You can do the hand stuff if you adhere a leap motion to the front of the HMD - I was doing that during the DK2 era. Leap Motion had additional gestures beyond gaze (gaze interaction isn't a first here, but admittedly gaze-and-pinch is), for example, you could attach a controller to the back of your hand - almost like a watch. You could then interact with that controller, tactile feedback and all. There's also the natural gesture of holding something, but that was rather pedestrian compared to the other UX ideas that Leap were exploring.
I think what's "wowing" people is the sensation of having your hands appear in VR. From personal experience it does take presence (as the formal VR term) to a whole new level.
In addition, adding 2D windows to 3D space isn't really "spatial computing." The pinnacle of VR/AR has always been a 3D interface, in my opinion. I have no idea how that would look/work (I do believe Leap were on their way to a solution), but it's certainly not slapping existing concepts into 3D space in the laziest - most demoable - way possible. Tilt Brush would be further along the spectrum in VR UX, but they only solved for drawing.
This isn't a leap forward. It's yet another idea that fails to hit the mark. While Apple isn't alone in that regard, nobody else is asking $3000 for 2D windows in 3D space.
I have a LEAP Motion, that I bought shortly after release around a decade ago. I've used it quite a bit, but you still have to place it under your hands - they can't rest on the desktop, which means fatigue over time. That said, it's incredibly useful for manipulation of 3D objects, which was my use case back then.
> I think what's "wowing" people is the sensation of having your hands appear in VR.
Oh, for sure. A lot of the reviews that I'm seeing are from people who obviously haven't been following the market over the past few years.
> In addition, adding 2D windows to 3D space isn't really "spatial computing."
I agree. At this point I see "spatial computing" as a promise, not as something this specific device will deliver.
For that matter, it looks like the Mac screen representation is not nearly as good as it could be. I've been speaking to the developers of Immersed (which I've used a ton on Quest 2), and they're working hard right now to release on the AVP. That will include multiple, virtual monitors with configurable resolution and aspect ratio. I expect that will be a turning point for me productivity-wise.
> This isn't a leap forward. It's yet another idea that fails to hit the mark. While Apple isn't alone in that regard, nobody else is asking $3000 for 2D windows in 3D space.
I don't think the AVP is intended to be a mass-market device. Having not yet laid hands on one - I expect to have mine by the end of next week - it appears to be at the very bleeding edge of what's technically possibly hardware-wise, and a lot of thought has gone into building and polishing visionOS. That's not enough to justify the cost.
I see three markets for it today:
* early-adopters/enthusiasts, who don't really need to justify the purchase beyond wanting it. These will provide some revenue but the devices will mostly collect dust.
* "influencers", who will (attempt to) recoup the cost through videos posted on social media. These people will effectively be marketing the product for Apple, and otherwise not contribute to the ecosystem
* developers. Apple needs applications for this platform, which they're obviously throwing a huge amount of money at. I see myself in this group. I plan to use my AVP for my day-to-day work, but I'm also planning to build at least a few small apps to explore the APIs with the intention of publishing at least one highly-polished app in the near future. If I can get anywhere near the top of a category in the visionOS App Store by the time Apple releases a lighter version of this at a price point of ~$2k, I have zero doubt I'll be able to more than make back the cost of the device itself.
> I have a LEAP Motion, that I bought shortly after release around a decade ago. I've used it quite a bit, but you still have to place it under your hands - they can't rest on the desktop, which means fatigue over time.
This is substantially different from attaching it to the HMD. Either way, my original point was Apple claiming to have invented things that they did not invent and the notion that this device presents any leap in terms of UX.
It's value is that it's the only HMD that Apple integrates with, which covers all your use cases, and that's fine. I'm happy to see more people exposed to VR in the hope that it does become mainstream. Apple claiming ideas as their own is plagiarism, which is not fine.
I think what's "wowing" people is the sensation of having your hands appear in VR. From personal experience it does take presence (as the formal VR term) to a whole new level.
In addition, adding 2D windows to 3D space isn't really "spatial computing." The pinnacle of VR/AR has always been a 3D interface, in my opinion. I have no idea how that would look/work (I do believe Leap were on their way to a solution), but it's certainly not slapping existing concepts into 3D space in the laziest - most demoable - way possible. Tilt Brush would be further along the spectrum in VR UX, but they only solved for drawing.
This isn't a leap forward. It's yet another idea that fails to hit the mark. While Apple isn't alone in that regard, nobody else is asking $3000 for 2D windows in 3D space.