Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Are you still using your Vision Pro?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 169 posts

Re: Ask HN: Are you still using your Vision Pro?

#61

Post by throwawaytissue »

georgespencer wrote: post #52
ramblerman wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

thanks for being honest, do you use apps for that, or just more immersive in such a big screen?

Neither a Vision Pro owner nor much of a hog cranker, so this comment may be something of a 'premature ejaculation', but I don't think there's any prospect of native applications designed to aid manipulating oneself to issue passing App Review.

I own a AVP, hog cranking is its killer use case. Porn on the AVP exists today whether Apple likes it or not.

Passing app review doesnt matter, there are a number of subscription websites (sexlikereal, wankz, czechvr etc) which offer UHD uncompressed 8K MP4 videos for download. It is entirely possible (and quite easy) to download these UHD videos to a Mac, mount the folder containing the goon material on the Mac as a drive on the Vision Pro (local network drive), and stream the video to the AVP using a 3rd party 3d video player; Moonplayer is the pick of the bunch at the moment.

I must say the experience is pretty damn good. I can see people getting addicted to it an unhealthy way. The sites mentioned above are only producing 8K at the moment, I think the AVP can handle more pixels, and there are new cameras coming on to the market (https://x.com/Blackmagic_News/status/1800273164867658228) which will really crank things up a notch.

There is a tremedous market oppurtunity available here, its niche at the moment, but once you experience good quality VR porn its hard to go back to the flat stuff.

I should probably get a GF.... sigh.

Re: Ask HN: Are you still using your Vision Pro?

#62

Post by Suppafly »

pram wrote: post #29

Yes, mostly for the Mac display. Also when crankin’ my hog (just being honest)

>Also when crankin’ my hog (just being honest)

Honestly that seems like the primary use case whenever the topic is mentioned. I'm sure there are cool innovative uses for them, but porn is always going to be at the forefront.

Re: Ask HN: Are you still using your Vision Pro?

#63

Post by eleveriven »

oidar wrote: post #23

No, I returned it. Kinda regretted it, so I picked up a Meta Quest 3 to scratch the VR itch. I use it for watching youtube while I do dishes and laundry. Sometimes I play golf for relaxation or beat saber. I really wish there was an easy way to put the older 3d blu-ray movies on the device to watch movies, because immersive movies are really the next level for entertainment.

Beat saber is my anti-depresant

Re: Ask HN: Are you still using your Vision Pro?

#64

Post by Suppafly »

JeremyHerrman wrote: post #21

Yes, still using it several times a week mostly for work via mac virtual display. If I need to work late at night, I find putting myself in a daylight immersive environment helps me stay awake and avoids high contrast difference between a laptop screen and a dark room.

>avoids high contrast difference between a laptop screen and a dark room.

So one of the big advantages is that it saves you from turning on the overhead light?

Re: Ask HN: Are you still using your Vision Pro?

#68

Post by Suppafly »

wvoch235 wrote: post #49

As an aside, and as someone who doesn't own a vision pro (non US pleb): While it is interesting to me if people find utility. I can't help but feel that the narrative on places outside of HN is a strong "no". But, that is to be expected, the form factor isn't convenient yet. When mobile phones weighed 2KG few people used them on a daily. When it's miniaturized into the form factor of glasses, we'll all be daily users…

A lot of the utility, even in this thread, seems to be solutions for problems that don't actually exist. I think it's cool technology, but nothing mentioned in this thread makes me want to get one.

Re: Ask HN: Are you still using your Vision Pro?

#69

Post by ssfrr »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #41
bitcurious wrote: post #35

Returned in within the first month. Couldn’t use it for work because of the shared Apple ID requirements. Hand tracking was too laggy for games. That left movies/tv as the only winning feature, and I prefer to watch socially. Was pretty bummed tbh, I thought it would be much cooler. Edit: there was something really cool actually, that I think doesn’t get talked about enough. Pooping on Yosemite. Peak futurism.

Hand tracking is limited to 30fps in VisionOS 1.0, but in 2.0 it runs at the same framerate as the display, so it should be vastly improved.

30fps is 33ms per frame. I'd expect that to be fine for most free-space gestures (for musical instruments you generally want Is the frame rate really the limiting factor here, or something algorithmic in the tracking (like smoothing out noise)?

Re: Ask HN: Are you still using your Vision Pro?

#70

Post by georgespencer »

gtvwill wrote: post #60
georgespencer wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you still using your Vision Pro? > [150 words about a totally different product and platform] Vision Pro isn't something I would use regularly, but you're bringing opinions about a 14" CRT monitor to a thread soliciting opinions on a specific 30" 1080P TV. I think we are beyond the stage where useful generalizations about "the state of AR/VR" can be drawn from exposure to a single device. The disparity in scree…

No it's not. When tossing up a vr purchase it's Vision pro, quest 3 or big screen beyond. Price points all vary but they are literally all the same shiz just served on a different shovel. Each have their pros, each have their cons (well the mvp has mostly cons being the worst of the 3 but hey its having a crack).

> they are literally all the same shiz

Oculus Quest 3 screens: LCD displays with a per-eye resolution of 2064×2208p (4.56 million pixels per eye)

Apple Vision Pro screens: micro-OLED displays with a per-eye resolution of 3,680x3,140 (11.5 million pixels per eye)

Disproof by counterexample. Perhaps you could refine your theory?

Post reply on HN