Would the new generation be get used to it? Probably. But that does not mean it is healthy. We have gotten used to a lot of things that are objectively bad for us.

It identifies that rudeness comes from lack of attention and that communicating attention can change within a cultural context.

Apple is IMO the only company that seems capable of simultaneously tackling the form factor, outside-viewer perception factor (AirPods are fully socialized, as you mention), inside-viewer perception factor (AirPods on transparency really do feel 99.9% fully "transparent")

We’re already deep into the process of merging modern technology into every aspect of our lives, and in some cases it’s been bad. In some cases it’s been a necessary evolution to survive in a modern society. In some cases, it’s been good.

On the one hand, I worry that face helmets will further erode human connection, and people will live in a lower resolution reality than what is possible with direct human contact. On the other hand, the current reality is that more and more people are looking down into a slab of glass instead of up/out at the world around them.

It could be that the ultimate version of AVP (some kind of glasses that are barely more noticeable than AirPods) is what gets people to look up/out again.

The “bad thing” is arguably already here, and it’s just a question of whether future tech will make it worse, or do a better job of merging the real world with the digital world, enabling people to participate in both instead of disappearing into their pocket computer.

People living in the 1920’s would say we are all crackheads.

> quite clearly huge numbers of people DO want TVs and smartphones

This really ventures into the space of addictive behaviors. Do meth addicts really want meth, or are they using for some other reason? Can we assume that they DO want the meth and that's the primary driver simply because they keep using it?

I think this statement is too strong. I see too many people every day in elevators, in lines, all sorts of different places that are on their phone and specifically avoiding eye contact with other human beings. That suggests that the term “vast majority” is probably too strong.

Also, when shared experience hits the next version (or the one after that, or..) and I can watch Liverpool beat Man Utd with my brother on a different continent (with whatever lag being compensated for) I'll get more of a shared experience than I could have today.

This is a version-1 product. It's only going to get better - I have one of the original iPhones, and compared to the '15 Pro I have now, it's pitiful. Apple are generally a long-term game company, and they're not going to let this just drop.

So sure, in company down at the pub, I won't be wearing goggles like this. Funnily enough I don't think that's the target market, making your argument a bit of a strawman one. Apple (I expect) will focus is attention on where it can make a difference. And (again, I expect) it will.

All it takes is to get to that point with AR. So it's more a critique of the state of AR's present usefulness rather than an innate, immovable reflection on society.

Wearing an AR device is like telling you something more important than our conversation might come up and I need to be able to quickly shift my focus from you to it.

Maybe it's my age (early 40s) but it's common for our friend/family group to shame each other (in a half-kidding-half-not way) when somebody gets into their phone too much during a social event. "If you're going to be here, be here" is a mantra we tease each other with. We hold each other accountable enough to where when my elementary-age son picks out a movie for us to watch, if one of the adults in the room starts scrolling on their phone he'll pause the movie and ask them if they're going to pay attention or not.

I can see a future where people use AR, there's a setting that indicates "full focus" vs "distracted", and people will ask others to stay in "full focus" mode when talking. This would minimize the number of notifications the user receives in an effort to lend focus to the conversation.

It'll be the same general expectation as what you're describing, but with a step towards concession and acceptance of the tech.

There will also probably be an in-between period where people who remain glued to their phone try to take the morale high ground against those who are using AR goggles by saying they're giving more focus to the conversation :)

iOS and Android both have Focus Mode:

https://blog.google/products/android/android-focus-mode/

https://support.apple.com/guide/iphone/set-up-a-focus-iphd62...

I guess I don't use this feature when having a conversation with another person because it would require me to get out my phone and change modes when the conversation begins. That's too much of a barrier. In some settings, though, like when going to watch a movie in public, there's a dedicated window where people are expected to shift their phones to a socially acceptable mode. I do respond accordingly in those situations.

With AR, it would seem this process could be automated through facial recognition / voice detection. If there was a setting that said, "Don't notify me of text messages when the system detects I am conversing with another person. Do this automatically" then it seems quite practical to have that enabled. It also seems reasonable that it would be implemented because the concept of "disable notifications temporarily" already exists on phones.

Of course, some people will feel like these changes reduce the humanity of the interaction because you're letting the device do too much of the work and others will disagree and say that the tech is just helping automate and improve a task they were already performing. Both camps will have fair points.

These sorts of behaviors which augment the conversation seem distinct from concepts like "be shown new text messages while mid-conversation" which I do think should be able to be silenced and conveyed as being silenced.

I did make good use of Google Lens when traveling to France last year. I found myself engaging with the world by looking through my phone's camera frequently as it made understanding restaurant menus much easier.

At least with google glass it was trivial to see where the eyes were pointed.

I do not feel that this loss makes it rude to have an outside conversation wearing sunglasses in a sunny environment.

So, I still think that AR will find its way in. I'm not saying it won't reduce the socialization experience further. It'll just be perceived as semi-necessary, understandable, and life will move on.

I feel like if you went up to someone and asked “how can we improve this social interaction?” Literally nobody would suggest strapping a screen to your face anywhere in the list of improvements.

Here’s some other technology improvements:

What would make your TV experience better?

* make it bigger * allow it to use the internet to watch infinite shows * make it cheaper * make the colors brighter

What would make your analog home-phone experience better? * make it portable * make it smaller * allow me to save contacts within it * allow me to take other notes * now that I have this little thing in my pocket anyways, make it do more stuff

Then when we think of the problems that lead to AR being the solution, it’s almost entirely related to business problems. Surgery, manufacturing, carpentry, construction… all would benefit from a HUD that tells you what to put where. Those are real benefits.

But anything that people would do in a social situation? Almost never will the answer to a human interaction problem to be “attach a screen to your face”. In that scenario, all of the solutions are really in search of a problem.

I already do this but more manually. For example, I don't try to remember everyone's birthday. Instead, I put their birthday's in my calendar, get a notification when it's close, and use this information to enrich our relationship.

It seems reasonable to believe this could be extended much further if the barrier to recording and recalling the information was reduced.

Perhaps. It might be a generation or two before the "that's ... creepy" vibes fade. Reminds me a bit of that scene in minority report after the eye swap and the protagonist passes by a billboard and the avatar asks him about how the pants he purchased worked out.

I do something similar to the calendar thing too. I reach out a few days ahead of time so it doesn't seem like I'm just doing it reflexively like an unfeeling robot because facebook prompted me to do so day of.

I think you're on to something. Glass was an expensive flop from the word "go" but the second generation did live on in these specialized sectors.

I suspect that - at least for this decade - AR is still going to be the specialized/industry tech and that VR is going to be the consumer oriented tech.

Having AR glasses on is totally different.

The main difference is that there might be any number of equally-or-more-valid reasons to have AR/MR glasses on than "it's too bright".

Like, "I'm on call for blahblah" or "I'm watching the baby monitor" or... whatever, a million possibilities.

So yes, AR glasses detract, but no, it's not different.

Also, lots of wearers consider that social interaction complexifier a feature, not a bug. Which is why you see a lot of cops wear sunglasses all the time, even with no sun. For a deep, heart-to-heart conversation with somebody important? Sure, take them off. For anything else...

That's not a problem with sunglasses because it's inherently impossible for you to be doing something else.

The issue that people have with AR glasses (and to some extent, people wearing sunglasses unnecessarily) is that AR glass wearers are thinking more about themselves than the perspective of other person. And then to defend AR glasses saying "I could be doing something important but actually I'm paying attention" is like doubling down on that lack of awareness.

I'm not opposed to AR glassses. I'm just explaining why they are a bit of a faux pas and the people who think they are OK are also the reason why they are not OK.

Children used to be told "don't sit so close to the TV" and now we're strapping monitors to our heads.

So... sniff sniff what's that smell? The market working is it then?

Both Vitamix blenders and recumbent bicycles have less market share than desktop Linux. Is that because recumbent bike makers just really have no idea how people want to ride bicycles, or...

yeah

No. That's a gross generalization. You have all sorts of people using Linux, including leading UX experts.

What you don't have is a single governing body pulling everyone in the same direction, so efforts get diluted(even when prioritized).

They understand, but they don't care. The 5% want to have a system that is designed for themselves and not the other 95%.

Also VR isn’t what companies, Apple at least, care about. It’s a stepping stone to AR which is why the AVP does a “fake AR” of sorts as its primary mode of operation. You have to walk before you run which is also why Apple pushed VR/ARKit so hard even before they had a device to really take full advantage of it (as in a device that’s not just holding an iPad up and pointing it at table, all of 5 people care about that).

The Overton window will shift if people get true utility out of VR/AR in the same way it’s shifted on everything else. Right now there just isn’t anything compelling enough to force that shift but I think it will happen quickly when there is.

And before “I find X compelling”, ok, that’s great for you, for the vast majority of people the tech and/or use-cases are not there yet.

I don't think this is true. There was a massive appetite for the iPhone for decades leading up to its release, and there was no question that mobile was going to have a giant role in the future of computing. If you look back, most nay-sayers didn't doubt the value or utility of pocket-computers, but rather just that Apple specifically would be out-competed by established vendors.

I couldn't care less about AR. I want VR and only VR.

I don't want digital overlays of the world around me at all. That's completely useless and will be filled with ads and noise. I want to live and breathe in imaginative fantasy worlds and escape the real world completely.

I want to be a character in interactive movies. Have realistic D&D sessions with friends where the real world disappears completely. To create entire planets and universes and populate them with stories and adventures.

I don't want labels on cooking ingredients, advertisements for Taco Bell while I walk around, or email notifications popping up during conversations. AR might have industrial use cases, but the real world implications are annoying.

But maybe there will be a few years of bliss, like the early internet. Or maybe that bliss has already happened.

Whereas VR equivalent of a phone call with eye and face tracking and eventually full body tracking is much closer to an in-person interaction.

For example, I would love and could easily justify the 12.9 inch iPad but the logistics of traveling with it make no sense for me.

I could justify the benefits of traveling everywhere with my high powered gaming pc but logistically it makes no sense.

These devices are still largely impractical for long term use, and particularly outside use. They won't be until the hardware catches up with what we are working on with the software and it is an almost invisible technology except for a mostly standard looking pair of glasses.

People already walk around with their phone almost attached to their face, it isn't hard to imagine wanting an AR headset.

https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/meta-launches-expanded...

https://www.meta.com/smart-glasses/early-access-program/

My guess would be that once AR allows easy sharing, e.g. showing others a funny AR cat video, it will quickly become socially accepted to wear frequently.

Hard disagree. Except for brief interactions like ordering a coffee, I don’t think it is at all socially common for people to keep headphones on when they talk with others. Maybe it varies by culture, or social circle.

The people with the worst behaviour are pushing the norm.

With younger people earbuds seem more like a fashion statement (you also don't take off ear rings to talk to people) and the noise cancelling/transparency will actually do the opposite: filter out background noise so that you can be heard more clearly.

Similarly taking out a Nokia used to signal that you will not be paying attention for a while. Nowadays it might instead be you taking a nice photo, showing off something to others etc.

VR headsets are definitely not at this point yet, but I am not so sure they never will be.

If I go and meet with someone in person, I generally do it because I want to see them up close, face to face. If we are both wearing VR headsets that hide our faces, the whole premise goes out the window.

Eventually, VR headsets might overcome this problem by accurately portraying the other person's face in some way, but we are nowhere there yet.

People want human connections less and less, especially with strangers, service providers, “NPCs” as some would lovingly call them. I think good AR will accelerate this, not fail due to a shrinking taboo.

> I don’t buy this. So many people walking around absolutely glued to their smartphones.

I think it is right-ish, and just needs refinement:

Where people have to have human interactions when they're out in the world, the vast majority of them want them to be real in-person.

If I choose to interact with someone, or accept their attempt at interaction, I don't want a device between me and them. I often don't choose that, but this doesn't minimise my preference for non-tech-filtered integration if interaction does happen.

If I'm out on a trail run or trek I'm perfectly happy to exchange pleasantries with others out and about, I'm quite happy to give directions or similar assistance to a tourist while meandering locally (if asked politely, otherwise you will get sent well out of your way), but far less so if they are not looking me in the face.¹

> especially with strangers, service providers, “NPCs”, …

…, bloody survey people, charity muggers, those who think that because they believe [deity] loves me I'm somehow beholden to care, local press outside the station when I get off a train delayed by a significant incident, …

--

[1] caveat: I'm away that some people are very uncomfortable with direct eye contact, that is quite different from not entirely paying attention because of a bit of tech.

Putting your phone down for a few hours to stare at the trees, or the water, or the clouds passing by, and maybe chatting up a couple nearby people doing the same, that is now the epitome of disconnected blissful ignorance.

If they're a couple, why would they feel the need to always talk? You don't need to always be talking to enjoy just doing your own thing in each other's presence. Even prior to the proliferation of smartphones this was pretty normal in my experience, you spend most of your time having the ability to talk to the people you like, at some point you run out of things to say and are comfortable enough with each other to just do your own thing while in each other's company. It says nothing about their connection with each other.

Those were just viral memes of people using it like that for fun.

Is this true? Most of the time when I'm out and about I'm going from point a to point b and I'm not really interested in talking to anyone I dont already know. If I'm already at a specific place to do a specific thing... I'm not going to have a vr headset on and I'm not really interested in interacting with people I dont already know.

What do you think of how the Vision Pro addresses this problem?

Do you enjoy talking to a colleague while they still have their headphones on, even if you know they have this setting on?

One, it's not the actual user's eyes, it's just a bad rendition of some eyes - without any of the extremely subtle facial expressions that happen with the skin around the eyes, and without any amount of certainty from the other that they are correctly reflecting exactly what you're looking at. We are extremely good at noticing exactly which direction another human is looking in, and when theire gaze shifts, so even minor inaccuracies or lag are jarring.

Much worse, the screen they used is so bad that the eyes are barely visible in almost any amount of lighting.

Either way, even if this "solution" actually worked, the visor still covers far too much of the face to be able to get a normal expression.

Nobody finds it rude to talk to each other with actual glasses on. If AR had similar utility and minimal impact on seeing each others eyes, then the same would be true. Sunglasses prevent people from tracking where people are looking which is why they come off as rude.

> That's the slimmest form factor you're going to get, and it still steps on the toes of human connection.

The minimalist form factor for AR is contact lenses not glasses. Several companies are working on them though it's a long way from a consumer product.

You may not have realized it, but the glasses on tip of nose thing where people lean forward to look at you is because reading glasses make things blurry at conversation distance. Basically this: https://levinsoneyeclinic.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/shu...

However, sometimes people don't bother and they really can't see you very clearly.

That is extremely unlikely to ever be possible. A chip that size that did both high-bandwidth radio AND wireless charging (since you're not gonna have wires dangling from your eyes) AND high refresh rate display would fundamentally have to get extremely hot, with anything resembling current electronics.

You'd have to invent an entirely different transistor to do something like this.

That's not immersive 3D, but the useful bit of AR would be things like putting peoples names above them at a party as if you where in an MMO. Countdown timers over cooking pots, a map or just an arrow when walking somewhere etc.

I'm not saying VR will become as normalised as smartphones, mind you, just that it's a possible outcome. That said, VR / AR as we know it now has been a thing for a while now and it hasn't taken off as much.

…really? I have prescription glasses/sunglasses and I often don’t bother switching them during a quick excursion- such as daycare pickup/drop off. It’s never crossed my mind that I could be perceived as rude. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that anyone with such opinions do not have the level prescription that are required for driving and just general consent use. And for anyone thinking transition lenses would be the solution- those do not work in vehicles with UV blocking windows.

If you're having a quick interaction like popping in and out of a building to pick up / drop off someone or something, sure. But otherwise, it's quite universally rude.

This was something jobs was adept at navigating around along with Jonny Ive.

Tim Cook is a product idiot. Or maybe more to the point he is adept at making factories and has run out of products for them to manufacture. So what’s more important to him his giving the factory more to do vs designing the right product.