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

New report on Apple’s VR headset: 8K in each eye, potential $3k price tag

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 465 posts

Re: New report on Apple’s VR headset: 8K in each eye, potential $3k price tag

#121

Post by mpoteat »

colordrops wrote: post #117
dcre wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is not a fixed focal distance in VR. The screens are an inch in front of your eye, but the objects you look at can be (virtually) at any distance. It’s like normal vision. The question of the effect on vision of shining screens into your eyes for hours at a time still stands. Edit: whoops, guess I was wrong about that!

I don't believe this to be true - don't you need a light field for this to be possible? i.e. what magic leap was doing?

It is obviously saliently true just via direct experience. Your eyes focus at different distances when looking at 3d objects in VR. You can feel it!

I am not a physicist by any means, and I am not sure what a "light field" exactly is in terms of engineering, but as a everyday skeptic I am generally rather wary of anything Magic Leap puts out.

Re: New report on Apple’s VR headset: 8K in each eye, potential $3k price tag

#123

Post by maxerickson »

baybal2 wrote: post #76
hppb wrote: post #9

I could see this as a virtual office, as some of the comments speculate. If I had a set of AR glasses that projected what appeared to be an 8K monitor on top of my dining room table, and integrated with my MacBook Pro for input / output, and that had batteries to last a workday, I’d pay $2K/$3K. Even more if it worked well at brightness levels I’d have in my backyard. Never mind gaming, mobile high-quality virtual of…

Tame your expectations. I'm pretty sure Apple's gaslighting field has yet not found a way to bend laws of physics. Everybody wants a sleek, everyday wearable device, without usability corner cases, but such are physically impossible to make. Portability, visibility, usability. Choose one. First, power requirements demand either external power, or extreme power austerity cutting into display, and graphics. Recon Instr…

I get that it is believe it when you see it, but 16K over USB-C is supposed to happen.

Re: New report on Apple’s VR headset: 8K in each eye, potential $3k price tag

#124

Post by throwaway316943 »

jayd16 wrote: post #92
trixie_ wrote: post #28

Apple CPU/hardware + Apple display technology + Apple software would easily justify the 3k price. And people would pay it. Not just because it's Apple, but because Apple has the means to vertically integrate the entire tech stack into a high end product that far surpasses what their competitors are capable of. Google Android software and Qualcomm hardware have been trying for a decade and still can't match Apple. So…

Apple doesn't dominate games so its not so clear they would dominate VR. Apple will need to nail the killer app to jump start adoption and an app store. The majority of Apple's full stack integration stops right before the content.

If you ask me, video games aren’t the future of VR. They’re fun but the most memorable experiences are social. VR FaceTime + shared experiences and spaces will take the cake.

Re: New report on Apple’s VR headset: 8K in each eye, potential $3k price tag

#125

Post by 55555 »

ryanianian wrote: post #53
garaetjjte wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused by people saying that they would use VR for work. My head hurts after one or maybe two hours of using it, and if I would work whole day in it?... ugh.

The headaches are commonly a result of low resolution, low frame-rate, insufficient lighting, or bad hardware design (too tight or heavy or not adjustable for your head/face/glasses/etc). These are nontrivial problems to solve.

There's also the odd sensation you can get after extended VR use that your limbs arent really your limbs.

Re: New report on Apple’s VR headset: 8K in each eye, potential $3k price tag

#127

Post by riggsdk »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #83
6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To do AR, it'll need a camera. People hated google glass because of the camera.

AR doesn’t necessarily need a camera. Might be possible with IR structured light?

To augment something you need to have whatever is there to begin with - so they either need a camera or you need transparent screens. An IR structured light depth camera is still ... well ... a camera.

Re: New report on Apple’s VR headset: 8K in each eye, potential $3k price tag

#128

Post by mdgrech23 »

zepto wrote: post #95

Bear in mind that the iPad was rumored to cost >$1000 but then launched at $499. On the other hand it might sense to launch this as a pro-workstation for the usual kinds of task: architects, designers and engineers being able to visualize and interact with models directly in space. If they can make that affordable and usable for pro designers at every level, (which $3500 clearly would be), they will have a hit. A con…

A mobile device strikes me as different here - it's more consumer centric where VR right now at least is more hobbist/professional centric. I think they could away w/ the higher price.

I'll add when the iPhone came out it was way way more than it's competition. It was effectively the first $100/month w/ 2 year contract phone bill as compared to other devices where $35/month was common.

Re: New report on Apple’s VR headset: 8K in each eye, potential $3k price tag

#129

Post by lukeschlather »

babyshake wrote: post #39
hppb wrote: post #9

I could see this as a virtual office, as some of the comments speculate. If I had a set of AR glasses that projected what appeared to be an 8K monitor on top of my dining room table, and integrated with my MacBook Pro for input / output, and that had batteries to last a workday, I’d pay $2K/$3K. Even more if it worked well at brightness levels I’d have in my backyard. Never mind gaming, mobile high-quality virtual of…

I'm wondering why Apple doesn't create a device that is much cheaper, has no augmented reality, and is just for consuming TV/movies with A/V quality matching that of the best cinemas. Pay off the device with a monthly subscription that includes Apple TV+. Something like $600-700 would get a lot of people interested.

The cheaper devices already exist. An Oculus Quest is basically that. However I don't think the refresh rate or image quality is really up to scratch.

And if this were just a question of image quality, I wouldn't make a big deal about it, but poor image quality means something resembling motion sickness will set in pretty quickly, even if you're just watching a video.

One time I tried to do some yoga while watching TV with an Oculus Go and I stopped immediately, huge mistake, never trying that again. But based on my knowledge of the tech it seems possible that such a thing might be possible at a $3000 price point.

If the external cameras are low enough latency that I could basically have a TV floating at the perfect viewing distance while walking around and doing chores or exercising I would buy one in a heartbeat. Though I'm not sure that's even possible or if that's just guaranteed motion sickness. I would say if it's possible, it's definitely not going to be possible for under $2000, at least not for 3-5 years.

Re: New report on Apple’s VR headset: 8K in each eye, potential $3k price tag

#130

Post by repsilat »

bigiain wrote: post #113
davrosthedalek wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

7680x4320x2pixels x2 bytes/pixel ~ 127 MBytes/frame.

Ahhh, right. I'd misinterpreted that "16 bit colour" as wanting 16 bits per colour 6 byte pixels, not 2 byte pixels.

I read it the same way. I guess the phrasing ("I would be willing") should have made it clear, but it's an understandable misunderstanding: it's used both ways:

https://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/16-bit/

https://www.computerhope.com/issues/ch001557.htm

Post reply on HN