The global smart ring market is expected to grow from USD$314.52 billion (£246.3 billion) in 2023 to USD$2,570.30 billion (£2,012 billion) by 2030. So it is no surprise that Apple is now rumoured to be applying for its smart ring patents and is expected to have the product ready in time to compete with Samsung’s release.

But it might be surprising to learn that neither Samsung nor Apple are pioneers in this new wearable technology. Oura was launched in 2015 with a Kickstarter campaign for the first-generation ring.

Now on its third generation, with the fourth one expected in 2024, this smart ring can measure respiratory rate, heart rate, health rate variability (HRV), blood oxygen levels, and body temperature. The ring also has an accelerator that logs the user’s activity and movement. However, the main question is: is wearable technology worth it?

What is wearable technology?

Wearable devices come in many shapes and sizes, including smartwatches and sports watches, fitness trackers, head-mounted displays, smart jewellery, smart clothing, and even implantable devices.

Technological advances have enabled manufacturers to access low-cost, low-power sensor technology and develop this variety of devices. At a minimum, wearable devices are equipped with sensors, software and connecting technology.

The sensors gather information from the person wearing the device, and the software gathers the data and sends it to a device with processing capacity via a wireless connection. The ecosystem on which wearable technology works is known as the Internet of Things (IoT). It is the same principle as smart technology used at home, on devices such as thermostats that can be operated from a mobile device outside the home, or smart speakers, but applied at a personal level. It is important to note that mobile devices do not process the data; it is usually sent to “the cloud” for processing, and the mobile device displays the data to the user.

What makes an IoT solution even more attractive is the interpretation of the data gathered by the sensors. For example, the Oura Ring and the Oura Membership allow users to monitor their sleep, manage stress and predict when they might get sick by monitoring body temperature and heart rate. This is all possible due to analysis of the data collected by the ring.

With advances in artificial intelligence (AI), it is expected that in 2024, there will be a boost in health tracking.

Benefits and drawbacks

Smart rings come with sensors similar to those of a smartwatch. However, because of their proximity to large blood vessels in the fingers, smart rings can provide more accurate readings than smartwatches, because they can use the capillaries (small blood vessels) in your finger to get their readings. Another advantage of smart rings is that they have a longer battery life than smartwatches. However, smart rings are unlikely to come with GPS or a screen.

In terms of price, the cheapest version of the Oura ring starts at £299 and users must pay a membership fee of £5.99 per month, with the first month free. This is required to get all the benefits of data analysis. However, the ring will still work with the Oura mobile app. The most affordable version of the AppleWatch, the SE version, starts at £219, while the Samsung Galaxy Watch6 Bluetooth starts at £239.

Smart rings can’t and won’t be able to replicate the functionality offered by a smartwatch. However, they represent an attractive choice for users interested in health tracking, who also want a simple device with minimalistic features. Bryan Ma, the Vice President of devices research at International Data Corporation, has said: “The idea behind such rings is not so much about being cheaper than smartwatches, but instead being a much smaller and discrete device for use in cases like sleep tracking.”

The future of wearable technology?

Wearable technology will continue evolving, with a strong focus on health monitoring. For example, Microsoft has been exploring smart tattoos as the next generation of wearable tech since 2016. However, due to the labour-intensive fabrication technique for gold leaf, which is used in the tattoos, researchers are now focusing on more robust, advanced, and inexpensive materials.

Researchers at the University of Washington have also developed the thermal earring. This was able to measure the user’s earlobe temperature but shows promise for other areas of monitoring, including for eating and exercise. Although not commercially available, this device demonstrates how engineers are developing new ideas for wearable devices.

Under Armour already sells running shoes embedded with Bluetooth and sensors that track run statistics such as distance and pace. The shoes also measure running from metrics such as cadence (steps per minute), ground contact time, foot strike angle and stride length.

The app provides real-time audio coaching, but only focuses on cadence. In future, we can expect to see advances in smart contact lenses, smart nails, smart buttons, and many more.

Is wearable technology worth it?

The expected increase in the market size of this technology shows users’ interest in monitoring their health and improving their lifestyle. Developments in the Internet of Things, in general, have improved our way of life and supported our well-being.

Connected devices collect, track, and store user data, which is the primary purpose of the technology. What users need to know is that many wearable devices share data with third-party apps and services, and it is often unclear how this data is being used. The data can be sold to other companies or utilised for different purposes without the user’s knowledge or consent. Moreover, wearable devices can be hacked.

Read More: Apple’s MacBook Air gets a stealthy M3 processor upgrade

With this in mind, and as we have done with all new technology, users must consider the advantages of wearable technology and determine if the risks are worth taking. If security and data privacy are a concern, users are encouraged to follow all security recommendations provided by experts and manufacturers to protect their devices and research more on how their data is used and shared.

• Erika Sanchez-Velazquez is a Deputy Head of School, Computing and Information Science, Anglia Ruskin University
• This article first appeared in The Conversation

Oppo is obviously hoping that its new smartwatch will fill at least a few gaps in the market, having taken a few pages from Samsung’s book and partnering up with Google to include Wear OS on the device. Since Wear OS combines Samsung, Fitbit, and Google’s software, we suspect the experience will be good. It forms part of a “hybrid interface” (whatever that means) that we suspect is a little proprietary Oppo software tucked in there. Maybe it runs the Power Saver Mode?

Watch X for more info

The Watch X follows classic smartwatch design lines, offering users a 1.43in AMOLED sapphire crystal display layered over a Snapdragon W5 Gen 1 processor and a 500mAh battery. This is encased in a stainless steel body that conforms to the MIL-STD-810H US military specification. That means an IP68 rating down to five atmospheres is a given, so you should have difficulty killing it.

This is great because Oppo is touting advanced GPS support and extended fitness tracking features, a component of the Wear OS 4 operating system. Activity recognition, advanced running features (ground contact time analysis among other metrics), and even an in-house developed badminton mode (sure, why not?) make the Watch X a sporting powerhouse.

Other tracking features are also included. A full suite of sleep tracking, including breathing rate and blood oxygen levels, with Android Health Connect support, stress, and heart rate variability tracking, are included. Add to this the raft of Google apps on-wrist, like Maps, Wallet, Assistant, and Google Play (yup, you can download apps directly from the watch) and you’re looking at an advanced contender for your coveted arm space. We might be slightly less upset about Fitbit’s departure after hearing about the Watch X.

If you want to put a shiny new Watch X smartwatch on your wrist, you’ll find them at retail in South Africa as of 1 March. Expect to pay R6,000 for the device, free and clear, though we reckon the various mobile operators have a monthly installment option for you to explore too.

This makes a sort of sense. Since LG left the smartphone game, it’s continued to churn out components that would also suit virtual reality tech. But that doesn’t quite fit the stated aim of the partnership, which is to “…combine the strengths of both companies across products, content, services and platforms to drive innovation in customer experiences within the burgeoning virtual space.”

A new Meta

It doesn’t sound like Mark Zuckerberg, LG CEO William Cho, and LG Home Entertainment president Park Hyoung-sei (pictured above) got together merely to talk about how many OLED screens Meta can buy from the South Korean company’s factories. A possible new extended reality ecosystem is hinted at in LG’s announcement, possibly involving the company’s televisions.

This would include artificial intelligence (AI) built into LG devices based on Meta’s large language model LLaMA (hey, the company has to use it for something). This should result in “…significant synergies in next-gen XR device development”, which sounds to us like an LG-made entertainment device (a headset) that incorporates both LG’s software ecosystem and Meta’s AI and VR tech to compete with the Apple Vision Pro. At a significantly more affordable price point, hopefully.

Of course, that’s not official. The partnership announcement is thin on specifics, leaving us to read between the lines. It would be awfully surprising if we were far from the mark, however. LG, before leaving the smartphone space, was in a very experimental frame of mind and an all-new XR gadget would probably appeal to the company internally. And Zuckerberg is always keen to put his company’s data-suction skills to work in any hardware that’ll have it. We’ll keep our ears open about any more concrete developments in this space.

Well, reporting back… more. The Meta Quest and its successors have always shared some information with Meta but it has been confined to info required to keep your virtual reality hardware ticking over correctly. That’ll ramp up shortly to include “anonymized data” about how you (and everyone else) use the company’s VR hardware.

The new Meta

The data up for collection, according to various privacy policies, includes audio and other voice-related data, hand and tracking data, and health information like calories burned and other movement info. Some details on your surroundings, captured by the headset’s external cameras, will be uploaded to Meta’s servers. Finally, the virtual events you attend and any voice interactions you might have with the Quest and its companions will also be collected.

Don’t expect that your data will be turned to any especially nefarious purposes, unless ‘capitalism’ is high on your list of hatred. It’ll instead “improve the hardware and software that powers your experiences with Meta VR Products.” We suspect some of it will find its way into advertisers’ hands so those faceless corporate entities can better target you with prescient advertising. Meta’s being silent about anything along those lines as usual.

If we were being super paranoid, using a virtual reality headset (or anything with a camera) in a home would be a neat way of figuring out what brands are already present there. Advertisers would probably be very interested in that data. Whether it’s legal for them to find that data out is another question.

“The Lily series is known for its petite and elegant design elements, and we’re pleased to introduce even more health and connected features to this fashionable lineup. Not only is Lily 2 stylish enough for anything from a day at work to a night out, but it can keep you connected and track your wellbeing with popular features designed for any lifestyle,” says Susan Lyman, Garmin Vice President of Global Consumer Marketing.

Small, stylish design

Blending a classic look with modern technology, the Lily 2 series features a metal watch case and unique patterned lenses that, with a quick tap or turn of the wrist, reveal a bright touchscreen display. It also features beautiful colourways – like Cream Gold and Coconut or Dark Bronze and Mulberry – plus Italian leather, nylon or silicone bands that can easily be swapped out to complement any look. Customers can even design their own Lily 2 by mixing bands and bezels with Your Watch, Your Way on garmin.com.

Reasons to love the Lily 2 series

• Body Battery energy monitoring: Monitor energy levels throughout the day to help find the
  best times for activity and rest.
• Sleep score: Receive a score for last night’s sleep quality, plus insights on how to do better. Also keep track of different sleep stages, heart rate, stress, Pulse Ox and respiration.
• Fitness tracking: Keep track of steps, calories burned, intensity minutes and more.
• Sports apps: Switch up a workout with built-in sports apps for cardio, yoga, strength training and more. And use the new dance fitness activity to track various dance styles, including Zumba, Afrobeat, Bollywood, EDM and hip-hop.
• Connected GPS: When walking, biking or running outdoors, connect to a compatible
  smartphone’s GPS to get accurate activity tracking stats.
• Move alert suggestions: Receive reminders to move after being sedentary for a while and get a variety of suggested movements to try, like neck rolls, side bends, squats and more with options for seated motions.
• Garmin Pay contactless payments: Breeze through select checkout lines and transit systems
  through participating providers (available only on Lily 2 Classic smartwatches).

Health essentials

Designed for any lifestyle, the Lily 2 series is ready to keep up with essential health and fitness stats. Day and night, keep track of heart rate, respiration, Pulse Ox and stress. Upon waking up, the morning report provides users with an overview of their sleep, daily calendar, weather and more. In times of stress, the meditation activity guides users through meditation practices, while the breathwork activity provides different breathing techniques to follow right from the watch. Lily 2 also includes women’s health tracking features, letting users track their menstrual cycle and pregnancy while also getting exercise and nutrition education.

Stay connected

For life on the go, the Lily 2 series is compatible with Apple or Android smartphones so users can receive emails, text messages and alerts right on their watch. Safety and tracking features can help provide peace of mind; for example, when Lily 2 is paired to the Garmin Connect smartphone app, a message with the user’s name and location (if available) can be sent to pre-selected emergency contacts if an incident is detected. When paired with the Garmin Connect app, users can also see their health and fitness data, connect with friends and participate in challenges—all for free.

Available now, Lily 2 has a suggested retail price of R6,199, while Lily 2 Classic starts at R6,599.

Thus far, Apple’s been awfully quiet regarding the Vision Pro’s international ambitions and the sort of price it’ll fetch when it does eventually turn up elsewhere. Africantechno has taken matters into its own hands, with plans to bring the Vision Pro to South Africa through two resellers; 180by2 and droneworld.co.za. For a monumental fee, we might add. Hey, first dibs don’t come cheap.

We’re going Pro

Look, we’re not here to debate whether Apple’s highly anticipated first step into the world of augmented reality, sorry, “spatial computing”, is worth the many, many zeroes being fixed onto the price. It certainly doesn’t seem worthy of the base $3,500 pricetag, judging by the reviews coming out of the West’s end, but that isn’t stopping us, or South Africa’s, uh, richer folk, from wanting a go.

After all, you’re paying for Apple’s ridiculous decision to slather its AR headset in glass and aluminium. That, and the external, outward-facing micro-OLED displays (yes, we said outward-facing), M2 and R1 chipsets, million-or-so sensors and two internal micro-OLED displays capable of showing off 23 million pixels. We reckon it’s those doing all the heavy lifting when it comes to pricing.

Read More: Apple’s new Vision Pro mixed-reality headset could bring the metaverse back to life

Apple’s got three models on offer — 256GB, 512GB and 1TB — and a whole bunch of accessories that’ll help the headset feel more ‘you’. They’ll cost a fair whack, mind you. Don’t pretend we didn’t warn you.

If all you’re after is the basic Vision Pro kit, with a 256GB headset inside and a couple of accessories, you’ll be paying R94,000 for the privilege from droneworld.co.za. The listing is already live, and it promises free shipping nationwide and a seven-day lead time. You’ll be getting hold of a cover (to protect those external OLEDs), a Dual Loop Band, one external battery, a polishing cloth, 1 x 30W USB‑C Power Adapter and 1 x USB‑C Charge Cable (1.5m) to boot.

More to love

At the time of writing, droneworld.co.za doesn’t yet have the 512GB and 1TB models listed, nor any of the accessories available as standalone items. Cast your gaze towards 180by2.co.za and it’s a different story. Sort of.

180by2.co.za’s website is currently only touting the most expensive of the lot, the Vision Pro 1TB, with an asking price of R130,000. It’ll come with all of the same accessories as the R94,000 model up there, with the extra cheddar going toward the extra storage. It’s only available via pre-order for now, with plans to launch officially in April.

Before that happens, it’ll load up the 256- and 512GB models, going for R110,000 and R120,000 respectively. It’s already got a slew of Vision Pro accessories live on the site, like the controversial $200 Vision Pro Travel Case or Zeiss Optical Inserts. These will only launch alongside the headsets in April, with a R0.50 deposit needed to place an order before then.

Here’s a full list of Apple Vision Pro and accessories and their prices from 180by2:

• AVP 1TB – R130,000
• AVP 512GB – R120,000
• AVP 256Gb – R110,000
• Travel Case – R5,100
• Zeiss Optical Inserts – R2,700
• Light Seal – R5,100
• Light Seal Cushion – R900
• Battery Holder – R1,500
• Solo Knit Band – R3,000
• Dual Loop Band – R3,000
• Apple 240W USB-C Charge Cable (2m) – R880
• Apple 30W USB-C Power Adapter – R1,180

It’s worth noting that these prices are all subject to change.

The company will, according to GoPro’s Christopher Clark, be launching a “tech-enable[d]” helmet as soon as 2025. It won’t stop there, either. It intends to give other companies similar technological skills when the time is right.

GoPro showing Forcite

The action cam company is in the middle of acquiring Forcite, an Australian motorcycle helmet company. The trick here, obviously, is that Forcite’s helmets are smarter than the average brain bucket. It’s this tech that GoPro is after and it’s easy to see why. Advanced lightweight materials and an improved design for safety are just the start. The MK1S helmet comes standard with Harmon Kardon speakers, a visor-based heads-up display, integrated cameras for recording rides, and externally mounted physical controls designed to be used with gloves on.

It’s this sort of tech that GoPro CEO Nicholas Woodman is talking about when he said that the company intends “…work towards enhancing the performance and safety of various types of helmets, starting with motorcycle helmets.” The work on the latter is already done, though we’d expect to see GoPro’s camera tech making an appearance in the hardware. Likely, other helmets — for cycling, skateboarding, or any other sport that involves possibly landing on your head — will be issued forth from the company sometime after 2025.

Skatrix is also being made by developer Reality Crisis and will launch on Android and iOS devices. If that was all it wouldn’t be such a massive deal but the game is also headed to “supported mixed reality and spatial computing headsets”. That means the Apple Vision Pro, among other headsets, will have access to the extreme sports title.

Rodney Mullen’s latest trick

If you don’t know who Mullen is, we’ll explain it in terms that’ll probably make the most sense. He’s to flatland (or street) skating what Tony Hawk is to the vert ramp. Mullen has starred in various Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater titles over the years but this’ll be the first time he’s got headline billing.

Actual gameplay is slim but there’s some of it out and about. It looks to be an interesting take on classic skating titles, with the added tweak that players can skate anywhere. A bookshelf, a sink, your desk at work, and even an actual skatepark are fair game. It’ll include the sort of geolocation features that drive most of Niantic’s experiences, so if you build a skatepark in a remote location, other folks may be able to tear up your lines in a bid for the best score.

The game will map existing (and virtual) terrain, allowing your chosen skater to spine into your bathtub before grinding the handrails and, depending on how small you’ve rendered your character, possibly attempting a grind around the plug-hole. It’s not quite as bonkers as attempting to skateboard with a Vision Pro on your head but that’s hardly the dumbest thing we’ve seen happen with Apple’s new tech this week.

Rodney Mullen’s Skatrix is due for launch later this year. We’ll be checking it out, both as a mobile-only title and as an AR headset experience.

This digitization of physical activity is unfolding against the backdrop of a global proliferation of self-quantification tools used to measure productivity at work, track calorie intake, blood sugar levels and weight, monitor sleep regulation and more.

The market for these tools in sports activities, alone, is both lucrative and competitive. As Finnish researchers Pekka Mertala and Lauri Palsa report, the digital sports technology business is estimated to be worth $12 billion a year, with more than 10,000 portable digital devices for running, alone. Some 90 per cent of amateur runners now use a smartwatch or mobile application.

Tracking your body with numbers is associated with a series of promises to become more active, happy and healthy, and with the concept of empowerment. Because of its objectivity and transparency (compared with the approximate nature of bodily sensations), this knowledge is considered to be the foundation of a personal self-optimization project.

These embedded devices are also used for motivational support, to encourage regularity and assiduity and to put an end to lifestyle habits that are deemed unhealthy. Becoming part of a community of exercisers can also increase motivation by interweaving systems of mutual encouragement and competition.

Yet we are currently seeing a slowdown in this market linked to a massive phenomenon of either discontinuing the use of digital devices or, at the very least, using them for short periods.

The discontinuation of connected devices

First of all, we should recall that the adoption of connected devices for sports is not evenly distributed across the population. It is over-represented among men who are urban, highly educated, socially advantaged and physically active. In addition, the 30-39 age group is the most equipped with smart bracelets and smartwatches.

While certain population groups have less access to these embedded technologies, others who have acquired them will stop using them, usually after a limited period of use. The mechanisms that lead to this are extremely varied, and include logistical overload, the time-consuming dimension of transferring and interpreting data, a lack of accuracy and reliability in data collection, and difficulty in interpreting and using data, among others.

We believe that the rejection of these devices may be the result of a deterioration in the quality of the experience of a sport when using them. For some participants, putting numbers on an activity actually leads them to experience it more as forced labour than as free, self-determined leisure.

Intrinsic motivation (the pleasure of running for its own sake) then tends to be supplanted by extrinsic motivation (rewards, comparisons, mutual monitoring). The context of a constant call to excel can lead to an anticipated fear of failure, as well as a feeling of shame and guilt in the event of underperformance. Cognitive overload and distracted attention can also lead to a disconnect from the here-and-now of one’s activity and the bodily sensations related to it.

Looking at it differently, the withdrawal of the smartwatch could be an act of resistance with strong political, philosophical or even spiritual significance. This may be a desire to break away from what is perceived as a generalized surveillance system, to emancipate oneself from the pressure of sports social networks, to reject a materialistic race to over equip or even to put the emphasis back on bodily sensations in sports training.

The attitude of rejection can be linked to the emergence of minimalist values such as sobriety, voluntary simplicity and frugality. It’s a question of rediscovering a form of lost freedom, of lightness, or even of resonance.

The adherence to quantification tools

Not all amateur runners who have started using a digital self-quantification tool have stopped using it. While dropping the tools is a significant and explainable phenomenon, the reasons for sticking to them must also be considered. What are the conditions that enable amateur runners to continue practising and quantifying their performance numerically while deriving pleasure and well-being from the activity?

We showed that the amateur runners who persevered in using digital tools were the ones who had developed a high level of expertise in self-quantification. More specifically, they managed to cobble together and incorporate a series of tactics, or even “everyday tricks,” to use Michel de Certeau’s expression, which enabled them to interact with their digital device without altering the quality of their sporting experience.

A first approach in this is to differentiate and alternate the uses of the smartwatch over time. To begin with, they modulate the intensity and types of usage of the tool to adapt to changing life conditions (for example, by suspending the goal to exceed performance levels during a year when family life is demanding). They also learn to let go of certain areas of quantification (sleep, for example) in order to focus their efforts exclusively on running.

When it comes to the training cycle, these runners differentiate their modes of interaction with the tool (frequency of consulting the tool, nature of the data collected) according to the type of training session they are engaged in. For example, they reserve intensive use of the smartwatch for interval training sessions but only consult it occasionally during recovery runs, marathon pace workouts or technical sessions. Finally, during a given running session, the runners target certain key moments when they consult their watch. Others never look at the watch during their run but only afterwards, or the other way around.

A second tactic consists of agreeing to adjust, revise or even abandon goals along the way, depending on a runner’s perceived state of fitness and/or environmental conditions. This flexibility reflects the development of a relationship of self-care and benevolence towards oneself.

Finally, a third everyday tactic leads amateur runners to take systematic care to put into context what they consider to be counter-performances. Far from considering the figures only in their raw form, they use them to understand the mechanisms underlying the process of producing counter-performance (bad night, professional stress, etc.).

The nature of the attachment to the device

We wanted to gain a better understanding of the connection runners formed with their digital tracking device. To do this, we asked them to take it off for a single running session, while describing in real time, using a Dictaphone, how they felt. This change, which was out of the ordinary for most of them, turned out to be particularly destabilizing and revealed how deeply incorporated their use of, and attachment to the tool was.

All the subjects we studied initially admitted to being very apprehensive about the idea of running without their watch. They tried to deal with it in different ways: by postponing the outing; by running on a course that they had just completed with the watch, so as to use numerical reference points; by using the Dictaphone to estimate the duration and pace of the run; and, finally, by hiding a watch in a backpack to be able to record the amount of running they had done.

Read More: Citizen, NASA ,and IBM have created an AI-driven smartwatch that measures alertness

Most of the participants then felt a motivational void caused by the absence of the watch, which, when worn, functioned as an incentive to perform and a way to challenge themselves. They felt that the session without the watch was longer, harder, more painful and even pointless: why push yourself if you don’t know the exact result and it’s neither recorded nor stored?

The runners also noted that the simple fact of wearing the watch prompted them to over-focus attention on numbers to the detriment of their running technique, the external environment or their bodily sensations.

The absence of the watch was also seen by some as physically destabilizing. Deprived of their tool, the runners felt naked, unbalanced and asymmetrical and more often than not, they were unable to inhibit the reflex gesture of consulting it – proof that the object and movement associated with using it had been assimilated into the runner’s bodily habits. Lastly, some of them found it extremely difficult to regulate their running and reliably estimate common variables such as length, distance, speed and heart rate.

Ultimately, there’s nothing spontaneous, magical or automatic about interacting with your quantification device in a functional way. It has to be learned and built patiently. Physical and sports education in schools must adopt a training role in this field, as digitalization is becoming unavoidable in the world of sports.

• Matthieu Quidu is a Lecturer in sociology of sport, Claude Bernard Lyon 1 University
• Brice Favier-Ambrosini is a Professor, Educational sciences, University of Quebec at Chicoutimi (UQAC)
• This article first appeared in The Conversation

Critics have doubted the appeal of the face-worn computer, which “seamlessly blends digital content with the physical world”, but Apple has pre-sold as many as 180,000 of the US$3,500 gizmos.

What does Apple think people will do with these pricey peripherals? While uses will evolve, Apple is focusing attention on watching TV and movies, editing and reliving “memories”, and – perhaps most importantly for the product’s success – having its customers not look like total weirdos.

Apple hopes the new device will redefine personal computing, like the iPhone did 16 years ago, and Macintosh did 40 years ago. But if it succeeds, it will also redefine concerns about privacy, as it captures enormous amounts of data about users and their environments, creating an unprecedented kind of “biospatial surveillance”.

Spatial computing

Apple is careful about its brand and how it packages and describes its products. In an extensive set of rules for developers, the company insists the new headset is not to be referred to as a “headset”. What’s more, the Apple Vision Pro does not do “augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), extended reality (XR), or mixed reality (MR)” – it is a gateway to “spatial computing”.

Spatial computing, as sketched out in the 2003 PhD thesis of US software engineer Simon Greenwold, is: “human interaction with a machine in which the machine retains and manipulates referents to real objects and spaces”. In other words, the computer can interact with things in the user’s physical surroundings in real time to provide new types of experiences.

The Vision Pro has big shoes to fill for new user experiences. The iPhone’s initial “killer apps” were clear: the internet in your pocket (including portable access to Google Maps), all your music on a touch screen, and “visual voicemail”.

Sixteen years later, all three of these seem unremarkable. Apple has sold billions of iPhones, and some 80% of humans now use a smartphone. Their success has all but killed off earlier tools like paper maps and music CDs (and the ubiquity of text, image and video messaging has largely done away with voicemail itself).

Killer apps

We don’t yet know what the killer apps of spatial computing might be – if any – but here is where Apple is pointing our attention.

The first is entertainment: the Vision Pro promises “the ultimate personal theatre”.

The second is an attempt to solve the social problem of walking around with a weird headset covering half your face. An external screen on the goggles shows a constantly updated representation of your eyes to offer important social cues about your gaze to those around you. Admittedly, this looks weird. But Apple hopes it is less weird and more useful than trying to interact with humans wearing blank aluminium ski goggles.

The third is the ability to capture and and relive “memories”: recording and playback of 3D visual and audio from real events. Reviewers have found it striking:

this was stuff from my own life, my own memories. I was playing back experiences I had already lived.

Apple has patented tools to select, store, and annotate digital “memories”. These memories are files, and potentially products, to be shared in “spatial videos” recorded on the latest iPhones.

Biospatial surveillance

There is already a large infrastructure devoted to helping tech companies track our behaviour in order to sell us things. Recent research found Facebook, for example, receives data from an average of around 2,300 companies on each individual user.

Read More: Apple’s R65,000 Vision Pro makes its grand entrance on 2 February

Spatial computing offers a step change to this tracking. In order to function, spatial computing records and uses vast amounts of intimate data about our bodies and surroundings.

One study on headset design noted no fewer than 64 different streams of biometric and physiological data, from eye tracking and pupil response to subtle changes in the body’s electromagnetic field.

Your face tomorrow

This is not “consumer” data like the brand of toothpaste you buy. It is more akin to medical data.

For instance, analysing a person’s unconscious movements can reveal their emotional state or even predict neurodegenerative disease. This is called “biometrically inferred data” as users are unaware their bodies are giving it up.

Apple suggests it won’t share this type of data with anyone, and Apple has proven better than most companies on privacy. But biospatial surveillance puts more of ourselves in use for spatial computing, in ways that are expanding.

It starts simply enough in the pre-order process, where you need to scan your facial features with your iPhone (to ensure a snug fit). But that’s not the end of it.

Apple’s patent about memories is also about how to “guide and direct a user with attention, memory, and cognition” through feedback loops that monitor “facial recognition, eye tracking, user mood detection, user emotion detection, voice detection, etc. [from a] bio-sensor for tracking biometric characteristics, such as health and activity metrics […] and other health-related information”.

Social questions

Biospatial surveillance is also the key to Apple’s attempt to solve the social problems created by wearing a headset in public. The external screen showing a simulated approximation of the user’s gaze relies on constant measurement of the user’s expression and eye movement with multiple sensors.

Your face is constantly mapped so others can see it – or rather see Apple’s vision of it. Likewise, as passersby come into range of the Apple Vision Pro’s sensors, Apple’s vision of them is automagically rendered into your experience, whether they like it or not.

Apple’s new vision of us – and those that surround us – shows how the requirements and benefits of spatial computing will pose new privacy concerns and social questions. The extensive biospatial surveillance that captures intimate biometric and environmental data redefines what personal data and social interactions are possible for exploitation.

• Luke Heemsbergen is a Senior Lecturer, Digital, Political, Media, Deakin University
• This article first appeared in The Conversation