This article is an updated transcript of a video made for Space Garage. Click here to view it on Youtube

If you paid attention to Apple's recent keynote you probably noticed something a little unusual. Words like augmented reality and virtual reality were conspicuously absent.

Apple's latest headset isn't being marketed as the best mixed reality headset on the market. It's being marketed as the next era in spatial computing.

But should our technological future be one that's more inundated with screens? Or can we envision a future that liberates us from them?

There's a weird incongruity in this product release. It's coming from a company with a heritage of changing the landscape of human computer interaction. "But we do have one more thing" They've however had a more recent MO of iterative improvement and market segmentation and

saturation.

You can tech tech reviewers discuss the minor differences between the eight iPhone variants Apple currently sells.

Compare this to the launch of the Macintosh with it's world renowned, extremely bold and even divisive commercial.

This was followed by a later generation, a rainbow lineup of alien looking objects among a sea of gray boxes.

And now, you have a prohibitively expensive Apple Vision Pro. While beautifully engineered and well crafted, to most people, it looks pretty much like every other VR headset on the market.

They're hedging. They want a revolutionary outcome while also mitigating all of the risks.

I've taken part in these types of strategic conversations. I know it probably went something like this:

"let's release the Vision Pro model for early adopters so developers can start to create all of the amazing applications for this new technology. That will give them time while we work toward bringing down the cost and physical footprint for the lower tier Apple Vision and its broader market."

But there's a more fundamental issue here. It's the assumption that the next step in HCI lives primarily on your face.

We've seen all the tech commentary and all the Sci-Fi dystopia references. We know where this is headed.

But what's the better outcome look like?

If we delve into more alternative types of HCI we might be able to see a more liberating future one where technology is there when we need it and fades away when we don't.

Apparently there are a handful of people from Apple who agree. Humane, a company packed with ex-Apple talent recently unveiled a new approach to computing. One that diverges pretty heavily from the Apple Vision Pro.

Looking back now they took a not so subtle shot at Apple in their recent demo.

"Some believe AR VR glasses like these are the answer..." Their concept explores something much less cumbersome.

Update: As you know, Humane joined the ranks of some of the most epic tech product failures in history. It's hard to say if it was the implementation, the price, a last minute pivot to LLMs or any of the other million variables involved. It seemed like customers weren't only uninterested but also creeped out by the idea. That said, it's probably good for the entire industry that someone at least tried to move past the pocket doom scroll rectangles that are smart phones.

This idea of a more ephemeral technological experience isn't a new one, Pranav Mistry demonstrated similar technology to this over a decade prior.

"I think that integrating information to our everyday objects will not only help us to get rid of the digital divide the gap between these two worlds but will also help us in some way to stay human."

And it goes back even further than that to Xerox Park where some of the foundational technology that made Apple successful was created.

In the 1980s, Chief Scientist Mark Wiser, often referred to as the father of ubiquitous computing envisioned a future where technology was woven into the fabric of everyday life. So seamlessly integrated that we barely even notice it.

With early stages of the Internet of Things we've already seen some of this come to life. Everyday objects are becoming interconnected forming a web of devices that provide relevant interactions when and where they're needed.

There are also experimental concepts that utilize projection mapping spatial computing tangible user interfaces and other things to make experiences even more rich and relevant. All of this can allow for a much more passive relationship with technology.

But 24 hour engagement with screens isn't the only dystopian outcome to be aware of. Ubiquitous computing can be dystopian too.

Companies have already abused the collectible data that comes from an Internet of Things. If technology becomes even more integrated into everything it can become really difficult for us as humans to fully unplug when we want to.

Apple's actually been instrumental in curbing some of the data collection that can happen through apps and IoT. They're actually pretty aware of these types of issues.

"You are not our product. You are our customer. You are a jewel." -Tim Cook

It's not an oversight that their vision of the future doesn't encompass a vast distributed network of connected devices. Apple has a well known position that closed systems provide a superior experience for end users. Others can play on occasion but only under strict conditions.

You can argue that they hold this position to retain customers, maintain control over revenue from repairs and 3rd party functionally that's probably also true... but ultimately, thanks to their closed system, there are certain things they do much better than anyone else.

And when it comes to implementation ubiquitous computing is very very hard. It's going to take a lot of experimentation and failure to find things that work in the wild.

The companies that have the resources and brand power to make this happen in the near future are not the ones who want to take the risk on that sort of thing anymore.

In the meantime there is a time and place for technology like AR and VR. If we look at the Apple vision pro the way that most people interpret it, as a mixed reality headset it's probably good that Apple's breathing life into an industry that's still struggling to appeal to a broader market.

Apple's always had the ability to create demand not just meet it. ...and that's something the space needs. When boiled down, Apple's core competence is taking a collection of already pretty well developed technologies and refining them to a point where they finally click with people.

But there are some unique challenges that they face with this one.

People can't truly appreciate a product like this until they've experienced it firsthand. ...and that first experience has to be rock solid for most of them or they probably won't come back.

Unlike a tablet or a phone there's also a much more complicated dance between the software, the hardware and the way that the user interacts with it.

When it comes to their software interface, I'm sure people were hoping for a way more dynamic, three dimensional experience but I understand why they took the route they did.

At this point there are very well established UX standards and practices for 2D interfaces and a lot of things are also just fundamentally more efficient as 2D interfaces.

Apple, along with Google, IBM and every other major tech company has years of collective wisdom to draw from and they've developed elaborate libraries of patterns and interactions that are consistent, work well and are familiar to users.

Considerations have been made for every detail in every pixel. There are standards for how to accomplish various tasks how to manage accessibility for users with different needs. Everything down to how much space is needed for people to land their finger or cursor right where they want It has been heavily researched and tested with hundreds of millions of people.

3D is still sort of the Wild West.

A lot of experimentation still needs to happen before best practices can be established and widely adopted. Even the adaptations that Apple made to their own design system for this specific product was already a massive undertaking. Then all of this needed to be packaged into a product that sits intimately on somebody's face for extended periods of time.

I spoke with **the** guy on YouTube when it comes to industrial design. John Moriello from Design Theory has worked on a number of wearable devices including ones in AR.

Here's what he had to say about the hardware:

John: "The Apple Vision Pro? I don't know. It's fine I guess."

Marc: "Me too."

The nuances and the finesse that Apple has likely made to differentiate themselves from all the various headsets already on the market don't translate with their usual marketing strategy. It's going to come down to the task of getting people into stores to try it. That's followed by an urgency to get their standard vision model down to a price point where most people can adopt it.

So in the end if the Apple Vision Pro is the next era in spatial computing this is going to be a pretty pathetic era. If it's the best damn mixed reality headset on the market I can probably get on board with that.

That said, if the iPhone is any indication of how this will probably play out at Apple, we're unlikely to see this headset as part of a constellation of new cool ways to interact with tech.

We're more likely to see years of minor iterations slowly perfecting the wearable computer that sits on our heads. (Note: Iterative improvements and segmentation aren't necessarily bad for the bottom line but opening new markets is what keeps companies alive over the long term.) In the meantime we're missing out on vast ocean of possibilities.

In the broader world of HCI it'll be left to the startups to look beyond screens and find a world where technology works for us instead of the other way around.

If you want to learn more about product strategy and leadership, take a look as tome of the other articles posted here.

Click here for Innovation Part I : Have we lost the plot? ->