll wake up and

26:42

check for new email and stuff, which is the thing

26:44

that Max has done for ages, so

26:46

I give this a little bit of side eye.

26:48

Alright, real time follow up, real time follow up.

26:50

So I'm going to press down starting now, and

26:54

now I've got a force quit menu. And

26:56

I'm going to press down starting

26:58

now. Why

27:01

are we doing? No, no, no. Okay, there we got

27:03

slide to power off. So it was an additional one

27:05

to two seconds. I will say also like hot tip

27:07

about powering down the Vision Pro. However

27:09

you choose to do it, definitely power it down

27:11

if you're going to be not using it for

27:13

a while and it's not plugged in, because it

27:15

drains its own battery. If you just leave it

27:17

like on a countertop, not plugged in, it'll

27:20

be dead by the next morning. Mine

27:22

wasn't dead by the next morning, but it was

27:24

like half the battery. It had to be moved

27:26

up. It was like the AirPods Max, just like

27:28

the AirPods Max is downloading your photos from your

27:30

iPhoto library, so is your Vision Pro. AirPods Max

27:32

can't display them, it just likes to download them.

27:35

Photo analysis, do you have to run? I

27:38

actually do think that's one of the things that melted

27:40

my battery, because I had done this like the second

27:42

day I had it, you know, I had left it

27:44

somewhere, I forget where, and it was plugged in, or

27:46

plugged into the battery pack, but the battery pack was

27:49

not plugged into anything. When I got to it the

27:51

next morning, it was at like 50% or something like

27:53

that. Yeah, it's downloading your messages, it's thinking your notes,

27:55

it's doing all the things. If you have a long,

27:57

long time, you know, long time, you know, you can't

27:59

do it. long suffering Apple ID, let's say.

28:02

It's got a lot of data, and this thing's going

28:04

to try to download it, and yeah, it's going to

28:06

eat your battery. All right,

28:08

let's talk about the developer strap. We

28:11

all ordered, was it the day of release,

28:13

I believe, Marco? It was like the day

28:15

after. It was sometime soon afterwards, but you

28:18

could kind of tell, like, maybe they just

28:20

didn't want people to really talk about it,

28:22

because I think they kind of buried this

28:24

announcement. Yeah, I think I'm pretty sure it

28:26

was the day of release, but if not, like you

28:28

said, it was the next day. I would rather. So

28:30

to recap, this is a $300 strap. So

28:36

it's the white pieces on the

28:38

Vision Pro that connect

28:41

to the Vision Pro to the back strap,

28:43

and in certain cases, the top strap as

28:45

well. The light

28:47

seal or shield, the light shield

28:49

and the little light

28:51

shield cushion, those do not touch the strap, those

28:53

touch the Vision Pro itself, but the

28:55

back strap and top strap strap, if applicable,

28:58

connect to these white straps, and the white

29:00

straps also has the ear pods, audio pods,

29:02

whatever they're called. It's the right stick. That's

29:04

right. And so the right hand stick, if you

29:06

get the developer, the $300, did I mention $300? The

29:10

$300 developer strap. Are

29:13

you a little upset about the price, maybe? Like

29:16

I mean, honestly, I do to a degree,

29:18

I do get it, but whoa, golly. So

29:21

this is the $300 strap that in the

29:23

same spot that on the left hand side,

29:25

you plug in power to the Vision Pro,

29:27

it has a very similar design, like little

29:29

nubbin, if you will, and hanging

29:31

off of that nubbin is

29:33

a USB-C receptacle so that

29:36

you can plug USB-C in on

29:38

this and USB-C in on your computer,

29:40

and then you can do things like

29:42

have better screen sharing, allegedly. I mostly

29:44

agree with you, Marco. I haven't really

29:46

noticed a big difference on that. But

29:49

one way or another, you can have better screen

29:51

sharing, allegedly, and you can also do much easier,

29:53

faster, better, etc. development because you're not relying on

29:55

Wi-Fi. I got one of

29:57

these, I ordered it immediately because I was still worried

30:00

about it. about inventory and things like

30:02

that. It turns out that was, I think, for

30:04

naught. But nevertheless, I ordered it immediately. It came

30:06

in the Monday that I had left to go

30:08

to New York, so I didn't

30:10

get a chance to play with it until this past Monday,

30:12

when I brought it with me to the library knowing I

30:14

was going to be doing Vision Pro development, and I thought

30:16

to myself, you know what, I'm gonna leave this thing sealed,

30:18

and it was, it was actually in the shipping box at

30:21

this point, I'm gonna leave it sealed, and hopefully I won't

30:23

need it. You know, hopefully it won't be a big deal.

30:26

And I connected my Vision

30:28

Pro to my computer via Wi-Fi, and

30:31

it did the, I forget exactly what it's called,

30:33

Marco, you probably remember, but the like, downloading symbols

30:36

or preparing for development, whatever it is, dance. And

30:38

it's at 0%, at 2%, at 4%, at 6%. And

30:44

after literally like half an hour of

30:47

this, I immediately opened

30:49

the development, the $300 developer strap, and

30:51

said, the hell with this, I'm

30:54

gonna have to open this thing up. And when

30:56

I opened it, I was under the impression

30:58

that this was a USB 2.0 device, it

31:01

only, only

31:03

thing it does is apparently a little bit

31:05

of magic with screen sharing, allegedly, and

31:08

it lets you do, you know, debugging and

31:10

whatnot via the cable, and apparently, John, that's

31:12

not right. So what's going on here? Yeah,

31:15

I think there's still just people speculating, but

31:17

they're pulling it up in the system information

31:19

app in macOS, and you can see it

31:21

listed under the Thunderbolt slash USB 4 bus.

31:25

You can see the Apple Vapro listed under there

31:27

once you connect it with an actual Thunderbolt cable.

31:29

This is leading people to believe that this thing

31:31

is Thunderbolt capable, even if none of the software

31:34

that we have now is taking advantage of it.

31:36

And one of the things that lends credence to that is

31:38

if you look at the standard little

31:40

white stick that plugs in there, and you take it out,

31:43

and you see the widest lightning connector Apple has ever made,

31:45

that has 10 contacts on it, and

31:47

those contacts are only on one side,

31:49

so it's a very odd, asymmetrical, one-sided

31:52

curved lightning. The

31:54

developer strap has 14 contacts, or 28,

31:57

14 on each side. So

32:01

that's a lot more contacts. Even if it's just four

32:03

more, that's substantial. And the fact that they have

32:05

them on both sides makes me think that this developer

32:07

strap is surely equipped, electrically

32:09

speaking, to do more than USB 2.0

32:12

speeds. We'll see if that

32:14

speed is unlocked in the future, but it sure

32:17

looks like that maybe you might get more for

32:19

your money, more for your $300 than

32:21

USB 2.0 speeds if

32:23

and when new versions of Vision OS

32:26

and or Mac OS and or Xcode

32:28

are released. Can you

32:30

imagine if this thing could, and I mean

32:32

granted it's dongle town all over again, but

32:34

can you imagine if you could plug in

32:36

like an HDMI in to this thing, the

32:39

same ones that I've gotten and many people

32:41

have gotten for their iPads and for their

32:43

Macs, especially what's the name of the

32:45

app that's really good

32:47

for HDMI input on the iPad that the Halide

32:49

people do, I'm drawing a blank now. Shoot,

32:52

I'll have to try to remember to put it in the show notes, but anyways,

32:55

yeah, you imagine having an HDMI dongle and then plugging

32:57

into that HDMI dongle, I don't know, like a

32:59

Nintendo Switch or something like that. That would be neat.

33:02

Is that possible? Who knows? Probably be

33:04

an HDCP, whatever, you know, handshake violation

33:06

and you just get a black screen,

33:08

so don't worry about it. Yeah,

33:11

but I don't know, it would be cool if it

33:13

was more capable than just doing, you know, the developer

33:16

strap stuff as it is today. And I'm not, I

33:18

mean, I am grumbly obviously about the fact that it's

33:20

$300, but

33:22

nevertheless, it is very convenient. And I know

33:25

I haven't done watch development seriously, you know,

33:27

I've dabbled as we talked about many years

33:29

ago, but golly, I would pay $3,000 for

33:31

one of these for

33:34

an Apple Watch. Oh my God, I would, no question,

33:36

like if there was some kind of Apple Watch developer

33:39

strap, even if it was also $300 or more, I

33:43

would buy it in a second, because even

33:46

though the wifi debugging to the Apple Watch

33:48

has gotten way less crappy than it used

33:50

to be, it is still really crappy compared

33:52

to any kind of wired debugging like on

33:54

a phone. So yeah, no question, like, and

33:56

that's why I bought this too. It

33:58

is clunky to use. in the sense that

34:01

it is now two cables. There's a

34:03

cable coming out of each end and

34:05

that's really great. Yeah, that's not great.

34:08

However, if you are doing like

34:10

active debugging or like a fast build and

34:12

run cycle on the Vision Pro from Xcode,

34:14

it is really nice to have that be

34:16

as fast as it can be. And

34:19

that is why I bought it because I knew,

34:22

I always, like I've

34:24

upgraded my entire Apple Watch solely

34:26

because Underscore told me it would build the Apple

34:28

a little bit faster in this build and run

34:30

cycle. That's how much it

34:32

matters when you're actually actively debugging and actively

34:35

building and running an app in like a

34:37

tight loop of, alright, change this, fix this,

34:39

run again. Every second matters

34:41

for both your productivity and honestly

34:43

your mood. And so for

34:45

me it's very high value to try to

34:48

shorten that loop and try to make sure

34:50

there's a little friction as possible when I

34:52

got to do that cycle. And even

34:54

though the cable situation is stupid, the

34:57

price is stupid. The

35:00

fact that it was not built into

35:02

the battery cable that itself has communication

35:04

protocols and the USB-C port on the

35:06

battery is the stupidest of them all.

35:09

However, I still did gladly buy

35:11

it and use it because

35:14

the debugging cycle is just that much

35:16

better and it makes that much of a difference in my

35:18

life. Yeah, I really wish

35:20

that you could optionally, and I

35:22

get why Apple doesn't do this because there's 104 reasons

35:25

why it would be clunky, but I

35:27

wish you could power this thing through

35:29

the developer strap because... Yes, somehow, give me

35:32

one cable. Right, that would be tremendous. And

35:35

I mean, USB-C can carry power. That

35:38

is a thing USB-C can do, but unfortunately not

35:40

here. But I mean, the battery, we just announced

35:42

last week that the battery puts out a voltage

35:45

that is not supported by any of

35:47

the USB power, to the respects, I believe. It's

35:50

weird because it seems like

35:53

the hardware was designed without

35:55

ever talking to the Xcode team. Designed

35:58

in a vacuum with no... No one ever

36:00

considering, hey, what about cable debugging? I mean,

36:02

I'm sure they were using

36:05

Xcode to do all the development of the Vision

36:07

Pro. That's a good – so how – like,

36:09

okay, I don't want to harp on this too

36:11

long, but just how did

36:13

this not get integrated into the main battery

36:15

cable somehow? That blows my

36:17

mind. Yeah. Real-time follow-up, the app

36:20

that you were thinking of apparently according to the chat

36:22

room is Orion. Does that ring at all, Casey? Yes,

36:24

that's it. Thank you.

36:26

Yep, yep, yep. Thank you. I

36:28

was just a little bit of a intro, asking about debugging on the

36:30

watch, like, so the rumors are that there is

36:32

and was a thing that you would connect to,

36:34

like, the little diagnostic port behind the strap for

36:36

watches internal to Apple to do essentially wired debugging

36:38

on the Apple Watch. And then the

36:40

rumor was that future Apple Watches – I don't know

36:42

if that means current or still-to-come ones – used

36:45

a sort of high-frequency wireless interface to do

36:47

that debugging that was better than Wi-Fi, but

36:49

it was kind of like a direct point-to-point

36:52

wireless interface with some really high

36:54

frequency. So what we're saying is that

36:56

we've always heard that inside Apple, the

36:58

build-and-run cycle that Marco was just complaining about for

37:01

the Apple Watch is better inside Apple, but

37:03

that betterness supposedly has not

37:05

yet trickled out to the regular developers. We

37:10

are brought to you this week exclusively

37:12

by ATP members. Please consider

37:14

joining and becoming a member today. So here's

37:16

what you get. The biggest benefit, the most

37:19

commonly used, you get an ad-free version of

37:21

the show. You get basically your

37:23

own private RSS feed. It's compatible with most podcast

37:25

apps, and you can just paste it in, off

37:28

you go, you get an ad-free version of the show. You

37:30

also get bonus episodes. This is exclusive

37:32

content for members. We do all sorts

37:34

of stuff about once a month or

37:36

so. We do things like

37:38

rank certain tech products or

37:41

review movies or try food, stuff like that. It's

37:43

a lot of fun, honestly. I really enjoy the

37:45

member content, and our members tell us they really

37:47

do too. You also get a bootleg

37:49

feed. This gives you, if you want to listen

37:51

to the show this way, you can in addition

37:53

or instead, this gives you unedited live streams of

37:55

the show. It's published right after

37:57

we finish doing the live stream, so it's published about

37:59

usually... You know the night before the

38:01

episode comes out by almost a day, and then

38:03

it's totally raw and uncut So you get to

38:06

hear like you know if we like flub an

38:08

intro have to redo it you hear that you

38:10

use your case He's swearing without the beeping it

38:12

out stuff like that You'll hear bonus

38:14

stuff at the beating an end or picking titles

38:16

and you know trying to figure out the format

38:18

or making you know It kind of irrelevant discussions

38:21

before after the show that we end up cutting

38:23

all that's included in the bootleg It's a lot

38:25

of fun being a member You can do all

38:27

this for just eight bucks a month, and it

38:29

is by far the best way to support the

38:31

show So please consider doing it. We would really

38:33

appreciate it ATP FM join

38:35

once again eight bucks a month

38:37

ATP FM join

38:39

thank you so much for your consideration and

38:41

now back to the show Matt

38:47

Rigby writes to us many quote-unquote 3d

38:49

films including the recent Star Wars trilogy are

38:51

actually 3d Conversions that is

38:53

to say the films are shot in

38:55

2d on a single camera And then

38:58

rotoscope artists individually cut out each element

39:00

of every shot frame by frame Otherwise

39:03

known as rotoscoping then map these elements

39:05

as textures onto rough 3d objects and

39:07

render those objects in 3d space Holy

39:10

fart knockers. I can't believe that that's what

39:12

people do to make these 3d movies. That

39:14

sounds terrible, but Matt links to Real

39:17

3d or fake 3d comm that is literally

39:19

the URL real 3d or fake 3d comm

39:22

Also linked in last last week's show notes

39:24

Because that's why I was trying getting at when I was

39:27

talking about the 3d movies and Margot had watched the Star

39:29

Wars ones And the 3d wasn't done very well there and

39:32

the real or fake 3d Hostname

39:34

is you know obviously? Extreme

39:37

basically saying the thing you just read Casey That's

39:39

fake fake 3d because it was like well the

39:41

movie was shot in 2d and then we make

39:43

it 3d It's also called like post conversion or

39:45

whatever and so the real or fake 3d comm

39:47

site It basically lists movies like look if you

39:50

want to know if the movie you're going to

39:52

watch is real or fake 3d Look

39:54

it up on here, and you'll know what it

39:56

is that you're getting the implication being that you would

39:58

presently want to avoid the quote-unquote about fake 3D

40:00

instead of the real one. So

40:04

I talked to our friend and

40:06

illustrious industrial light and magic special

40:08

effects artist Todd Vizzieri, who has

40:10

worked on many Star Warses and

40:13

many other Star Trekks and other movies you may have

40:15

heard of about the topic

40:17

of 3D, and in particular the whole

40:19

thing about real and fake 3D. And

40:23

he had an interesting take on it. I'm going

40:25

to try to summarize it here because I didn't

40:27

record our conversation and it was in

40:29

audio instead of email so I can't quote passages

40:31

from it. His take was that shooting

40:34

quote unquote real 3D with

40:37

two cameras sitting next to each other, you're filming stuff

40:39

with two cameras in 3D so you get a right

40:41

eye and a left eye thing of it, is

40:44

kind of a pain in the butt. Now it's pain in

40:46

the butt for some obvious reasons. You have two

40:48

cameras, they take up more room, they're heavier, it's pain to

40:50

deal with two cameras to make sure they're all working and

40:52

everything. You can't get those two cameras into the same places

40:54

that you can get one camera into, you have less flexibility

40:57

there, right? Also when you're filming

40:59

with two cameras you have to make a bunch

41:01

of decisions when you're

41:03

filming that you don't have to, when

41:06

you're post converting you can change your

41:08

mind about stuff like that. So for

41:10

example, what we were just saying, the

41:12

IPD, the interpupillary distance, it's called the

41:14

interaxial distance in the realm of 3D

41:16

filming. When you film with two

41:18

cameras you pick that distance by putting the cameras that

41:20

distance apart from each other. And

41:22

it's not easy to change that after the fact,

41:25

whereas when you film in 2D and they do

41:27

that 3D conversion, you're choosing when

41:29

you do the conversion what

41:32

you want that distance to be. When

41:34

you do the conversion, like later after the entire

41:36

film is put together, but when you're shooting in

41:38

3D you're kind of baking in that distance in

41:40

every one of your shots that you make. And

41:43

that's important because there's a whole bunch of guidelines

41:45

for doing 3D filming that you want to try

41:48

to not violate which is like don't

41:50

change that interaxial distance massively from one

41:53

shot to the next. Because if you're

41:55

cutting between them it'll make people's eyes

41:57

bug out. It's like, whoa! now

42:00

my eyes are three feet apart, now they're two inches apart,

42:02

now they're three feet apart, now they're one inch apart. You

42:05

don't want to bounce that back and forth in the

42:07

same way that you wouldn't want to bounce back and

42:09

forth lots of things in the 2D world. So you

42:11

have to have a lot of planning and be careful

42:13

and be precise. You do

42:15

have a lot of repair to do when you

42:17

film in 3D because you have to sort

42:19

of make the image from each of

42:21

the cameras match up in a pleasing way when

42:23

viewed in 3D, which involves unwarping the lens distortion

42:26

and making it so that when you actually watch

42:28

it with 3D glasses or in a headset or

42:30

something that it doesn't look weird.

42:33

If you get lens flares, you'll get different

42:35

lens flares in each camera because they're in

42:37

different positions and trying to reconcile two different

42:40

lens flares that you're showing in 3D is

42:42

weird because we're all used to

42:44

seeing one lens flare because the lens flares actually

42:46

happen inside the lens. I mean you're shooting

42:48

with one camera, you get one lens flare and that's

42:50

what we're all used to seeing in movies. But

42:52

when you shoot with two cameras, you get two lens flares

42:55

or maybe one but not in the other one depending on

42:57

where the lights are and we're not

42:59

used to seeing that so it's weird. That's

43:02

very, it makes

43:04

filming very difficult and it makes you have to sort

43:06

of do like a Hitchcock style where you have everything

43:08

planned out, you know exactly what you want, you shoot

43:11

only what you need and you can't

43:13

change your mind easily by all this stuff. Whereas

43:15

post conversion, you shoot it in 2D using all

43:17

the techniques and technologies that we've always had for

43:19

2D and then later someone comes along and says

43:21

now I have to figure out how to make

43:24

this into 3D and they can slice and dice

43:26

it and you know it sounds like a lot

43:28

of work and it is a big pain but

43:30

you can choose each individual

43:33

frame of film how you want things to look so

43:35

you'll know that okay we know that shot A comes

43:37

after shot B comes after shot C so I'll make

43:40

sure I don't bounce around the interact field distance there

43:42

because the film is done, it's already

43:44

put together you don't have to guess. The people who

43:46

are filming it have to, not guess

43:48

but like say well I hope this shot comes after this shot

43:50

comes after this shot but if we decide to change it around

43:52

it might be jarring because that shot we shot yesterday and the

43:54

cameras are closer together than they are now, it's

43:57

kind of a pain in the butt. And as

43:59

for the movie that I saw in my demo, I

44:01

was asking like, why

44:04

would that look like bad

44:06

3D or fake looking 3D to me?

44:09

It's a CG rendered movie and I kept saying they

44:11

have all the depth information and people thought what I

44:13

was saying is that somehow that there was like that

44:15

I was going to get infinite depth information in

44:17

the like in the movie itself

44:20

as opposed to just a right eye and a left

44:22

eye thing. What I'm saying is like when you're 3D

44:24

rendering it, the rendering software when it's generating the image

44:26

knows the distance of all the pixels. So

44:28

there's no reason that it would, that things should

44:30

look like they are 2D cutouts. Todd

44:33

didn't know any details about the Mario movie but he

44:36

said it's completely plausible that someone could have a CG

44:38

movie and to save money or time they

44:40

would render out either the whole thing

44:43

in 2D and then slice it up and add

44:45

fake 3D to a CG movie or render it

44:47

out in layers and have those be composited together

44:49

and part of that is again for cost and

44:51

annoyance reasons. If you're doing a computer

44:54

animated movie like a Pixar movie, you

44:56

can do it the quote unquote real

44:59

way where you render two different perspectives.

45:01

You have two virtual cameras in your

45:03

virtual world and you render from two

45:05

different perspectives but when you do

45:07

that you quickly find oh it turns

45:09

out that now one of the cameras can see

45:11

around back behind a piece of geometry that I

45:13

thought was hidden in the 2D version of the

45:15

movie and now I can see some place where

45:17

we didn't fill in a texture or like Todd's

45:20

example was like there's a walk animation of someone doing

45:22

a walk thing and they go out of view and

45:24

once they go out of view the walk animation stops

45:26

because you don't need to animate it when they're not

45:29

in view but the other camera spots when their legs

45:31

stop moving and they just start sliding along right so

45:34

you have it's harder to it's like building

45:36

a set right oh now your set's going

45:38

to be viewed from two slightly different perspectives

45:40

so be careful you're not basically messing

45:43

up your movie by trying to do it with two

45:45

virtual cameras and of course two virtual cameras means twice

45:47

the rendering time because you're not just rendering from one

45:49

camera you need twice the CPU power or twice the

45:51

amount of time to render each frame this

45:54

is why tons of quote-unquote fake

45:57

3D happens in movies in it it

46:00

makes sense, but it also kind of explains the

46:02

thing that I don't like about a lot of

46:04

those is it does look like someone

46:07

cut out through pieces of paper, the foreground,

46:09

the mid-ground, and the background, and they're sliding

46:11

past each other in a way that doesn't

46:14

look convincingly 3D to me in the way

46:16

that the cameras in the

46:18

Alicia Keys studio look convincingly 3D as if I

46:20

was there because the cameras were similar to

46:22

some of my eyes and they

46:25

were shooting a real thing that was really there and that's all there

46:27

was to it. Friend of the show,

46:29

Joe Rosenstiel, wrote on Six

46:31

Colors and it's a members-only post that we're

46:33

going to apparently steal some of, so I

46:35

hope we have permission. I'm blaming John. These

46:38

are excerpts from Joe's summary of his own

46:40

post, so I would recommend subscribing to Six

46:42

Colors and read the entire article, which is

46:44

much longer, but here is Joe, he sent

46:46

this through email. It's him trying to condense

46:48

and summarize some of the major points. A

46:50

couple of important definitions off the top. Interaxial

46:52

is the distance between two stereo

46:55

cameras. The distance between the human

46:57

eyes is fixed at about 65 millimeters, but

46:59

the distance between cameras can be anything.

47:02

And secondly, convergence. This is

47:04

where the two

47:06

images converge. When they have positive parallax,

47:09

they recede into the screen and when

47:11

they have negative parallax, they stick out

47:13

of the screen. So

47:15

Joe writes with that in mind, everything you

47:18

see with stereoscopic media, 3D stuff, is going

47:20

to be different because you can't just set

47:22

up two cameras 65 millimeters apart and call

47:24

it a day. When I used to work

47:27

on stereoscopic movies, we would define interaxial and

47:29

convergence values, not just per shot, but per

47:31

element of a shot. Because where the objects

47:33

really were would have been boring to look

47:36

at. Films are about directing the audience's view.

47:38

A big part of depicting

47:40

depth and directing the viewer's eye in 2D

47:42

requires adjusting focal distance and aperture. Elements that

47:45

are extremely out of focus imply depth in

47:47

2D and direct the eye. In stereoscopic films,

47:49

the more something is out of focus, the

47:51

more it loses any detail that your brain

47:53

can use to see disparity between the different

47:55

images shown to each eye. And thus, positive

47:57

or negative parallax. Extremely out of focus elements.

48:00

Mush themselves back toward the depth of the

48:02

screen regardless of them being far away or

48:04

extremely close. service be to point that we

48:06

just weather here are fascinating. So the first

48:09

is. Defining. Different

48:11

so I interact. Oh, and convergence values

48:13

for multiple things in the same size?

48:15

of basically, it's almost as a fight.

48:17

Okay, when we sought the foreground characters,

48:19

the cameras were two feet apart. But

48:21

then the table. There's the that's behind

48:23

them. The cameras were six inches apart,

48:26

like adjusting the parents for the individual

48:28

things. which is. Obviously.

48:30

Not how eyes work. Our eyes on Sunday moved to

48:32

feet apart when we look at one thing and a

48:34

movie together. When we look at another thing, they're always

48:36

the same distance apart. Only thing is you can't just

48:39

take two. Cameras are rather he. Threw

48:41

the way through. These are movies have been done, hasn't

48:43

just been to take two cameras for them human eye

48:45

with the bar and stick them and point them. It's

48:47

something because that is deemed. either.

48:49

Not interesting. Or. As he

48:52

notes like the they're they're using those

48:54

two tools the interests of the since

48:56

I'm a convergence. To. Direct the

48:58

audience of eye toward something which is

49:00

nothing. I think. I distinguishes three movies

49:02

which I tend not to like. From

49:04

the Alicia Keys and Shark Swing towards

49:06

you think those are straight up to

49:08

cameras the with of your eyes and

49:10

so it feels like you're there. right?

49:12

Where is the three? The movie. The.

49:16

Hand of the artist to the director

49:18

is more prominent because they are directing

49:20

your i am to directly your eyes.

49:22

They're doing things that. Don't.

49:25

Exist when you're looking at something like again

49:27

and multiple items in the sought using different

49:29

camera distances apart. Whether it's real three, the

49:32

to deal with the you do in real

49:34

Thirty Two shot them separately in a composite

49:36

of them later or if it's fake three

49:38

days they just you know separated them differently

49:40

when they were slicing elements up. And

49:42

that to me looks weird on the a thing

49:45

as oh what about focal distance? Well things that

49:47

are out of focus tend to just look like

49:49

center like your eyes can't tell the difference between

49:51

them so they just sort of. Converge.

49:54

on the the center of the screen like said just

49:56

as it up the screen even as you may be

49:58

interactive this is huge and the They're

50:00

supposed to be way far back in the screen. As soon

50:02

as you blur them, people start to perceive them as being

50:05

exactly at screen level, which is not

50:08

what you want. And I also kind of feel that when I

50:10

watch 3D movies where it's like, okay, well, they use a shallow

50:12

depth of field here and the

50:15

3D things look 3D, but that blurry

50:17

thing, it's blurry in the film because,

50:19

you know, it was out of focus

50:21

when they filmed it, but it should

50:23

feel like it's 10 feet back, but it feels to

50:25

me like it's right next to the foreground characters because

50:27

it feels like it's at the depth of the screen.

50:30

So Joe continues, the 3D method used

50:32

animated, post converted, or native stereo doesn't

50:34

really make a film good or bad.

50:37

There's a tendency to say that all post converted films

50:39

are bad or fake, but that's

50:41

not universally true because post conversion can allow

50:43

for a greater degree of control over the

50:45

end result if it's done well. Isn't that

50:47

what Todd just said? Conversely, native stereo and

50:49

animated films are not universally more 3D because

50:51

they captured full left and right eye views,

50:54

like if they just set it near to human

50:56

vision, pushed everything behind the screen plane, and didn't

50:58

dial in the depth of field to increase what's

51:00

in focus, etc. So these came in

51:02

independently, and I don't know exactly when

51:04

you had your conversation with Todd, but

51:06

I think pretty much concurrently Joe and

51:08

Todd said basically the same stuff. Yeah,

51:10

Joe also works in the VFX industry,

51:12

and it really clarified for me why

51:14

I don't like 3D movies because, I

51:17

mean, I guess they could be done well or not

51:19

well, but first of all, the Star Wars ones and

51:21

the fake 3D, that always bothers me for like the

51:23

paper cutout thing, like the foreground characters feel like they're

51:26

closer, but they feel like they're being projected onto a

51:28

flat screen and they're close to me, and I actually

51:30

asked about that. I'm like, did they ever, especially

51:32

for the foreground characters, does he ever

51:34

do anything to make it so like when they're

51:36

post converting a 2D thing, the foreground characters don't

51:39

look like the paper dolls, right? And

51:41

apparently sometimes they take like a rough 3D model

51:43

of a head and they

51:45

map the essentially texture of the

51:47

2D filmed guy's head onto

51:49

that, so his ear is closer to you

51:51

than his nose when he's side, you know

51:53

what I mean? But that, I

51:56

just look at that, I'm like, just shoot it with two

51:58

cameras, man, but again, all the complexity.

52:00

And the second thing is, I think

52:02

there has to be a distinction between what looks good in a headset and

52:04

what looks good on a movie screen. The reason

52:06

I'm so wowed by the stuff in the headset is

52:08

because I'm looking at screens, two

52:10

screens that are eye-width apart, and

52:13

the video I'm looking at was shot with a

52:15

camera, where the two cameras were basically two eye-width

52:17

apart. So it's straight, it feels like I'm in

52:19

the water with the shark, feels like I'm in

52:21

the studio with Leisha Keys. That is very different

52:23

than sitting in a theater season looking at a

52:26

screen and then having the people

52:28

who made the movie decide where they

52:30

want to direct your attention with. So

52:32

I'm extremely unrealistic, but hopefully pleasing and

52:34

interesting and exciting 3D work. And I

52:36

personally really don't like that second thing,

52:38

but I really like the shark. Fair

52:40

enough. All right, we've gotten a

52:43

little bit of news with regard to the European

52:45

Union's Digital Markets Act. This

52:48

is the genesis of all the oddness that's going

52:50

on with the App Store in the EU, but

52:52

we're not talking about the App Store right now.

52:54

We're talking about iMessage, and iMessage was one of

52:56

those things that the DMA people were

52:58

wondering whether or not it classifies as a,

53:01

what is it, a core platform service, which

53:03

is their term of art to mean we're

53:05

gonna regulate the snot out of you. And

53:07

so reading from the Verge, Apple's

53:10

iMessage is not being designated

53:12

as a quote core platform service

53:15

quote under the European Union's Digital

53:17

Markets Act. The European Commission announced

53:19

today, this is yesterday, the decision

53:21

means the service won't be hit

53:23

with tough new obligations, including a

53:25

requirement to offer interoperability with other

53:27

messaging services. The Commission also opted

53:29

against designated Microsoft's Edge browser being

53:31

search engine and advertising businesses as

53:33

core platform services. Although iMessage

53:35

has avoided the burden of complying with rules

53:38

that come with the official DMA designation, the

53:41

period of regulatory scrutiny coincided with

53:43

Apple announcing support for the cross-platform

53:45

RCS messaging standard on iPhones. Meta,

53:47

meanwhile, has seen two of its

53:49

messaging platforms, WhatsApp and Messenger, designated

53:52

as core platform services under the DMA

53:54

and has been working to make them

53:56

interoperable with third-party services Wampano. I think

53:58

it's like your prize to like all the loot Microsoft

54:00

Edge, the search engine that nobody

54:02

uses, iMessage, you're not even big

54:05

enough to be regulated, sorry. I'm

54:07

sure Apple likes it, but it's kind of, you know.

54:09

Well, I mean, this might have also been the result

54:12

of Apple lobbying for it in some way. I mean,

54:14

because keep in mind, the DMA

54:16

is not defining these

54:18

standards in a vacuum. The DMA

54:20

targets specific companies with specific products

54:23

and services, and then rationalizes

54:25

it with how it draws the

54:27

line. Yeah, yeah, like it targets them by

54:29

picking an arbitrary number. If you

54:31

have more than this exact number of customers as of

54:34

whatever date, and they just look up who has them

54:36

on that date, and they just... Exactly.

54:38

So like, you know, so for whatever

54:40

reason, it isn't that iMessage just doesn't

54:42

qualify, it's that they drew the lines

54:44

to not include iMessage. Yeah. Which

54:47

I think is fair, actually, because it isn't as

54:49

dominant as the ones they are regulating, and

54:51

certainly Microsoft Edge is not dominant, neither is

54:54

Bing, so congratulations, and I'm sorry,

54:56

I guess. And then Riley

54:58

Testit has written into

55:00

us with regard to Apple's third-party

55:02

marketplace system for the Digital Markets

55:05

Act. So Riley is

55:07

the author, Genesis, creator of Alt

55:09

Store, and so Riley has a

55:11

lot of experience with what is

55:14

probably the most official, even though

55:16

it's very, very, very unofficial, third-party

55:19

App Store for the iPhone today. So

55:21

Riley writes, So Riley has

55:23

been pouring through the Marketplace Kit documentation for the past week and

55:25

a half, and there's some nuances I've learned from implementing this

55:27

for Alt Store. First of all, any

55:29

developer can choose to distribute their apps to alternative

55:32

app marketplaces regardless of where they live. Once they've

55:34

agreed to the new business terms, only developers building

55:36

app marketplaces need to be based in the EU,

55:39

or have legal subsidiary in the EU. To

55:41

start using marketplaces, you must first request a

55:43

security token from an alternative marketplace, which

55:46

will allow you to add that marketplace in App

55:48

Store Connect. Once you've added a marketplace, you can

55:50

then choose which apps you want to distribute with

55:52

it. You can distribute any of your apps to

55:55

any combination of marketplaces, including the App Store. Users

55:57

will have to delete an app before installing the same

56:00

app. from another marketplace though. When you're

56:02

ready to distribute your app, you submit it

56:04

to Apple through Xcode like normal and wait

56:06

until notarization finishes. Once processed, developers can automatically

56:08

submit notarized apps to marketplaces through Apple, or

56:10

they can manually download the notarized, quote, alternative

56:12

distribution package, quote, or ADP, and send it

56:14

directly to the marketplace themselves. It's up to

56:16

the marketplaces to choose how they want to

56:18

receive their apps. That's the most interesting thing

56:20

in this email because before we were saying,

56:23

oh, everything has to go through Apple and

56:26

it does have to go through Apple, but

56:28

Apple and Apple can deliver it to the third party store,

56:30

but they can also just give it back to you and

56:32

say, you know, you can do this last part. I don't

56:35

know what that buys you other than more hassle because you

56:37

do have to go through Apple. And so it's not like

56:39

you can bypass them. But if you wanted,

56:41

you can say, Apple, don't send it to the

56:43

store, send it to me. And then I'll send

56:45

it to the store. And I guess the marketplace

56:47

would have its own upload portal thing where they

56:49

accept them. I don't know what the advantages would

56:51

be, but it's interesting that that flexibility does exist.

56:54

Riley continues, I fully agree that third party

56:56

marketplaces only really make sense for apps that

56:58

can't exist on iOS right now, but not

57:01

just for the obvious content reasons. For example,

57:03

besides the fact that my app Delta isn't

57:05

allowed in the app store because it's a

57:07

Nintendo emulator, it also is entirely monetized through

57:09

Patreon by providing pre-release access to beta versions

57:11

to my patrons. This business model is forbidden

57:13

by the app store despite it being a

57:15

proven way to monetize software in other markets,

57:17

such as indie video games. For this reason,

57:19

I've actually added deep Patreon integration to Alt

57:21

Store to encourage other indie developers to monetize

57:24

apps this way, of which Alt Store

57:26

takes no commission because I

57:28

genuinely believe it's a better system for

57:30

smaller developers. Now the

57:32

other thing with the DMA is

57:34

that you are required to have

57:36

a million euro line of credit.

57:38

And what I think all of

57:40

us took that to mean was you have

57:42

to have a bank say, yeah, we will give

57:44

you up to a million euros if you ask

57:47

for it. Like we've already pre-approved you, we

57:49

will do it if necessary.

57:51

And we had a couple of pieces of feedback

57:53

about this, but Bobby Parati writes, I work in

57:56

commercial finance. Your discussion of the DMA and the

57:58

required million euro, quote, stands for the DMA. by

58:00

letter of credit quote makes me want to clarify

58:02

what that actually is. That's money that must be

58:04

held essentially in escrow by your bank. It's not

58:06

a line of credit. It's not like a line

58:08

of credit. It is more akin to a minimum

58:10

deposit. I think a lot of people assume it

58:12

means you would be okay as long as you're

58:14

approved for that amount of credit from a bank

58:16

like a home equity line. But I can get

58:18

a home equity line of credit, never draw on

58:21

it and not be inconvenienced much at all as

58:23

long as I have home equity. A standby

58:25

letter actually means that the bank is locking those

58:27

funds up so the beneficiary, in this case Apple,

58:29

can take from it if certain conditions are

58:31

met. It's your cash but held

58:33

unable to be used for anything else. A

58:36

good way to think about a standby letter of credit

58:38

is basically a check that the beneficiary, Apple, can cash

58:40

at any time. Small

58:43

consortiums of indie devs which will probably

58:45

have trouble getting that kind of money

58:47

together in order to control their own

58:49

distribution destiny. So I really wonder what

58:51

Riley is going to do about this.

58:55

Maybe Bobby's understanding is incorrect. Maybe our

58:57

understanding certainly sounds like it's incorrect. He

59:00

sounded pretty sure because I went back and forth and run a

59:02

lot of that. I asked one more clarification which is like, okay,

59:04

do you actually have to have that money? Because you can write

59:06

a check and not have the money for it and only when

59:08

the person goes to cash it do you find out, oh, you

59:11

can't actually pay for the thing. He

59:13

said, yeah, not only do you have to have that

59:15

money, and pretty much all cases that he's

59:17

aware of, the institution that gives you

59:19

that standby letter of credit demands that you give

59:22

them the same bank that's giving you that letter

59:24

of credit, you have to give them the 1

59:26

million euros. So you've got to have that money

59:28

for realsy reals, give it to them, then they

59:30

will give you that standby letter of credit and

59:33

they will hold that money and the money is

59:35

basically sitting there saying if Apple ever wants to

59:37

take this, they can take it for whatever reason

59:39

it says in their marketplace

59:41

contract or whatever. So you can't get by

59:44

saying, oh, we're good for it or whatever.

59:46

No, you've got to have that in cash

59:48

and you have to give it to the

59:50

institution who then gives you this standby letter

59:53

of credit. So I don't know, maybe

59:55

Altstar has a million euros hanging around and they're going to

59:57

sell past this, but yeah, it's a, it's a, It's

1:00:00

more of a burden than we thought it was. Much more.

1:00:03

Not even close to what we thought it was.

1:00:05

So thank you, Bobby, for writing and telling us

1:00:07

we don't clearly work in commercial finance. And

1:00:10

I think this basically tells you the

1:00:12

kind of entities that we should expect to

1:00:14

actually jump through the hoops to run an

1:00:17

alternative app store in the EU. It's

1:00:19

not going to be small companies and

1:00:22

small developers. It's going to be probably

1:00:24

a very small number

1:00:26

of pretty large entities. So

1:00:31

let's talk Vision Pro. We talked a

1:00:33

lot about this last week. Let's

1:00:35

do some more. And I think

1:00:37

we left off last week. Our heroes were

1:00:39

about to discuss what it's like to let

1:00:42

other people try the Vision Pro. So John,

1:00:45

it seemed like you had thoughts about this, or you

1:00:47

perhaps wanted to direct conversation, or am I misreading you

1:00:49

entirely? You're misreading. You were going to tell us, so

1:00:51

Mark, I want to tell a story of letting other

1:00:53

people try the Vision Pro, and you tell your story.

1:00:55

I didn't let any other people try the Vision Pro

1:00:57

because I was just an Apple store and it was just me. So

1:01:00

what's going on, Marco? Well, so I've

1:01:02

had a bunch of friends try this in

1:01:05

the last, whatever, it's been a week or two. I

1:01:08

think enough people have pointed out now, the

1:01:10

guest mode that you can put it in from

1:01:12

Control Center to let someone else put it on

1:01:14

without your optic ID, basically. It's

1:01:17

fine. I

1:01:19

would say if Apple wants to give the

1:01:21

guest users a good impression of what it's

1:01:23

like to use a Vision Pro, you

1:01:25

should probably make guest mode a little bit better.

1:01:28

It's fairly clumsy to get

1:01:30

started, and it's extremely unforgiving.

1:01:33

As many people have pointed out, if the

1:01:35

wearer in guest mode lists

1:01:37

the Vision Pro off their face for even a

1:01:39

split second, it resets it completely and kicks it

1:01:41

back into your mode. So even if they list

1:01:43

up, rub their eye, or adjust the fit a

1:01:46

little bit too much or something, once

1:01:48

it's off their eyes, they're out. You

1:01:50

have to put it back on as you relog

1:01:52

in with either optic ID or the passcode, go

1:01:54

back into guest mode and Control Center and turn

1:01:56

it back on for them to put it back

1:01:58

on. This is made especially

1:02:01

inconvenient because every time someone

1:02:03

puts it on in guest mode, they have to

1:02:05

go through the entire eye setup. So first it

1:02:07

has them hold the crown to align the display

1:02:10

as we discussed earlier. Then it has

1:02:12

them go through the whole intro of like, look at the dots

1:02:14

and pinch your fingers and then make it brighter. Look

1:02:16

at the dots again and pinch your fingers. So it

1:02:18

takes a while and it's kind of repetitive

1:02:21

and cumbersome. So the

1:02:23

guest mode experience is not something

1:02:26

that you're going to want to do frequently and

1:02:28

I think it's important that if you're demoing for somebody else

1:02:30

that you warn them, don't take it

1:02:32

off your face in the middle because it will reset

1:02:35

it and have them have to start all over again.

1:02:37

I wonder if that's related to, so Optic

1:02:39

ID is like essentially it's like a touch

1:02:41

ID or face ID, but for your eyeball.

1:02:44

And I know from experience using a shared Mac

1:02:47

in our house, and you probably know if you've

1:02:49

done this on any kind of shared Mac, even

1:02:51

a laptop, there's a limit to how many touch

1:02:54

ID fingerprinty things you can store on a Mac.

1:02:56

And that limit I believe is determined by essentially

1:02:58

the secure enclave and the hardware. So it doesn't

1:03:00

matter how big your SSD is, doesn't matter what

1:03:02

version of the OS you're using, whatever

1:03:04

number of fingerprints it is, it's like seven or eight,

1:03:06

I don't know how many it is. That's it for

1:03:09

the whole system. And

1:03:11

so like, for example, I want to have like my

1:03:14

fingerprint work on both my wife's account and mine

1:03:16

and vice versa, so we don't have to type

1:03:18

in each other's passwords. But

1:03:20

you run out real quickly because if the kids have their

1:03:22

own fingerprints on their accounts, you run out. So

1:03:24

they're not even saving the optic ID for guests so that

1:03:26

if you give it to a guest and they try it

1:03:28

and they take it off and the next day they want

1:03:30

to try it again, it doesn't

1:03:32

like recognize them as a guest that had seen before and

1:03:34

boot them back into their guest mode or anything like that.

1:03:37

It just doesn't even save their optic ID. So

1:03:39

I wonder if A, they're storing the optic

1:03:41

ID in the secure enclave because it

1:03:43

is biometric data presumably, and B, apparently

1:03:45

they're only storing your optic

1:03:47

ID. One, you know, or two,

1:03:49

I don't know, one for each eyeball, whatever. And

1:03:52

that's it. Guests don't get anything

1:03:54

saved about them. Every time the Vision Pro sees

1:03:56

this person, it's like, I have no idea who

1:03:58

you are. You're a guest. The

1:04:00

other major limitation I've run into

1:04:02

is that one of the best

1:04:05

assistive tools for if you're going to be

1:04:07

showing someone how to use Vision Pro is

1:04:10

you can airplay what they are seeing to a

1:04:12

nearby Mac or other screen. So you can, I

1:04:14

have my laptop nearby, so I will say, alright,

1:04:16

mirror the screen of what they're seeing to my

1:04:18

Mac and then I can see what they see

1:04:20

and I can kind of guide them. Okay, go

1:04:23

to this section of the Apple TV app to

1:04:25

go find the 3D videos or whatever, you can

1:04:27

kind of walk them through what they're seeing and

1:04:29

what you want to show them. The

1:04:31

problem is that breaks the

1:04:33

DRM assumptions of the video

1:04:35

player. So

1:04:38

if you have screen sharing enabled,

1:04:41

they cannot watch any video content that

1:04:43

is DRM protected, which is all video

1:04:45

content basically that you would want to

1:04:48

show them. Everything from Apple TV+, everything

1:04:50

from Disney, it's all DRM locked and

1:04:52

so if it's air

1:04:54

playing, it basically breaks

1:04:57

whatever DRM requirement is that you're copying the

1:04:59

screen and so not only can you not

1:05:01

see it on the Mac, they

1:05:03

can't see it on the internal displays either.

1:05:05

So they can't watch 3D video content in

1:05:07

the demo mode if you can see what

1:05:09

they can see and that is

1:05:11

a huge limitation in part because it just kind of

1:05:13

sucks. Also because as far

1:05:16

as I could tell when I did these demos, you

1:05:18

can't turn off the screen mirroring because

1:05:20

they don't have access to control center.

1:05:23

In guest mode, there's no control center. So

1:05:26

if you want to show them, the only way you can find was

1:05:28

to take it off, reset

1:05:30

guest mode, turn off screen sharing, go through

1:05:32

the whole process again. What you

1:05:34

could do is like when I was demoing for some

1:05:36

friends, we were airplane to the

1:05:38

TV, like to the Apple TV I guess I

1:05:40

should say that was in the living room and

1:05:43

when you're on an Apple TV anyway, you can

1:05:45

hit the back or menu or what have you

1:05:48

button to effectively cancel screen sharing. Now if you're

1:05:50

screen sharing to a Mac, I don't know how

1:05:52

that would work. I've only ever done that like

1:05:54

once or twice, but so you may not have

1:05:57

the same option, but it does work

1:05:59

pretty well with an Apple TV. Apple TV where you can just

1:06:01

basically cancel the screen sharing. Oh, I should try

1:06:03

that. I didn't think to try that. But

1:06:05

anyway, so that's, it just, it shows the like,

1:06:07

you know, like this is Apple

1:06:10

TV showing Apple's content on

1:06:12

two Apple devices. It

1:06:15

totally breaks. Yeah, that's because

1:06:17

of the stupid, like I said, the HCCP,

1:06:19

whatever it is. Yeah. High definition

1:06:21

copy protection. I'm going to put a link to it earlier.

1:06:24

That standard has all these things about like, you

1:06:26

know, what it looks like is when it don't

1:06:28

siphon off the video off a side channel so

1:06:30

you can record it secretly only, it can only

1:06:32

be displayed on the screen that it is handshake

1:06:35

through through the stupid secure DRM protocol. Again, there

1:06:37

was a reminder all this is to make sure

1:06:39

no one ever ever is able to pirate

1:06:41

video. And we know of course, this

1:06:43

solved the problem of video piracy and now it is impossible

1:06:45

to private pirate video. Thank you. Copy

1:06:48

protection. You did your job great. No, what

1:06:50

it actually means is that A, everything is available for pirating

1:06:52

and B, you're going to want to pirate it because the

1:06:54

legit copy you bought, you can't even watch because it blacks

1:06:57

out all your screens. And

1:06:59

the thing is, I really wish, I don't

1:07:01

know, maybe I'm missing the point of how,

1:07:03

you know, copy protection works, but I

1:07:06

really wish that perhaps it would

1:07:08

be impossible to see the black

1:07:11

square of content that the user

1:07:13

was seeing on AirPlay. So in

1:07:15

the device, in the goggles, then

1:07:17

they're seeing everything you would expect

1:07:19

to see. But the AirPlay

1:07:21

mirroring, you're getting blackness for the, you know,

1:07:24

the square of content or if you're doing

1:07:26

something immersive, perhaps the entire display is black

1:07:28

or it's like a checkerboard pattern or something

1:07:30

like that. I really wish you could

1:07:32

at least do that because what you've said Marco

1:07:34

is exactly accurate, like leaving aside whether or not

1:07:37

you can turn off AirPlay. The first time I

1:07:39

did this with somebody, you know,

1:07:41

they go to go into, I think

1:07:43

it was Disney Plus we were trying at the time and they

1:07:45

were like, well, it's not working. What are you talking about? And

1:07:47

then I look at the TV and I'm like, oh, you're right,

1:07:50

it's not working. And it took me a few beats before I

1:07:52

realized, oh, I bet you

1:07:54

anything, this is DRM. And so then,

1:07:56

you know, canceling AirPlay seemed to do

1:07:58

the trick if memory serves. And only

1:08:00

nerds would know that because there's no error message. It just shows

1:08:02

it as black, just black screen. Yeah, the same thing as when

1:08:04

you take a screenshot on your iPad trying to take a screenshot

1:08:06

of a TV show, which I do all the time. And I

1:08:09

always have reminded, oh, yeah, this doesn't work. And I think the

1:08:11

reason why you can't do it, you were suggesting Casey, it's like,

1:08:13

oh, why don't they just show it to the person but not

1:08:15

show it to me? Then you got your

1:08:17

copper protection. I'm assuming it has to do with the

1:08:19

fact that essentially once you do

1:08:21

the mirroring, you have broken the chain of trust.

1:08:23

There's no way to do a three-way chain of

1:08:26

trust. So now nothing is trusted.

1:08:28

You have this weird forking scenario,

1:08:30

and you have this. This

1:08:33

is not on Apple insofar as Apple is just

1:08:35

following these stupid industry standards that we have. That

1:08:37

Apple kind of has to follow to work with

1:08:39

all of the other. Even if Apple

1:08:42

didn't want to do this with its own streaming service, which

1:08:44

it does. But even if it didn't want to, it has

1:08:46

to work with all the other streaming. So they have to

1:08:48

essentially implement this in your hardware, and everything has to be

1:08:50

certified. So this is all just so you can watch

1:08:53

content that's out there. And it infects

1:08:56

every part of their system as well because their

1:08:58

whole video chain and system is built on it.

1:09:00

And it's so incredibly dumb. So

1:09:02

hopefully they'll do something to fix this. I

1:09:04

mean, again, especially with Apple's own apps and

1:09:06

own streaming platforms, and own OS and device,

1:09:09

they should be able to fix it for that. Fixing

1:09:12

it for any other streaming apps. If they ever

1:09:14

exist on Vision Pro, ha ha, will

1:09:16

be more tricky. Yeah,

1:09:19

so anyway, showing people the

1:09:21

3D video proved to be tough because

1:09:23

the DRM thing is annoying. And

1:09:26

again, it's Apple's content on

1:09:28

their own streaming service, on their devices.

1:09:31

They know someone. Maybe they can talk to and work

1:09:33

this out. Otherwise, and

1:09:36

I do suggest for Apple, the immersive

1:09:38

3D video should be easier to find

1:09:40

in the TV app in the Vision

1:09:42

Pro. Oh my gosh, yes. Well, I mean,

1:09:44

it's true. Anything in any kind of

1:09:46

streaming service where it's like, what about the

1:09:48

thing I want to find? It's like,

1:09:50

never mind that. Have you seen these giant

1:09:52

things that we're advertising for the first

1:09:54

two full screen folds until you get

1:09:56

down to... Ugh, so... And in effects Vision

1:09:59

Pro too. Like anytime you're like, hey, here's

1:10:01

a video playing app, surely it will be easy

1:10:03

to find the things that I watch frequently. No,

1:10:05

exact opposite. It will be intentionally hard to find

1:10:08

the things that you want because they always want

1:10:10

to shove something new in your face. Never mind

1:10:12

what you constantly watch. Never mind anything about what

1:10:14

you want or your favorites or your frequency. It's

1:10:16

all about what do we have to push on

1:10:19

you, which is so dumb for Vision Pro where

1:10:21

they should be allowing, they're so little content anyway.

1:10:23

They should just be making the same point. But

1:10:25

again, it's based on the same code base as

1:10:27

the TV app and all their other platforms and

1:10:30

it sucks everywhere. Also, you

1:10:32

said a second, there's so little content. That

1:10:35

part has kind of surprised me. I

1:10:38

would have expected with the

1:10:40

launch of Vision Pro, I would have expected there

1:10:42

to be more of Apple's 3D and

1:10:45

immersive content than there actually is. There's actually very

1:10:47

little of it. It's like a few demos basically,

1:10:49

or like one episode of something. It's like 12

1:10:51

minutes here and there. There's

1:10:54

not much content yet. Obviously,

1:10:56

I'm sure Apple is gonna stage it out over the

1:10:59

course of the year as they sell more Vision Pros

1:11:01

and whatever else. But Apple has

1:11:03

a lot of power here because they

1:11:05

are a video producer

1:11:07

and they have shown that

1:11:09

they will make custom recording

1:11:12

gear and record perfectly immersive

1:11:14

stuff that's custom tailored to Vision Pro. That's

1:11:17

great. They need to be doing

1:11:19

a lot more of that because I think

1:11:21

it's going to be a while, if ever,

1:11:23

before they get large support from other producers

1:11:25

of video. Therefore, they should step

1:11:27

up more and produce a lot more stuff

1:11:29

for this than what we're seeing so far.

1:11:31

Hopefully, that's in the pipeline. But I was

1:11:33

kind of surprised and a

1:11:35

little bit disappointed that there wasn't more

1:11:37

immersive content available at launch. Well,

1:11:40

it's a chicken egg thing because even Apple's

1:11:42

own creative wing is saying, wait

1:11:44

a second, you want us to spend how many

1:11:46

millions to make a show that is only possible

1:11:48

to be watched by 500,000 people on the planet?

1:11:52

There's only people who have the capability of watching it.

1:11:55

Let me show you how much money this is per person that

1:11:57

you're asking us to spend. Oh, you don't understand.

1:12:00

to drive people who want people to buy the thing.

1:12:02

I'm like, yeah, but right now they haven't bought it

1:12:04

and you can't make more than this many per year.

1:12:06

And so I can see that conversation being difficult. They're

1:12:08

not going to make a for all mankind in

1:12:11

headset 3D that can be

1:12:13

watched by you and 200,000 of your

1:12:15

closest friends. Because that is not, and

1:12:17

they're like, oh, it's for the future, it's for the future when

1:12:19

we sell 10 million of these things. Like, yeah, but you want

1:12:21

us to make it today. And I

1:12:23

can imagine that being difficult for them to square.

1:12:27

I think they should make more of it, because I think it's

1:12:29

the most compelling thing in the entire headset. But I bet what

1:12:31

Apple is thinking is instead of

1:12:33

that, instead of like doing

1:12:36

what I think would be unprecedented, like

1:12:38

trying to essentially make Alicia Keys swimming

1:12:40

shark caliber of content that I don't think

1:12:42

has ever been made before and sort of

1:12:45

like a long form full television thing, like

1:12:47

with that resolution and those cameras for like

1:12:49

a regular TV show, and

1:12:52

figuring out how to do that, because I don't think anyone

1:12:54

knows how to do that well at this point. That

1:12:57

is much more experimental than the easier thing,

1:12:59

which is we should just do sports like this. We need

1:13:01

to get a good sports contract. And as Gruber said in

1:13:04

those things, when Apple lost out for the bid for the

1:13:06

NFL thing, he was kind of disappointed.

1:13:08

But now that he has Vish and Pro, he's

1:13:10

angry about it. Because that is a gimme. You

1:13:13

saw in the demos how good sports looks, and you don't

1:13:15

have to make that content. They run around in the field

1:13:17

and they make it all for you. You just need to

1:13:19

point cameras at it. And you can have the cameras be

1:13:21

eye-width apart, and you have 17 of those cameras,

1:13:23

and you put them in weird places, and that is

1:13:25

a winner, and that is a big draw, and you

1:13:27

have to pay, well, you have to

1:13:29

pay way less money to make it. You just have to pay

1:13:31

money up front to get the rights to be the one who

1:13:34

has the cameras there. So I think

1:13:36

that is an easier first path for Apple to go

1:13:38

with this. Like, how do I make compelling content for

1:13:40

Vish and Pro? Kind

1:13:42

of popular sport. Film it in

1:13:44

3D, whether it's the NBA, or Major

1:13:46

League Soccer, or whatever. That

1:13:48

seems like an easy first move. And I bet Apple wants

1:13:51

to do that and is going to do that. Yeah,

1:13:53

also concerts, other events. It seems

1:13:55

like live events in 3D, that

1:13:59

seems like a big... market, including

1:14:01

sports and other things. Honestly, anything

1:14:03

is creepy. Hey,

1:14:06

sharks swimming in water, real popular. We're

1:14:09

all kind of snarking, but we're all

1:14:11

serious. We're all also serious. I cannot

1:14:13

overstate, I haven't done a

1:14:15

demo of the Vision Pro since the first weekend I

1:14:17

had it because we've been just exceedingly busy the last

1:14:19

week and a half, whatever it's been,

1:14:22

but I think it was the first day that I had it

1:14:24

that I did a handful of demos for a couple of friends.

1:14:27

The thing that unquestionably sold everyone

1:14:29

the most was that sizzle reel,

1:14:32

which I think we talked about quite a bit last

1:14:34

week, of all the different immersive stuff. The

1:14:37

tightrope walking lady, the sharks,

1:14:39

the soccer game, the rhinoceros,

1:14:41

the Alicia Keys. I

1:14:45

know you can imagine what

1:14:48

it would be like to be

1:14:50

watching something, but as you

1:14:52

twist your head, your perspective changes. It's

1:14:55

obvious and easy thing to

1:14:57

imagine, but when you're

1:14:59

actually doing it and when you're

1:15:02

seeing the incredible fidelity of the

1:15:04

thing that you're watching, this isn't

1:15:06

some 480p crappy

1:15:09

recording because it just can't handle anything

1:15:11

more. It's not flickery and dim and

1:15:14

weird 3D movies with the glasses that

1:15:16

you watch. I cannot

1:15:18

overstate how incredibly impressive this

1:15:20

stuff is. Naturally,

1:15:23

anything that they want to put in

1:15:25

this immersive environment, I'm game

1:15:27

to at least try it. Yeah, the Alicia Keys,

1:15:29

as Mike had said, singing at

1:15:32

you is a little bit weird,

1:15:34

but it was also freaking cool.

1:15:36

It was so cool. I

1:15:38

actually have to go back and watch the whole thing, but I think

1:15:40

I had said last week, I skipped through several minutes of it and

1:15:42

I just kind of zig-zagged

1:15:44

around. It was phenomenally cool.

1:15:46

To build on what Marco was saying a minute ago,

1:15:48

I would pay all the

1:15:50

money to have a really good Dave

1:15:52

Matthews or Mute Math or whatever concert

1:15:55

that's been recorded with these white

1:15:59

obelisks of three 3D cameras, I

1:16:01

would give all the money. And I

1:16:04

just cannot overstate how impressive this is.

1:16:06

As impressive as you imagine it might

1:16:08

be, like double or triple that,

1:16:10

because that's how good it is. So

1:16:13

the video demos, again, if we get past the

1:16:16

DRM and having them navigate to the

1:16:18

Apple TV app, it is a

1:16:20

very impressive thing. I will also say before I

1:16:22

forget that the, of the

1:16:24

two straps that come with the Vision Pro, the

1:16:27

fancy one with the crank and the single

1:16:29

headband around the back, the Solo Knitband, is

1:16:32

far better for demo purposes than

1:16:35

the nice comfortable dual loop band, because it's

1:16:37

so much faster and easier to adjust it.

1:16:39

You know, the dual loop band is like,

1:16:41

all right, you get these two Velcroed straps,

1:16:43

you got to, you know, strap, pull it, strap it down.

1:16:45

Like, that's very impractical for

1:16:47

demo purposes. The hastily assembled one is

1:16:50

less practical than the one that they

1:16:52

clearly designed from the beginning. Surprise.

1:16:55

Yeah, yeah, so you want to be using the Solo Knitband,

1:16:57

with the single loop that goes around the back. You want

1:16:59

to use that for demos if you have it. First, I

1:17:02

had Tiff try it. She

1:17:05

could not possibly be less

1:17:07

interested. And

1:17:10

you know, nerds out there,

1:17:12

many of you have people

1:17:14

in your life that you try to demo

1:17:16

technology for, and maybe they

1:17:19

will humor you and support you in

1:17:21

your love for technology, but

1:17:23

you can kind of tell they're kind

1:17:25

of doing you a favor. Their

1:17:27

heart's not really in it. That's

1:17:29

how this scenario was. You

1:17:34

know, she was not impressed by the

1:17:37

fit, was not impressed by the

1:17:39

weird, what she called the nose cape.

1:17:43

I didn't notice that until like, I don't

1:17:45

know, the second or third day I had

1:17:47

it when it accidentally flipped downwards. So what

1:17:49

Marco's talking about is, there's like

1:17:51

this very thin, completely like

1:17:53

flapping in the breeze material that

1:17:56

sits directly on top of your nose, which

1:17:59

by default, It's kind of like flipped upwards.

1:18:01

So it's it's black against the black inside of the

1:18:03

of the vision Pro So you don't really notice it

1:18:05

but then it can't it has give to it because

1:18:08

it's just a piece of fabric And so flip down

1:18:10

once and I was like what the hell? Oh Oh,

1:18:13

I didn't even know that thing was there like it

1:18:15

took me a day or two before I even realized

1:18:17

what the heck that was But yes nose cape is

1:18:19

a very good word for it or term for it.

1:18:21

Yeah Yeah, so she wasn't

1:18:23

super pleased with the physical side of it. It was

1:18:26

you know heavy on her I mean, it's not fitted

1:18:28

to her. Did you get her a different light

1:18:30

shield? No, it's and that's and that's a fair thing

1:18:32

Like, you know, obviously like everyone that I'm having try

1:18:34

this is trying my size to everything on it. So

1:18:37

anyway she Hated

1:18:40

having to go through the the

1:18:42

eye tracking dot pinching introductory

1:18:45

thing that was not fun I

1:18:48

have found also many people who tried on

1:18:50

do not intuitively get the IPD adjustment thing

1:18:52

where you have to like double tap the

1:18:54

crown to confirm like you it's like hold

1:18:56

it down and then double tap it Like

1:18:58

that especially since the instructions are presented to

1:19:00

you Probably in double vision

1:19:02

because it hasn't adjusted yet And

1:19:04

so it wants you to look at like a diagram and

1:19:06

understand what it wants you to do But you're seeing double

1:19:08

at that point Well, actually for whatever maybe

1:19:10

it's just me even when it's in

1:19:13

it's like unset state I find it

1:19:15

fairly clear in in that mode. I mean you can

1:19:17

close one eye obviously Yeah, anyway,

1:19:19

the funny thing is also like she's

1:19:21

an amazing tester of my app. She has

1:19:23

a special talent I can

1:19:26

hand her something that works perfectly and within

1:19:28

a second She will find a way to

1:19:30

break it which is actually wonderful as a

1:19:32

software developer Like that's a great quality for

1:19:34

your spouse to have because it's a wonderful

1:19:36

first stage of QA She puts on

1:19:38

the vision Pro and this is this is still when I had the 1.0

1:19:42

Software and I now have the 1.1 beta on it. So

1:19:44

I don't know if this is fixed yet, but she put

1:19:46

it on and It

1:19:48

basically immediately locked up and had to be rebooted.

1:19:50

Oh cool This

1:19:52

is still very you know, very 1.0 kind of

1:19:55

days Anyway,

1:19:57

so she gets through it she

1:19:59

basically basically said, okay, yeah, it's cool, but why would

1:20:01

I want this? Wait, wait, wait.

1:20:04

Even after she saw the shark? She

1:20:06

actually bailed out pretty quickly.

1:20:10

So I had all

1:20:12

the testers try the encounter dinosaurs quote

1:20:15

app, which is more of like a brief 3D

1:20:17

demo. This is the thing you've heard

1:20:19

about on other podcasts where like you hold your finger out

1:20:21

and the butterfly lands on it. So I had five different

1:20:24

people try this. All five of them

1:20:26

put their finger out to have the butterfly land on it. It doesn't

1:20:28

tell you to do that, but it kind of looks like you can.

1:20:30

And so you try it and oh look, the butterfly land on my

1:20:32

finger. All five people did that. At

1:20:34

some point, a large dinosaur comes into your

1:20:36

field of view, which can look somewhat intimidating.

1:20:39

Two people that I had tried, including Tiff,

1:20:42

as soon as the big dinosaur showed up, they were just

1:20:44

like, no, I'm out. And just like took my head off.

1:20:47

That was the end of the demo. I'm done.

1:20:50

Did you show them the dinosaur before you showed

1:20:52

them Alicia Keys and the tiger walker? Yes. I

1:20:55

know. I know, I'd have been a mistake. I couldn't find them in the Apple TV. Anyway,

1:21:00

so yeah, two people like noped right out

1:21:02

of the headset. As soon as the big

1:21:04

dinosaur showed up and the other three all

1:21:06

tried to pet the big dinosaur. And

1:21:10

you pressed the dinosaur.com, yeah. Yeah,

1:21:13

so anyway, that's roughly how it went.

1:21:16

Everybody was fairly impressed with the 3D

1:21:18

video content. Everybody was impressed by the

1:21:20

dinosaur thing. I do wish there was

1:21:22

like a little bit more, like one

1:21:24

more 3D like interactive experience to show

1:21:26

people. Again, this will probably come with

1:21:29

time I assume. But it is kind

1:21:31

of, again, I wish there was

1:21:33

a little bit more of a demo because after you watched

1:21:35

a couple of sample things and it's like, okay, well that's

1:21:37

kind of it. Like you can open up notes

1:21:39

or my email if you want to see how that

1:21:41

kind of stuff works. It's a little bit awkward though.

1:21:44

You open up photos, oh, here's a panorama. You can

1:21:46

do that kind of stuff but I

1:21:48

do wish there was a little bit more demo content

1:21:50

available. But again, this will probably go over time. Did

1:21:52

you, you could have taken some spatial video of Adam

1:21:54

with your phone and put it in there. Like I

1:21:56

said, I did. I'm kind of surprised that Tiff wasn't.

1:22:00

convinced by like the birthday scene

1:22:02

and like the spatial

1:22:04

video of people, like seeing the

1:22:06

possibilities for your own content like that? Not

1:22:09

really. Maybe

1:22:13

she was upset with the eye tracking and the nose

1:22:16

cape, but it didn't

1:22:18

really sell her. And then finally I got some

1:22:21

interesting input from Adam. So this is my 11

1:22:23

year old son. He is a heavy

1:22:26

user of the Quest series of VR devices,

1:22:28

had a Quest 2 for a while, recently

1:22:30

got a Quest 3. He barely cared first

1:22:33

of all about using the Vision Pro because

1:22:36

there's no games. Like for him, VR

1:22:38

means games. Obviously not a

1:22:41

lot of people are gonna be buying a

1:22:43

nearly $4,000 VR headset to play games on

1:22:45

it as the primary purpose, but

1:22:47

it's interesting like you know from a kid's point of

1:22:49

view how this is totally irrelevant. It's like a Mac Pro to a

1:22:51

kid like why would I want that? He barely

1:22:53

cared. However he did try it on,

1:22:55

he did a dinosaur demo and everything.

1:22:57

He instantly noticed that the pass-through is

1:23:00

better than the Quest 3's pass-through only

1:23:04

when stationary, but it's actually

1:23:06

worse in motion. I have

1:23:08

since tried his Quest 3 and

1:23:10

he's exactly right, he nailed it. Motion

1:23:13

in the Vision Pro in general gets

1:23:15

very blurry. I've even noticed that like

1:23:17

even when using the virtual Mac screen,

1:23:19

even when just doing computing in Vision

1:23:22

Pro, if I move my

1:23:24

head a little tiny bit, I notice

1:23:26

the motion blur and it's not

1:23:29

ideal. It's not like a massive deal killer, but it

1:23:31

is something that you notice and it is yet again

1:23:33

one of the ways that I

1:23:35

kind of felt a little eye-straining when trying to

1:23:37

use the Mac Monitor mode over

1:23:40

just using a real Mac Monitor. There

1:23:42

is that motion blur. Yeah, I heard a lot of

1:23:44

people talking about that and I do wonder could you

1:23:46

tell whether it is like manually

1:23:48

created motion blur? So for example

1:23:50

Destiny has a

1:23:53

setting in the settings menu that says do you

1:23:55

want us to do motion blur and if you

1:23:57

have it checked they will, whenever the camera moves,

1:23:59

they will artificially created motion

1:24:01

blur by blending together frames because that's what

1:24:03

you're used to seeing from like You know

1:24:05

cameras like film cameras or video cameras or

1:24:08

whatever when you move them around But

1:24:10

you can turn that off and say no don't

1:24:12

pretend you're a film camera Don't artificially create motion

1:24:15

blur just show me the frames which looks Less

1:24:18

like we expect from our life of watching

1:24:20

films content, but if you're playing an FPS

1:24:22

game I find it you

1:24:24

can see things better. So I turn it

1:24:26

off So I do wonder is Apple adding

1:24:28

motion blur intentionally Computationally

1:24:30

by blending frames together to make it look

1:24:32

more Like how

1:24:34

we expect it to look because

1:24:37

or is it just like I can't imagine that

1:24:39

it's anything else because they're OLED screens I imagine

1:24:41

the response rate has to be insanely fast like

1:24:43

every OLED So it's a little bit mysterious to

1:24:45

me, but I heard this exact same complaint in

1:24:47

many different reviews I'm just wondering if

1:24:49

if it's on purpose or not. Yeah, I

1:24:51

don't know And I mean like the fact

1:24:53

that it isn't just motion blurring your pass-through

1:24:56

content, but it's also motion blurring the content

1:24:58

of Windows Yeah, well, Tom Vazurio would tell

1:25:00

you check your motion blur. Everything has motion

1:25:02

blur even lens flares So yeah They would

1:25:04

motion blur the pass-through the video like the

1:25:06

windows that ever they would motion blur everything

1:25:08

because that's again The expectation of how would

1:25:10

it look how when you see a TV

1:25:12

show and they pan the camera you get

1:25:14

motion blur? Yeah, also for whatever it's worth

1:25:16

one of the reasons why I never really

1:25:18

spent a lot of time with the Quest

1:25:21

2 Is that I would get

1:25:23

a little bit motion sick after a fairly short time

1:25:25

and I when I tried the Quest 3

1:25:27

fairly briefly I

1:25:30

had the exact same problem It is

1:25:32

obviously a huge upgrade over the Quest 2 But

1:25:34

it is not good enough for for me to avoid motion

1:25:37

problems, which I again I don't usually have in the rest

1:25:39

of life But for some reason

1:25:41

Quest 2 VR was not good for me Quest

1:25:43

3 VR is also not good for me vision

1:25:45

Pro I do not have that problem at all. I

1:25:47

have I feel zero motion problems division

1:25:49

Pro So a lot of might have to do with

1:25:51

the whatever was called There was just a podcast

1:25:54

that will remember to link in the show so you

1:25:56

can find it We're talking about the talking to

1:25:58

the CEO of the company that Apple bought bought

1:26:00

back in 2017 and they made an

1:26:02

AR thing with pass-through and their whole

1:26:04

stick was like like the cameras

1:26:06

in Vision Pro and most headsets are not where

1:26:08

your eyeballs are so their perspective is different than

1:26:11

your eyeballs so they have to do computational stuff

1:26:13

to sort of remap the camera's

1:26:15

view with like an awareness of what

1:26:17

shape the world is so that

1:26:20

it looks like you're looking through your eyeballs and

1:26:22

not like your cheeks which is where the actual

1:26:24

cameras are in Vision Pro and that mapping I

1:26:26

think is either not done as

1:26:28

well or maybe even not done at all on

1:26:31

things like the Quest because pass-through is not their

1:26:33

emphasis you know it's more of a game-playing machine

1:26:35

and that could be making you sick because imagine

1:26:38

if your eyes saw out of the center of your cheeks

1:26:40

and you moved your head around your brain would be like

1:26:42

I'm not seeing what I expect to see and you know

1:26:44

get the disconnect between what you see and what you feel.

1:26:47

That's possible I mean I so I tried

1:26:49

I was used I used the Quest 3

1:26:51

for about maybe 20 minutes and part of

1:26:53

that was I tried like

1:26:55

a full-screen game and it didn't seem to

1:26:57

be any different it was bad there too

1:26:59

so I don't know yeah anyway

1:27:02

so but speaking of eyes and eye placement

1:27:04

this leads me to my last point about

1:27:06

the demo experience which was eyesight the

1:27:08

display of my eyes on the outside I

1:27:12

have now used it enough around my family that they have

1:27:14

seen this to to

1:27:16

most people who have seen this it

1:27:18

is creepy as hell and

1:27:22

so that's that's interesting what's also interesting

1:27:24

is once I during one

1:27:26

of the demos I hand it to a

1:27:28

friend and somehow it stayed logged

1:27:30

in as me I don't know how this happened

1:27:33

but somehow it's like accidentally

1:27:35

displayed my eyes on

1:27:38

their head actually using it and I got

1:27:40

to see my own eyes oh that's actually

1:27:42

kind of convenient I'll be at the weird

1:27:44

security violation yeah so I gonna see my

1:27:46

own eyes on someone else's head as they

1:27:48

use it let me tell you that is

1:27:50

a strange experience to see I

1:27:53

do not recommend that experience

1:27:55

anyway the eyesight though so I was I was

1:27:57

sitting at my kitchen island using

1:28:00

the Vision Pro for a while with my MacBook Air, testing

1:28:03

that out for a while, getting some computational stuff

1:28:06

done over the weekend. And Adam was hanging

1:28:09

out nearby in his computer, down the island

1:28:11

further, and he looks over and he's like,

1:28:14

"'Daddy, how are they doing that with your eyes?'

1:28:17

I was like, "'What do you mean?' He

1:28:19

said, "'How can I see your eyes? I thought you were

1:28:21

looking at the screens?' He

1:28:23

was totally fooled. He

1:28:26

thought that was action, so it

1:28:28

worked in the sense that it fooled

1:28:31

another person who didn't

1:28:33

realize that it was a simulation

1:28:35

from screens. So- It's

1:28:37

only 11. Yeah, so it didn't fool any

1:28:39

of the adults, but it

1:28:42

did fool someone. And so I feel like it

1:28:45

is possible to make this feature better enough

1:28:47

in the future if they want to, to

1:28:50

maybe fool adults on a regular basis, but

1:28:53

I still don't like it. I

1:28:55

see why they did it. We'll

1:28:58

be talking this to death over the next three

1:29:01

years before they finally kill it, but I see

1:29:03

why they did it to try

1:29:05

to make this product less antisocial than it

1:29:07

really clearly is, but I

1:29:09

still don't think it's going to be great. But

1:29:13

there does seem to be enough room for improvement that

1:29:15

maybe they can make it passable

1:29:17

so the adults won't think it's

1:29:19

too creepy, and then they can

1:29:21

just get rid of it in a few years when they realize

1:29:23

it's not worth the weight and battery savings. Well, so here's the

1:29:25

thing about getting rid of it. Obviously the end goal is how

1:29:28

about just make clear glasses where they can see your actual eyeballs.

1:29:30

Like that's what they would like to make, but we don't have

1:29:32

technology for it. But we do have transparent OLED screens, but we

1:29:35

don't have the confluence of technology to be available

1:29:37

to make something that light, that high fidelity with

1:29:39

that bright of screens, yada, yada, yada, but the

1:29:42

end stage will presumably be, they

1:29:44

see your actual eyes, and you don't have to do all

1:29:46

these trickery, right? Getting rid of it, we

1:29:48

obviously think for weight and cost reasons, if you have

1:29:50

to make a low cost version of this, that's an

1:29:52

easy way to save money. But, as

1:29:56

weird as eyesight is, and as janky as it is,

1:29:58

and I do think it's pretty janky. because I saw

1:30:00

a lot of people doing it in the Apple store. And

1:30:03

it's dim. The

1:30:05

lenticular lenses only show a couple different images from

1:30:07

different angles, so they can't cover them all. So

1:30:09

sometimes your eyes don't look like they're in the

1:30:11

right place, depending on what angle you're on. But

1:30:15

it serves an important function, to

1:30:17

make it so other people are aware when you

1:30:19

can see them. That's

1:30:22

important. That's important for the how socially

1:30:24

acceptable is this, because we don't like

1:30:27

seeing people with their eyes totally blacked out the same way

1:30:29

it's considered kind of rude if someone's wearing really dark glasses

1:30:31

all the time. And when you're talking to them and you

1:30:33

want to have a serious conversation, you just want to say,

1:30:36

take off the sunglasses. You can see their eyes. It's just

1:30:38

an instinctive thing that we have. It's not the end of

1:30:40

the world. Sunglasses exist, and we don't hate everybody who wears

1:30:42

them. But wearing dark sunglasses

1:30:44

during an important conversation is considered

1:30:46

rude for a reason, right? Or

1:30:49

wearing dark sunglasses indoors, or at night, as the

1:30:51

song goes. So the

1:30:54

function, I think, they

1:30:56

can never really, the need for it

1:30:58

will always be there. Until we can see your eyes, the need

1:31:00

for it will always be there. How it's

1:31:03

implemented, there is some flexibility.

1:31:05

So even if they

1:31:07

don't ditch it entirely for a cheaper and

1:31:09

lighter model, you can imagine a

1:31:12

much, much simpler version of eyesight that shows two

1:31:14

big cartoon eyeballs. In fact, Apple has patents related

1:31:16

to this exact thing, and maybe they even prototyped

1:31:19

it and thought it was dumb. But

1:31:21

boy, you can make that way lighter if you do

1:31:23

two monochrome E ink screens on the outside of the

1:31:25

goggles that look like googly eyes that don't even pretend

1:31:27

to look like your eyes. Or even, I

1:31:29

think it was in their patent, like a

1:31:32

text display that says, I can currently see you,

1:31:34

or whatever. You know what I mean? Why not

1:31:36

just put actually googly eyes on there? They're much

1:31:38

lighter and cheaper. Yeah, but the thing is, you

1:31:41

want it to be switchable, because it's

1:31:43

trying to communicate to people, when can you see me and

1:31:45

when can you not see me? I

1:31:47

kind of wish they had this for AirPods, where they can tell

1:31:49

when audio is playing in them and when audio is not playing

1:31:51

in them. And so I think that

1:31:54

the utility of that feature will always exist. So that's the question

1:31:56

of how important is it. Is it important enough for you to

1:31:58

pay X amount more for it? is important for you to add

1:32:01

the Y amount of weight. But I

1:32:03

don't think we'll ever get to a point where we say there

1:32:05

is no utility being able to tell when people can

1:32:07

see me. There's always utility in it. It's just a

1:32:09

question of what is the correct trade

1:32:11

off to get that functionality? And I think you

1:32:13

can get a lot of the benefit. Not the

1:32:16

emotional, I can see your eyes benefit, but at

1:32:18

the very least the binary, can this person see

1:32:20

me or not benefit? You

1:32:22

can get that with way less weight and way

1:32:24

less cost than they're currently doing. And I do

1:32:26

wonder every time I see this, are

1:32:29

these CGI's that much

1:32:31

better than monochrome googly eyes? I mean,

1:32:33

they're a little bit better, but I think monochrome

1:32:35

googly eyes would be easier to see at a

1:32:37

glance. When I was seeing people do their demos

1:32:39

in the Apple store and you get close enough

1:32:41

to them to be like in the person range

1:32:43

or whatever, so you can see their eyeballs and

1:32:45

they can see you when they're doing the pass

1:32:47

through. Sometimes if you're not

1:32:49

at the right angle and there's so many like specular

1:32:52

highlights on that stupid shiny thing, you can't even see

1:32:54

what the heck, you

1:32:56

can't see the dim image on the screen through

1:32:58

the lenticular stuff, whereas if

1:33:00

they were monochrome, high contrast googly eyeballs,

1:33:03

or at least I could see them from every

1:33:05

angle and know when they're totally immersed with the

1:33:07

blue wavy stuff now and when they can actually

1:33:09

see me. So I think unlike

1:33:11

the touch bar, which is my opinion, needed to

1:33:13

die and be rethought, I think

1:33:15

the things that EyeSight is trying to do

1:33:18

are worth continuing to try to do

1:33:20

until we can see your actual eyeballs.

1:33:23

I'm just not convinced that the way they're trying to

1:33:25

do it in the very first Division Pro is

1:33:29

the right path to be traveling down with the lenticular

1:33:31

lenses and the really dim eyes and stuff like that.

1:33:33

So we'll see what they do for version two and

1:33:35

if they drop it from one of them, we'll see

1:33:37

how much that model is frowned

1:33:40

upon because it doesn't have that feature,

1:33:44

but I'm not as anti-EyeSight as other

1:33:46

people because I definitely see the

1:33:48

point of this feature and I think that point is always

1:33:51

going to be relevant. Yeah, I'd actually like

1:33:53

to build on what you said. I am

1:33:55

pro EyeSight. It's not perfect by any stretch

1:33:57

of the imagination, but for all the reasons

1:33:59

you knew... I think it's

1:34:01

absolutely worth it. Like I think it is

1:34:03

useful to get that visual cue whether

1:34:06

or not the other person is paying any attention to you

1:34:08

and Get that visual cue whether

1:34:10

or not that person is in an immersive environment.

1:34:12

Like I think these are all really useful things

1:34:14

Yeah, it looks janky as the both of you

1:34:17

have said. Yeah, it's not as bright as it

1:34:19

should be Yeah, occasionally it looks like your eyes

1:34:21

are not where they're supposed to be But I

1:34:24

think this is the best that we can

1:34:26

do right now And I don't think if

1:34:29

Apple can make this better. I don't think that this is a

1:34:31

bad path to go down No, maybe there's

1:34:33

other better paths. I'm not saying that this

1:34:35

is definitely the winner But

1:34:37

I do think that they've gone down the

1:34:40

right path I do think this juice was

1:34:42

worth the squeeze and I do think that

1:34:44

it makes the device that much more appealing

1:34:47

for Regular people

1:34:49

and that includes me like I think I would

1:34:51

like this device less if it didn't have eyesight

1:34:54

Even knowing that eyesight is janky and weird In fact,

1:34:56

I would argue in some ways it's almost better that

1:34:58

it's drinking weird because then we can all have a

1:35:00

good laugh about How janky weird it is. Well, if

1:35:02

you think about this is another sad reality of some

1:35:05

Apple today with its Restrictive policies

1:35:07

and what can and can't be produced In fact, I

1:35:09

just saw someone get division pro app rejected because what

1:35:12

they made look too much like the Mac OS dock

1:35:14

or something So of course Apple rejected it anyway,

1:35:18

if if vision Pro We

1:35:20

travel back in time and it's the Mac of

1:35:22

the late 80s and early 90s There

1:35:25

would be APIs that people would either

1:35:27

discover or Apple would publish most likely

1:35:29

people would discover for controlling that front

1:35:31

screen and we would have Talking

1:35:34

loose eyeballs out on the front Yoda

1:35:36

eyes like because they would

1:35:38

hack the they would hack the you know They

1:35:40

would find the APS or finding where your eyes

1:35:43

are pointing and peep and people would figure out

1:35:45

how to use that screen And we would have

1:35:47

tons of fun third-party apps doing different kinds of

1:35:49

cartoon eyeballs and guess what? All those silly apps

1:35:51

made by indie developers prevent distributed for free address

1:35:53