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

The saga of Apple’s troubled mixed reality headset

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 201 posts

Re: The saga of Apple’s troubled mixed reality headset

#171

Post by Auracle »

ceeplusplus wrote: post #93
bnolsen wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Oculus quest 2 definitely has fit that bill. It has game console level sales. How truly useful and confirtable it is may be questionable, but it certainly supports a market.

But not game console level software sales. Xbox has 1) recurring revenue from online subscriptions 2) recurring GamePass revenue 3) a huge library of games and gamers who tend to buy many games often. Average software spend for Quest 2 is estimated at $125/user [1], which is a mere 2 games without DLC on Xbox. By contrast I'd be willing to bet software revenue/user for Xbox is well in the hundreds. [1] https://arinsi…

Quest games are also fairly cheap compared to console games as a whole, so they might be somewhat equivalent in overall software purchased. Also, a lot of people are still hopping on the Quest/VR train so I would expect that number to go up.

Re: The saga of Apple’s troubled mixed reality headset

#172

Post by perryizgr8 »

jayd16 wrote: post #144
treesknees wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One solution to this for AR is using "fog computing", where your AR device may offload its computation to a node on the local network that's more powerful but also not as far away (in terms of latency) as a cloud server. Perhaps with the continued adoption of UWB 5G, those AR basestations could exist at cell towers or in local establishments - think about a clothing store running fog nodes to allow AR users to visual…

Streaming 4k video per eye per user? Can I get that kind of bandwidth for general wifi, please?

This kind of throughput is quite achievable if you get a high quality 6E router. Of course you need compatible client devices too, which is a bit of a challenge right now.

Re: The saga of Apple’s troubled mixed reality headset

#173

Post by perryizgr8 »

dontbenebby wrote: post #24

I had a low tech cyberpunk rig set up (Sony noise cancelling headphones + 4K screen on a laptop rather than an expensive, large tv and fancy speakers) I am not sold at all on "VR". It's one of those things, like "Firefox OS", that drained Mozilla's coffers when they should have focused on designing their own Android build the way we went from Knoppix[1] to Kali[2] in a very short time. (I wish I could have stayed, bu…

> drained Mozilla's coffers

It will take a loooong time to drain Apple's money vault, though. They can keep spending stupid money on bullshit projects for years before anyone even notices.

Re: The saga of Apple’s troubled mixed reality headset

#175

Post by angry_octet »

zmmmmm wrote: post #161

> an outward-facing screen on the front of the headset that showed images of the wearer's facial expressions and eyes to people around them Quite a juicy tidbit, this is not something I had even contemplated as a possibility. I struggle to imagine how this will work without looking bizarre. And the effect on battery life of doubling the screens would have to be significant.

If it was a full mask like that clunky iRobot film it would be interesting, but I can't see it working for a half mask with just eye displays. Eye tracking is notoriously hard to de-glitch but they could be using some fancy ML to make it better.

Re: The saga of Apple’s troubled mixed reality headset

#176

Post by redisman »

Geee wrote: post #30

Productivity is correlated with display size, and VR should be the next step in productivity, because it allows your whole space to become a display and an interface. When paired with powerful hardware and innovative software it should be the next step in computing. Therefore, VR should be a replacement for large displays in productive work, not a device that everyone is wearing outside or casually watching videos wi…

I had a Quest 2 and honestly thought it was at it best when I was lying down and watching videos in bed on a huge screen. All the other use cases I just didn’t have a good space for

Re: The saga of Apple’s troubled mixed reality headset

#177

Post by etempleton »

I wonder what this could be that Apple feels it is close to consumer ready. Apple targets the premium mass market. They do not release products that sell a few million; they release products that sell 10 million or more a year. Anything less is a failure.

So either Apple has figured out something really compelling in AR/VR that everyone--not just gamers and nerds--will want, or they are reaching.

Re: The saga of Apple’s troubled mixed reality headset

#178

Post by redisman »

null_shift wrote: post #91
qgin wrote: post #77

Have to say I agree with Jony Ive on all of these points. The idea of an AR wearable that is tethered to a fixed base station is so very lame. Why even bother with AR when you can only augment the reality that is in your office or bedroom? Also the eye-view outer display is essential for situations where one person is using the goggles but others aren’t. How unsettling would it be for someone to look at you, be able…

The fixed base station is a fundamentally different tradeoff for AR vs VR. Base station for AR would be detrimental, as you inherently want to explore and interact with the world around you. For most VR use cases that is not the case, and I can see the argument for the benefits of a base station (higher performance) outweighing the costs (limited movement).

Quest 2 is already a stand alone device so the base station requirement has already partially gone away

Re: The saga of Apple’s troubled mixed reality headset

#179

Post by redisman »

ttul wrote: post #90
qgin wrote: post #77

Have to say I agree with Jony Ive on all of these points. The idea of an AR wearable that is tethered to a fixed base station is so very lame. Why even bother with AR when you can only augment the reality that is in your office or bedroom? Also the eye-view outer display is essential for situations where one person is using the goggles but others aren’t. How unsettling would it be for someone to look at you, be able…

I believe it’s most likely that Apple will be releasing an untethered device. It would not be Apple if you needed a wire and a separate box. A 4K display per eye, a powerful and efficient SoC on the latest node, and some really fine industrial design will surely be within Apple’s reach. Everyone will have to build apps for this thing. If it’s real, it will be every bit as successful as iPhone.

Maybe it’ll tether to the iPhone. It already has all that and just needs a display

Re: The saga of Apple’s troubled mixed reality headset

#180

Post by redisman »

zmmmmm wrote: post #155
puranjay wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VR seems to have an insurmountable motion sickness problem. I tried the Quest with a dozen friends and half of them felt sick enough within minutes to never try it again.

I'm a bit sceptical of this comment. I've probably shown mine to ~30 people and not a single one had motion sickness with any of the "safe" experiences, assuming the device is adjusted properly (IPD). If you stick them on a roller-coaster or a super laggy app as their first experience then yeah that's going to be a problem. But for safe experiences - I think there is a percentage of people who experience disorientati…

I got nauseous after a few hours of Half Life Alyx. Until then my test was going smoothly. I would imagine most games where you can move freely would be fairly bad for me. I even took a Dramamine to try to play some more which worked but wasn’t something I’d want to do often
Post reply on HN