Because there are screens in the way? The choice was to either not have the viewer's eyes be visible, or use a screen to display eyes (not even real eyes, you can supposedly have cat eyes for an example). Considering the device is meant to be AR (augmented reality) and not VR, it kinda makes sense to show the user's eyes since they're still "connected" to the outside world. Otherwise you'd have a bunch of blank visors walking around and then people can't tell if you're looking at them or your furry waifu.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 11 points 9 months ago (3 children)

You know how Microsoft solved this problem?

With glass.

[–] ColdFenix@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 9 months ago

And it sucked, fov of the augmented area was tiny, the projected images were see-through and you still couldn't really see the persons eyes because of the tinted glass. Vr headsets with cameras are currently by far the best way to do AR.

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

That was Google...

[–] Natanael 6 points 9 months ago

Microsoft Hololens (glass and transparent screen) and Google Glass (tiny screen)

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 6 points 9 months ago

Google had Glass. Windows Mixed Reality used glass. The material. Like a window.

[–] Robbsen1@discuss.tchncs.de -3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Then go and buy Microsoft's product. Nobody forces you to get a Vision Pro

[–] ModsAreCopsACAB@lemm.ee -3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Lmao look at this bozo defending the shittiest apple product.

[–] Robbsen1@discuss.tchncs.de -2 points 9 months ago

What? Where did I defend the Vision Pro? I just don't get why people get so emotionally invested about something nobody ever forces them to buy or use.