Spatial Computing: Apple Vision Pro vs. Google Cardboard

Ever since Apple unveiled its Vision Pro, I've been thinking about the opportunities and obstacles it presents for developers.

In the past there was one project in particular that really caught my attention and I am referring to Google Cardboard. I can't stop thinking about why this project has never succeeded and I wanted to write this post as a reflection since I feel that the current VR momentum is driving us to make the same mistakes.

New materials, manufacturing techniques, and entire technologies allow us to develop incredibly powerful platforms and services, but sometimes, because of business models and strategies these products end up with a very low impact.

Is there any easy solution for this?

Let’s begin!

A worker wearing a HoloLens 2 headset

Virtual Reality (VR) has long been a tantalizing frontier in the world of technology, promising immersive experiences and novel ways of interacting with digital and real content.

While the concept of VR has been around for decades, the last few years have seen a surge of interest and innovation, led by tech giants like Microsoft, Meta, Valve, Pico, Sony, Apple and Google.

For simplicity we will talk about VR (Virtual Reality), AR (Augmented Reality), MR (Mixed Reality) and XR (Extended Reality) as Spatial computing. In the same way we won’t differentiate between devices with more or fewer degrees of freedom.

We'll delve into a detailed comparison of two different spatial computing solutions: Apple's Vision Pro and Google Cardboard.

It's important to note that these two products represent vastly different approaches to spatial computing, and their intended purposes and target audiences are not identical.

Apple's Vision Pro is a high-end, standalone MR device designed to deliver cutting-edge experiences, while Google Cardboard, a simple and inexpensive DIY interface, was more of an entry point into VR for the masses.

Our goal here is not to proclaim a winner between the two, because that doesn’t make any sense, but to dissect their individual strengths, weaknesses, and most importantly, to ponder the future of spatial computing.

We'll explore the hardware, the software ecosystems that underpin these products, and discuss why Google Cardboard didn't reach the success that some envisioned.

Furthermore, we'll express concerns about Vision Pro's potential pitfalls and the challenges it might encounter on its path to widespread adoption.

So, let's embark on this comparison, understanding, and evaluation of Apple's Vision Pro and Google Cardboard as we explore the ever-evolving world of spatial computing.

Some use cases for spatial computing may include:

Multimedia: Spatial computing is a great way to experience new and immersive forms of entertainment, or existing ones but in a more immersive way like streaming services, TV or any kind of multimedia platforms.

Video games: There is a wide range of VR games available.

Education: Spatial computing can be used to create interactive and engaging learning experiences. Students can explore historical sites, travel to different parts of the world, and even learn how to perform surgery. Spatial computing can also be used to help students with disabilities learn in new and innovative ways.

Retail: Spatial computing can be used to give shoppers a more immersive experience of a product before they buy it. It can be used to create virtual showrooms and shopping experiences.

3D and 2D Design: Spatial computing transforms the design process by allowing designers to create and visualize 3D models in a virtual space. Collaborations with designers and engineers become more seamless as they can interact with projects in real-time. Prototyping products and environments before they are built saves time and resources, while presenting designs to clients and stakeholders in an immersive way enhances communication and feedback.

Communication and Video Calling: Spatial computing fosters connections by enabling face-to-face interactions with friends, family, and colleagues from anywhere in the world. Virtual meetings and conferences become more engaging and productive as participants can interact in a shared virtual space. Collaborations on projects with remote teams gain a new dimension of presence and connection.

Art and Culture: Spatial computing transforms art experiences by creating immersive exhibitions and allowing users to explore cultural heritage sites. Virtual galleries showcase artworks in a unique and engaging way, while virtual tours of historical sites bring the past to life, fostering a deeper appreciation for art and culture.

So… immersion, immersion and immersion... and this is easy to understand because it is nothing new, we have been seeing these technologies since the 80s.

But we have not yet seen how the general public adopts virtual reality in their daily lives, and to understand why, we will analyze two approaches.

As a low-cost spatial computing candidate we will study the Google cardboard VR interface.

Cardboard official technical drawing from Google

Google presents the Cardboard as an affordable option to experience virtual reality. The following characteristics prove them right:

Low Cost: The most obvious reason why Google Cardboard is considered an affordable option is its low cost. Google Cardboard viewers can be purchased for as little as $10 or you can even create your own, making them much cheaper than other VR devices.

Ease of Assembly: Google Cardboard viewers are very easy to assemble. They come pre-cut and can be folded together in just a few minutes. This makes them a good option for people who are not familiar with VR technology. If you want a more resistant model, its open nature has favored the offer of many different models, from different sellers.

Portability: Google Cardboard viewers are small and lightweight, making them easy to take with you on the go. This means that you can experience VR anywhere, anytime. An important advantage is that by using the smartphone screen as input, they do not need a battery.

Google released the open source Cardboard SDK which is available for both Android, iOS and Unity.

Overall, the Google Cardboard project was a significant milestone in the development of VR. It helped to make VR more accessible, popularize the technology, and pave the way for the next generation of VR headsets. But the project did not achieve a great impact, if by that we understand mass adoption.

Of course, it is difficult to know the future of the Google Cardboard project, but being optimistic would be synonymous with naivety, when Google has abandoned its Google Daydream platform in 2019 and the Google store has stopped selling Cardboards since 2021.

We can conclude that the future of the Google Cardboard SDK depends on the community. And to be honest, with other more innovative proposals that have been emerging, it is not something very attractive, neither for companies nor for end users.

There is no specific use case for Google Cardboard but due to its limitations, the best situations in which we can use it are in cases that do not require constant interaction with what we are doing.

The lack of controls, or gesture recognition, makes it a bad solution for playing video games or working with them, while we could still use them to watch movies or enjoy different forms of art and culture.

The main limitations are:

- The smartphone dependency.
- Lack of gesture tracking.
- No motion sickness mitigation.
- The freedom on its construction makes it difficult to guarantee a minimum standard of comfort and quality.

Now we will check a stand-alone high-end spatial computing device that doesn’t have any of these limitations.

As a high-end spatial computing device candidate we will study the Apple Vision Pro device.

It is the opposite from the Google Cardboard interface right?

Display: while in the Google Cardboard interface we use the smartphone display, the Vision Pro headset has its own displays: a micro-OLED system with more pixels than a 4k TV.

Sound: while the Google Cardboard doesn’t include any sound system in its proposal interface the Vision Pro has spatial audio built in.

Processing: Sorry for being repetitive but yes, while the Google Cardboard doesn’t include any extra processing units the Vision Pro has an M2 chip (we already have M3 chips but at least on the announcement Apple specified the M2) and also a dedicated R1 processor for processing inputs with low response time.

Sensors: The Vision Pro has 14 cameras, 1 LiDAR scanner, and multiple IR and invisible LED illuminators, head, hands and eyes high performance tracking sensors and real time 3D mapping.

This is as amazing as expensive.

Apple WWCD23 official Vision Pro image

While in the Google Cardboard interface we have apps that work for Android / iOS / Unity with the Cardboard SDK the Vision Pro has its own operative system: visionOS and to create software for it we will use the previous Apple frameworks which will be updated for Spatial Computing, like SwiftUI, RealityKit and ARKit and tools like XCode, Reality Composer or Unity.

Despite other solutions are specifically designed for 1 or 2 use cases the Vision Pro seems to be a general purpose device.

With enough computing power and gesture tracking for gaming and displays with that resolution, making them one of the best options for multimedia and entertainment in general, the integration with other Apple products as the Macbook make it also a good option for productivity, if you want a second monitor it is logical to think if it would be better investing in a device like this.

I want to be honest, the Vision Pro is a premium headset, the product itself is really polished. For some use cases it will be ideal. For some expectations it will be the best option, and I am not trying to say the opposite.

But for the use cases that are minimal for opening this kind of technologies for the masses and for making spatial computing something we will add to our daily habits I think that a solution like Google Cardboard but with newer materials and technologies would be a better option in general:

- The displays on the Vision Pro are amazing… but the iPhone screen has also a really high resolution. Two years ago Sony presented the Xperia Z5 premium with a 120hz 4k display.

- The processing power is over expectations but the iPhone is already available to be purchased with A17 Pro chips and of course it is a different architecture and it doesn’t make any sense to compare an A17 with an M2 right? But the iPhone is an example of a computing device plenty of sensors which already are able to record spatial video.

- Sensors: here we have to recognize that the Vision Pro is the most mature and refined option but the Apple Watch without high res cameras can detect hand gestures, and pose estimation is a field that have evolved a lot over the last years, even with low res cameras.

Apple has a really competitive strategy with the integration with other Apple devices and services like Apple Arcade and with alliances like Disney, but that’s nothing if it is not interesting for the developers community, and having other platforms more focused on the general public, in my opinion, having a multi-platform technology would be necessary if we want future projects to be in this platform.

If I ask a non technical person why the Vision Pros won’t fail as the Google Cardboard project, no one will say, because it has an M2, or because the eye tracking is better.

Technology is and should be like magic and without knowing how, it should be attractive, and it should be something you forget about, because you are focused on what you want to do, if you want to see a film, technology becomes bad as soon as you realize that you don’t have battery, but is amazing when you don’t realize what is happening underneath.

And this can happen in both approaches, with a device like the Vision Pro or with an interface like Google Cardboard (of course, in some products the “touch” is the “touch” but that’s more about creating a more competitive product, and not about the product viability).

If the Google Cardboard failed is just for one reason… it didn’t have any interesting app, or specific use case, in which it was a better option than using just.. the smartphone.

And if the PlayStation VR, the Oculus Rift, the Valve Index, or any of these headsets can have a space is because they defined an specific use case in which we will prefer these over using for example… the smartphone, and it is gaming.

By the time Google released the Cardboard, smartphones were not ready to run 360º games in a good resolution, screens were not good enough, and the lack of interesting projects for this kind of technologies, made this technology something just for early adopters.

Recently Andrew Bosworth, Meta’s CTO, said that Google is not collaborating on opening the Play Store to the Meta Quest platform, currently we can use Messenger and WhatsApp while we are using it, and that’s amazing, because imagine that you created an app for Android why you would not want your users to execute it on the Meta Quest?

Right now you can use Progressive Web Apps and it would be amazing for Android developers. But Google doesn’t find this interesting or strategically optimal for some reason, and this leads us to next news.

It is confirmed that there is an alliance between these 3 tech giants in order to compete with Apple Vision Pro. While Samsung will design the hardware, Google will prepare the MR version of Android, and Qualcomm the chip.

Just two things:

1. An interface adapter: We could use the capabilities of our smart phones to get similar results to what most of the Spatial computing options can give us and on top of that if we want to be carbon neutral, a device to transform our 2d phones into spatial computing interfaces would be more responsible with our resources: the m2 wouldn’t be replace by the m3, because we just need a set of lenses which cannot become obsolete.

Maybe improving the smartphone base operative system we can do something like Valve Big Picture but adapted to display information in a more attractive way.

Using the smartphone sensors we can deliver the same degrees of freedom as in a dedicate spatial computing solution.

I think that a new project with the same philosophy as Google Cardboard with the intention to democratize Spatial Computing is imminent and necessary.

We want this tech to be for everyone, not just the tech-savvy elite.

While I appreciate the simplicity and affordability angle of Cardboard, I also get that we can level up a bit in terms of quality without breaking the bank.

It doesn’t need to be a 10 dollars do it yourself kit, but maybe a pair of adaptative certified lenses capable of transforming our smartphones into windows to the metaverse with an open software development kit capable of being multiplatform as React Native, Flutter or Capacitor did with mobile apps.

2. A multiplatform framework: Creating a new operative system like visionOS is in the opposite direction, it will make it more difficult for developers to create products for a target user and instead of this we will have to choose target platforms.

I hope that the next Google-Qualcomm-Samsung alternative goes into this direction, it is really likely that this joint of companies, will collaborate with Meta at least on some services, and that would be a nice start point to allow developers to develop multi-platform apps and services for more than one headset platform at the same time.

At the end it would be amazing and more elegant if it could work as we do with websites, having navigators as executors of our software more than constraints on our technology.

https://developers.googleblog.com/2019/11/open-sourcing-google-cardboard.html

https://arvr.google.com/cardboard/

https://www.apple.com/apple-vision-pro/

https://www.uploadvr.com/meta-asked-google-play-store-to-quest/

https://www.zdnet.com/article/samsung-google-and-qualcomm-announce-xr-partnership-ahead-of-apples-rumored-headset-debut/

https://www.zdnet.com/article/samsung-and-google-reboot-vr-headset-plans-to-challenge-vision-pro-now-targeting-end-of-2024-report/