Apple Said To Be Working on AR Glasses With Carl Zeiss

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.

Re:

[nitehawk214]

They are a maker of expensive camera lenses.

Leave out 'expensive'

[thesjaakspoiler]

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....

Re:

[nitehawk214]

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.

Re:

[plasm4]

They also make spectacle lenses.

Re:Carl Zeiss

[PopeRatzo]

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.

Apple is behind

[The-Ixian]

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.

Re:

[phantomfive]

Google already tried augmented reality. How is Google glass doing these days?

Re:

[phantomfive]

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?

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Google Glass is not AR. It's a little side window, no overlay/HUD on top of what you're seeing at all.

Re:

[pr0fessor]

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.

Re:Apple is behind

[rwven]

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.)

Re:

[Altus]

The iPod and the iPad.... oh yeah, and the home computer.

Re:Apple is behind

[Solandri]

Are you kidding? We had PDAs long before smartphones [wikipedia.org]. 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. (1) a completely touchscreen interface. Given that LG actually did this before the iPhone [wikipedia.org], 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. (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.

Re:

[phantomfive]

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).

Re:

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

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.

Re:

[The-Ixian]

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.

Re:

[darthsilun]

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.

Re:

[darthsilun]

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 expens

Re: Apple is behind

[senatorpjt]

There are a few, but not many. Xerox laser printer, Kodak digital camera, etc.

CLASH OF THE TITANS

[Thud457]

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

Re:

[R3d M3rcury]

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."

Re:

[darthsilun]

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.

It makes sense

[phantomfive]

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."

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

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 templ

Sure to be reasonably priced

[Anonymous Coward]

Zeiss? Apple? Hmm, I wonder what kind of loan I'm going to need to take out to look awesome with these babies?

iEye?

[JustNiz]

iEye?

Re:

[Applehu Akbar]

Since eyes come in pairs, a more logical name would be iEyeEye. The advertising could feature Sofia Vergara.

Re:

[SeaFox]

I actually think "iGlasses" would be cute. But nowadays Apple wants everything to be "Apple-this" and "Apple-that".

This is sooo teh Gibs0n

[Provocateur]

Brushing up on our sci fi, zeiss, et al

The goggles!

[PPH]

They do nothing!

Re:

[Cmdln Daco]

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.

altered reality

[siamesevodka]

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