Apple Said To Be Working on AR Glasses With Carl Zeiss (cnet.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Said To Be Working on AR Glasses With Carl Zeiss (cnet.com)

Posted by msmash on Tuesday January 10, 2017 @08:45AM from the definitely,-maybe dept.

Apple seems behind Microsoft, Google, and Facebook on the nascent augmented reality space, but that could change soon. From a report on CNET: The tech titan is working with the German optics manufacturer Carl Zeiss on a pair of lightweight AR/mixed reality glasses, according to tech evangelist Robert Scoble. The project, which could be announced as early as this year, was confirmed by a Zeiss employee, Scoble wrote in a Facebook post.

66 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Carl Zeiss by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 08:49 · Score: 0

No points for guessing what Carl Zeiss's role is.
1. Re:Carl Zeiss by nitehawk214 · 2017-01-10 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  They are a maker of expensive camera lenses.
  
  --
  I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
2. Re:Carl Zeiss by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 09:06 · Score: 0
  
  You are the king of the internet
3. Re:Carl Zeiss by PopeRatzo · 2017-01-10 10:34 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  No points for guessing what Carl Zeiss's role is.
  Carl Zeiss died in 1888, so he'll probably be working on the iTunes interface.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
4. Re:Carl Zeiss by plasm4 · 2017-01-11 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  They also make spectacle lenses.
Apple is behind by The-Ixian · 2017-01-10 08:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

Has Apple ever been first with anything?
Seems to me, Apple has always just taken what exists but then makes it pretty and sometimes easier to use.
Lately, Apple just seems to be a fashion company with a technology spin.

--
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
1. Re:Apple is behind by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 08:53 · Score: 0
  
  No they haven't, but don't let the zealots tell hear you say that. Apple just calls something they made "magical" and "revolutionary" and people drink it up and think they did it first.
2. Re:Apple is behind by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 08:59 · Score: 0
  
  Of course, I didn't provide any examples because there are none. I'm just an Apple bigot who likes to post Anonymously.
3. Re:Apple is behind by phantomfive · 2017-01-10 09:06 · Score: 2
  
  Google already tried augmented reality. How is Google glass doing these days?
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
4. Re:Apple is behind by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 09:11 · Score: 0
  
  Apple doesn't "do" being first. They wait until everyone else fucks up to swoop in and eat their lunch.
  See: mp3 players, smarthphones, screens (retina), tablets, chips (their A series), etc, etc.
5. Re:Apple is behind by rwven · 2017-01-10 09:12 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I think that's really the key though. With the iPhone, they took the concept of a smartphone and made it into something that was user friendly and that people wanted to use. Same with the iPad/Tablet Computers. Previous attempts existed, but were clunky and offered (relatively) crappy user experiences.
  If they can take Google's clunky concept and come up with a way to use it that is aesthetically appealing and easy to use (and live with), they could have a winner on their hands.
  The real question is if they can do a proper job of it without Steve Jobs at the helm.
  (Disclaimer: Not a fan of apple at all as a company and own zero apple devices. Just acknowledging the obvious.)
6. Re:Apple is behind by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 09:20 · Score: 0
  
  This collaboration is actually very interesting. Augmented reality is partly an optics problem. I believe this is a good approach by Apple as it is different than coding weenies thinking they can do anything. Zeiss does much more than just camera lenses. They have been at the edge of optics for decades. Though I will say that having a bunch of older staid men working together is not as exciting as having some young coders collaborating with people from University of Arizona. If the later combo existed then I would place my bets on them.
7. Re:Apple is behind by phantomfive · 2017-01-10 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  Though I will say that having a bunch of older staid men working together is not as exciting as having some young coders collaborating with people from University of Arizona
  The older gentlemen (and women, presumably) are much more likely to do solid, high-quality work.
  What is the University of Arizona doing in this field, though? Anything interesting?
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
8. Re:Apple is behind by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 09:35 · Score: 0
  
  laptops, mp3 players, touchscreen devices, I could go on really. Enjoy your reality distortion field though.
9. Re:Apple is behind by pr0fessor · 2017-01-10 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  I like my old iphone 4s that I still use but I'm not so sure about the mp3 player I had a magnavox that was nearly indestructible as I put it through the washer and dryer multiple times and it still worked after I let it dry out. An ipod would have been dead with a busted screen long before that magnavox finally died.
10. Re:Apple is behind by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 09:49 · Score: 0
  
  I think the laptop is the only example I can think of - a machine that sat on your lap, with a thin screen, and a tracking device integrated just didn't exist until the Powerbook.
  That said, you seem to be demeaning the idea of making a product actually usable by the masses? That's exactly what makes apple great - they take some awesome technology that geeks can all see is great, and they build it in such a way that non-geeks can see that it's great.
11. Re:Apple is behind by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  Google Glass is not AR. It's a little side window, no overlay/HUD on top of what you're seeing at all.
12. Re:Apple is behind by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 10:15 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe I'm not old enough but other than the iPhone, I haven't seen Apple really pull this off. They're really riding off the great success of one product team in my mind, and specifically, a good implementation of multi-touch.
13. Re:Apple is behind by The-Ixian · 2017-01-10 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  I don't feel that I am demeaning Apple. At least that wasn't my intent. I am just pointing out that the article states that "Apple seems behind" and I am pointing out that, they always seem to be behind.
  That doesn't diminish their products. I just think that some people seem to be mistaking Apple for a company that they have never been.
  
  --
  My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
14. Re: Apple is behind by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 10:50 · Score: 0
  
  They learn from the mistakes their competitors make. That's the innovators dilemma. How much time do you take to polish your products? The more you wait, the more chance a competitor gets their product out first and sets a standard. Get your product out too early, and your competitor can make a clone of your product with enhancements at a lower cost. Or you can even have such a rapid product generation release timetable that customers start skipping generations.
15. Re:Apple is behind by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 10:51 · Score: 0
  
  Has Apple ever been first with anything?
  The Apple II. (That is, an affordable, capable, expandable personal computer.)
  That's about it. Pretty much everything else since has followed the formula you've identified.
  
  Seems to me, Apple has always just taken what exists but then makes it pretty and sometimes easier to use.
  It's not just you, that's Apple's secret to success: let others test the waters, then, if something looks interesting, swoop in and simplify the experience. Or at least it used to be the secret to Apple's success. Today they're largely milking and degrading the results of that old formula.
  (Bitter? Me? Not at all. Who wants an iPod Nano with tactile controls so you can perform quick, basic operations without looking at the device? Who wants a refreshed MacBook Pro when you can have a locked-down, feature-limited MacBook Premium with an emoji bar? Who wants a Mac Pro in which you can swap and upgrade components? Who wants an industry-standard headphone jack on their mobile device? And everybody knows that a duct-taped-together Frankenstein's monster is the ideal tool to manage disparate media types.)
16. Re:Apple is behind by Solandri · 2017-01-10 11:12 · Score: 4, Informative
  Are you kidding? We had PDAs long before smartphones. They weren't klunky, and the user experience wasn't crappy. By the early 2000s, it was obvious PDAs were going to converge with phones (well, obvious to everyone except Microsoft, who completely missed the boat despite having conquered PalmOS as the PDA OS of choice). The only question was if PDAs would pick up phone features, or if phones would pick up PDA features. RIM (Blackberry) was the first company to really combine these two effectively, which is why they took an early lead in the smartphone market.
  
  The two innovations the iPhone brought were
  
  (1) a completely touchscreen interface. Given that LG actually did this before the iPhone, I don't really count this as a true Apple innovation. The Prada is evidence that the smartphone market was already heading in this direction before the iPhone, and our smartphones would still be touchscreen phones today even if the iPhone had never existed.
  
  (2) an integrated app marketplace for loading third party apps onto the device. Early PDAs (like the Palm Pilot) had had the ability to run third party apps. But you had to side-load them by first downloading them onto your computer, then transfer them from the computer to the PDA. That was a klunky process. The App Store neatly streamlined that process (in the same way that iTunes streamlined getting music onto your MP3 player, leading to the success of the iPod). This was a true innovation which I give Apple full credit for - it turned your smartphone from an accessory of your personal computer, into a general purpose computer in its own right.
17. Re:Apple is behind by darthsilun · 2017-01-10 11:20 · Score: 1
  
  Has Apple ever been first with anything?
  
  The Apple II. (That is, an affordable, capable, expandable personal computer.)
  I can say with some degree of certainty that $1300 in 1977 was anything but affordable. And for $1300 all you got was 4K of RAM. RAM cost nearly $600 for 16K, so a fully popped Apple ][ with 64K would have run you $3600.
18. Re:Apple is behind by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 11:21 · Score: 0
  
  And we had Apple's Newton* before the PDAs...
  * and Newton's Apple before Apple's Newton...
19. Re:Apple is behind by phantomfive · 2017-01-10 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  well, obvious to everyone except Microsoft, who completely missed the boat
  
  Weird thing is, Microsoft did the smart thing first. Apple just had a better UI (specifically, browsing the internet was about 10 times easier on an iPhone than a Microsoft phone/PDA).
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
20. Re: Apple is behind by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 12:33 · Score: 0
  
  Not really.
  Ever tried to setup two home routers to extend wifi coverage. It's a pain in the ass of configuration and techno jargon.
  However, two Apple routers and a few clicks on the UI can easily be setup in under 5 mins.
  Ease of use.
  It's hard sometimes for tech savvy people to have respect for people outside of their expert domain and they just call them stupid for not knowing what a MAC address is or DHCP or what the difference is beteeen executable binaries and data.
  But honestly. The reason the iPhone was such a huge success is because every single smartphone before that was a computer with all the baby sitting requirements of a computer. Apple makes devices that do not require the user to understand how they work. They look sexy and they get the job done. That matters a lot more to most people than the latest GPU and CPU specs. Less is more.
21. Re:Apple is behind by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 12:42 · Score: 0
  
  I'd bet a thousand dollars that you don't own a single product made by the original company that produced it from concept through end-user functionality.
  You just hate Apple that much and have your head that far up your own ass to understand this.
  If you'd be pointing out that Google wasn't the first company to produce a search engine, a mobile OS, a teleconference system, email or social media you'd have been modded troll. This place is the real fashion show.
22. Re:Apple is behind by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 13:02 · Score: 0
  
  I used to have a Palm Treo 180G then a Palm Treo 400 (with Colour). They were awesome, and 5 years (ish) ahead of iPhones.
23. Re:Apple is behind by cant_get_a_good_nick · 2017-01-10 14:45 · Score: 1
  
  More than a better UI.
  Microsoft tried to port the Windows experience to a phone. failed miserably.
  With windows 8 they tried the opposite approach. Port a phone UI to a desktop. also failed miserably.
  The UI goes deep. it's not just menu typeface. APple understood what navigating a small touchscreen should be.
24. Re:Apple is behind by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 15:25 · Score: 0
  
  I can say with some degree of certainty that $1300 in 1977 was anything but affordable. And for $1300 all you got was 4K of RAM. RAM cost nearly $600 for 16K, so a fully popped Apple ][ with 64K would have run you $3600.
  Everything is relative. To you, $3600 may have been a considerable amount, however, as proven by the immense popularity of VisiCalc, to enough people it certainly was affordable. A computer under your roof for only $3600 as compared to the far-more-expensive time-shared systems that were more common at the time? A bargain.
  It also depends on where your interests lay. As a young teen at the time, ~$4000 was a price I was able to talk my parents into splitting with me. That investment paid off handsomely.
25. Re:Apple is behind by darthsilun · 2017-01-10 16:15 · Score: 1
  
  If you're going to play the everything is relative card, $3600 is still not very affordable today – 40 years later – when haters are still complaining about Apple's "overpriced" iMacs and Mac Pros at $2K and $3K and up. Or – at the other end of the spectrum – when you can buy a Raspberry Pi for under $30.
  Compared to a $50K TI or HP mini back then, yeah, $3600 might seem more affordable. Certainly for businesses that could justify the cost and write it off on their taxes as an expense. If your parents were willing to pop $4K for you to have one – well lucky you. Not all of us weren't so lucky. For a kid who made $25 a month mowing lawns or delivering newspapers, $4K might as well have been $4M. And there were a lot of kids who didn't have a paper route or a lawn mowing job.
  My brother and I did burn through hundreds of dollars on a TSO system writing some software that in retrospect was incredibly silly. But it was hundreds of dollars, not thousands of dollars. And we learned a lot, so it was money well spent really. All in all that "expensive" TSO was much more affordable than buying an Apple ][. (And BTW, a couple years later we did manage to buy ourselves our own Apple ][s, after the prices had come down quite a bit.)
  Your argument is unconvincing. $3600 in 1977 was not affordable. And $50K and up for any kind of mini was – all things being relative – even less affordable.
26. Re: Apple is behind by senatorpjt · 2017-01-10 17:28 · Score: 1
  
  There are a few, but not many. Xerox laser printer, Kodak digital camera, etc.
27. Re:Apple is behind by Altus · 2017-01-11 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  The iPod and the iPad.... oh yeah, and the home computer.
  
  --
  "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
28. Re:Apple is behind by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-11 03:37 · Score: 0
  
  The earlier Windows Phone OS versions that were based on Windows CE / PocketPC were fucking trash. Receiving a call could reboot the device. You had to go into Task Manager and kill processes because otherwise it simply refused to do stuff you wanted it to do. You had to reboot your phone multiple times a day just to keep it operational. And, the battery life was fucking garbage.
29. Re: Apple is behind by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-11 05:03 · Score: 0
  
  No, neither have Samsung, Google, Microsoft, Tesla, Space X etc
  There is nothing left to invent anymore and if you claim you invented something it's just playing with words to get that joke of a patent.
  No that goes for innovation too.
guaranteed to be ... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 08:55 · Score: 0

Black-rimmed Elvis Costello-esqe for sure. Hipsters rejoice!
CLASH OF THE TITANS by Thud457 · 2017-01-10 09:00 · Score: 1

First they took Apple from the Beatles, then they grabbed iPhone from Cisco, now they're going to try to wrest eyePhone from Momcorp.

eyePhone
aaiiiiiPhone it's a direct ocular implant, see...
arrrrPhone pirate patch extra charge

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
1. Re: CLASH OF THE TITANS by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 09:31 · Score: 0
  
  They also stole their OS name (OS9) back at the turn of the millenium from Microware, a much smaller company without the cash to fight it.
2. Re: CLASH OF THE TITANS by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 10:06 · Score: 0
  
  You mean Mac OS 9 as in the successor of MacOS 8 as in the successor of Mac OS 7 as in the successor of Mac OS 6... as in the successor Mac OS from 1984?
  Yes it was purely intentional the numbers chronologically lined up to the world dominating OS-9 from 1979.
3. Re: CLASH OF THE TITANS by R3d+M3rcury · 2017-01-10 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  You mean Mac OS 9 as in the successor of MacOS 8 as in the successor of System 7 as in the successor of System 6... as in the successor of Macintosh System Software from 1984?
  FTFY.
  "MacOS" didn't really become a moniker until Apple started the clone market. I think the first one was "MacOS 7.6."
4. Re: CLASH OF THE TITANS by darthsilun · 2017-01-10 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  You mean Mac OS 9 as in the successor of MacOS 8 as in the successor of Mac OS 7 as in the successor of Mac OS 6... as in the successor Mac OS from 1984?
  Yes it was purely intentional the numbers chronologically lined up to the world dominating OS-9 from 1979.
  Incorrect. The first release of Mac OS was 7.6. Before that it was called Macintosh System 7.5. And various dot releases before that. All the way down to System 1.
  Easy enough to find out with a simple web search.
Apple + Zeiss +... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 09:01 · Score: 0

Throw Leica in for the camera and Apple will have the hipster trifecta.
It makes sense by phantomfive · 2017-01-10 09:07 · Score: 1

It makes sense, considering the good things Cook has said about augmented reality. Quote:

"There's virtual reality and there's augmented reality -- both of these are incredibly interesting," Cook said in the interview. "But my own view is that augmented reality is the larger of the two, probably by far."

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
1. Re:It makes sense by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  AR can be far more useful. Successfully overlaying useful information, such as CAD renderings, properly in your field of view will be more useful to many more people than total sensory replacement devices. VR will still do very well in simulator arrangements, like expensive/high risk training scenarios.
  If Google gets to define the field, AR will actually be used to force advertisements at wearers throughout every minute of their day. Regardless of my disinterest in iThingies, I prefer Apple set the template of AR environment than for Google to do so.
  Gaming will find a way to use whatever there is to use, just because VR games exist already does not mean AR games will not happen abundantly when the tech is capable.
2. Re:It makes sense by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 09:58 · Score: 0
  
  As long as it gives us our virtual anime waifus... Gatebox seems neat, but it is too expensive, stuck in a box, small size, flat display. Imagine that but with AR instead? You'll sell thousands within seconds.
Sure to be reasonably priced by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 09:07 · Score: 1

Zeiss? Apple? Hmm, I wonder what kind of loan I'm going to need to take out to look awesome with these babies?
1. Re:Sure to be reasonably priced by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 11:27 · Score: 0
  
  it could be worse... well, no, just if if was a military contract...
iSee by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 09:13 · Score: 0

deez NUTZ
Touch screen glasses by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 09:14 · Score: 0

Article referenced a 2014 Apple patent on AR technology which annoyed me - this idea is decades old.
Reading the patent showed each primary claim states at least one of the lenses is a touch screen. LOL. They can have their patent.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8890771.PN.&OS=PN/8890771&RS=PN/8890771
Experience by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 09:17 · Score: 0

Hopefully they will profit from the 30 years of real AR experience offered by Steve Mann. He has figured out the technical details of how it should work; Apple might be able to make it practical.
iEye? by JustNiz · 2017-01-10 09:29 · Score: 2

iEye?
1. Re:iEye? by Applehu+Akbar · 2017-01-10 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  Since eyes come in pairs, a more logical name would be iEyeEye. The advertising could feature Sofia Vergara.
2. Re:iEye? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 10:36 · Score: 0
  
  iEye?
  Captain!
3. Re:iEye? by SeaFox · 2017-01-10 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  I actually think "iGlasses" would be cute. But nowadays Apple wants everything to be "Apple-this" and "Apple-that".
4. Re:iEye? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 14:48 · Score: 0
  
  apple of my eye?
This is sooo teh Gibs0n by Provocateur · 2017-01-10 10:07 · Score: 1

Brushing up on our sci fi, zeiss, et al

--
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
The goggles! by PPH · 2017-01-10 11:14 · Score: 1

They do nothing!

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Glassholes by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 12:03 · Score: 0

This will probably work better for Apple than it did for Google. Apple users are probably more willing to be glassholes.
1. Re:Glassholes by Cmdln+Daco · 2017-01-10 12:26 · Score: 1
  
  They will be courageous glassholes.
  I am trying to figure out where they will put the large Apple logo on the spectacles, though. Maybe it will project an Apple logo hologram into the air above and in front of the wearer.
2. Re:Glassholes by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 12:44 · Score: 0
  
  You'll have plenty of time to think about it while junkies fuck you up the ass tonight.
3. Re:Glassholes by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 17:54 · Score: 0
  
  No, it'll project backwards onto the wearer's forehead. Like Arnold Rimmer's H but an Apple logo instead...
Leave out 'expensive' by thesjaakspoiler · 2017-01-10 13:00 · Score: 1

because with enough money every manufacturer can put their label on it's product. Still waiting for a Beats by DrDre headphones with a CarlZeiss logo....
1. Re:Leave out 'expensive' by nitehawk214 · 2017-01-11 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah there are some Panasonic/Zeiss lenses out there. You can guess which company made them, and which company's standards they are made to.
  Not that I hate Panasonic lenses, but you can tell they are simply paying Zeiss to slap their name on them.
  
  --
  I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
altered reality by siamesevodka · 2017-01-10 13:19 · Score: 1

Are these the same glasses Roddy Piper wore? Are we going to find out who our overlords truly are?