[bennyelv]

That first bit sounds like a very hot take to me - the headset quite literally blocks and intercepts the standard human signals for attention and emotional response and then tries to recreate them on an OLED screen with a CGI model.

I can't see how that's better than filming on a phone, where although the eyes are looking at what's going on on the screen, their response is still clearly visible in the raw form.

[techdragon]

A very expensive OLED… I’d be willing to bet the one piece front glass element costs Apple several hundred dollars each… and where anyone else would use standard lenses and optical windows over the tracking cameras, visual cameras, and LiDAR systems… because Apple were making the EyeSight feature a big part of the industrial design, they had to make it “come together”… they had to waste hundreds on a pointlessly rounded piece of ludicrously over complicated glass…

I made the joke that Apple probably put more time and money into the optical engineering and design of this overpriced ski goggles style one piece optical assembly than the cost of designing a space telescope (excluding mega projects like Hubble & JWST aside, of course) …

[symic]

A person recording on a phone is not participating in the event. They are, for the most part, observing. Others may be able to see their expressions and whatnot but they are generally not interacting with the person doing the filming. It remains to be seen if people are willing to interact with someone wearing, what will appear to be, ski goggles. Apple may not have solved the issue but they clearly spent a vast amount of money/time/effort to make it so that interacting with someone wearing the headset isn’t too weird. We will see if they got it right or close enough to right.

[SoullessSilent]

How far fetchedis the idea that facial expressions on the model could be manipulated to look negative/positive when the user is talking about something the software creators have different opinions on?