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

Apple’s new headset meets reality

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 527 posts

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#311

Post by ketzo »

jdprgm wrote: post #287
SirLJ wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about watching with friend and family? I would hate to watch a tv show with my wife and both have face masks on…. Or hockey game with friends and all with masks

Right that is why i mentioned sports viewing as probably the main exception. I would be very curious to see the stats on percentage of media viewing alone vs couples vs groups. My bet would be the majority is solo even for families and couples in terms of all total viewing but maybe I am off.

It’s hard to judge anecdata vs. reality, but I don’t know literally any couple who doesn’t do most of their watching together.

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#312

Post by neural_thing »

NovaDudely wrote: post #179
bredren wrote: post #80

>underscoring the narrative that the company’s biggest victories were initiated under his predecessor, Apple co-founder Steve Jobs What does the author consider to be a victory? Tim Cook was elevated because he had the operational capability to grow Apple. Jobs did not consider Cook to be a product design person. But Jobs trusted Cook to find and keep people who could design products. By any stretch of the imaginatio…

I would argue that the move the Apple Silicon was in the pipeline long before Cook took over. I mean PA semi was purchased in 2008 and the first A4 processor was 2010, the writing was already on the wall a good decade out. But Air-pods, Apple Watch and Apple TV streaming were all under cooks watch. Maybe not as ground breaking but still very important. Mind you, who else has been doing ground breaking stuff like unde…

Are Air-pods, Apple Watch and Apple TV actually VERY important? The whole Wearables, Home and Accessories category is 10% of Apple's revenue and that includes Beats and what not.

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#313

Post by pzo »

cubefox wrote: post #138

From the information available so far, the Apple headset will be fairly close to Meta's Oculus Quest in terms of hardware: Portable and with external cameras to allow for orientation and "mixed reality". Maybe Apple is on the right track here, since the Oculus Quest has sold more units than all the other VR headsets combined. But there is one big difference: Apple's headset will be a very expensive premium product (a…

According to some rumors headset will have 2x M2/M3 chips so it will have a lot of computing platform.

If they provide some dock so that headset can be used Mac mini/ultra style as desktop + VR/XR is more like a bonus then this could still sell well.

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#314

Post by neural_thing »

sli wrote: post #186
cubefox wrote: post #138

From the information available so far, the Apple headset will be fairly close to Meta's Oculus Quest in terms of hardware: Portable and with external cameras to allow for orientation and "mixed reality". Maybe Apple is on the right track here, since the Oculus Quest has sold more units than all the other VR headsets combined. But there is one big difference: Apple's headset will be a very expensive premium product (a…

I'm willing to spend a lot on VR, but Apple would have to absolutely blow everything else out of the water at that price point. I have no doubt that a lot of Apple enthusiasts will buy them, but they've certainly chosen a specific market. You could buy a full Index kit, get the wireless upgrade for it, and then a full Vive Pro kit and its wireless upgrade, and have spent about the same amount of money.

I'm willing to spend $3,000 on a device that I would want to use every day. The reason I don't spend that much on existing VR tech is that I don't want to use it.

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#315

Post by chaostheory »

sli wrote: post #186
cubefox wrote: post #138

From the information available so far, the Apple headset will be fairly close to Meta's Oculus Quest in terms of hardware: Portable and with external cameras to allow for orientation and "mixed reality". Maybe Apple is on the right track here, since the Oculus Quest has sold more units than all the other VR headsets combined. But there is one big difference: Apple's headset will be a very expensive premium product (a…

I'm willing to spend a lot on VR, but Apple would have to absolutely blow everything else out of the water at that price point. I have no doubt that a lot of Apple enthusiasts will buy them, but they've certainly chosen a specific market. You could buy a full Index kit, get the wireless upgrade for it, and then a full Vive Pro kit and its wireless upgrade, and have spent about the same amount of money.

Just with the rumor that the new Apple headset is sporting an M chip, it will likely blow everything else away in terms of potential. Apple will also be focusing on everything that isn’t gaming, meaning that XR people can finally get some work done in mixed reality. Compared to other companies, they don’t like gaming. They just put up with it because of the massive revenue.

Sure PCVR still might have better specs, but they’re primarily wired and that’s a huge con if you want to use VR for fitness and it kills immersion when you have to turn a lot. I’ve tried to mitigate this problem with hooks and pulleys on the ceiling. It didn’t help much and it caused additional issues.

You also still can’t do serious work with most of the existing standalone or PCVR headsets. Why? Because you need a minimum PPD of 35 (where 50 PPD is retina quality). To date, HP Reverb G2 and the meta Quest Pro are around 25 PPD. Only the PCVR varjo aero is at 35 PPD, but it’s wired, costs $2000, and doesn’t come with either the $600 base station / controller combo or the $3000-$4000 PC needed to power it

> You could buy a full Index kit, get the wireless upgrade for it, and then a full Vive Pro kit and its wireless upgrade, and have spent about the same amount of money.

You’re not accounting for the $2000-$3000 PC needed to run an Index or Vive Pro 2. Also both headsets are wired, and both rely on base stations. While they have the best tracking accuracy, they’re a pain to set up right and they’re one more thing you have to worry about. It’s not for normal people or even the average PC gamer. If it wasn’t for the lockdowns, I wouldn’t even have had the motivation to finish setting up my base stations. Until the pandemic hit, my PCVR sets where just languishing in their boxes. Self contained tracking is the way to go for normal people and most techies

The form factor for PCVR headsets is also terrible. It’s too intimidating for normal people to put a giant bucket on their faces. Even meta’s quest 2 suffers from this problem. This is yet another reason most people won’t even try modern 4th gen VR.

There are more downsides I can list. I'm very familiar with them because I still own both headsets including the wireless kit for the Vive. I also own the HP Reverb, the Quest 2 and Quest Pro.

As imperfect as they may be, my go to headsets are still from meta for now, mainly because of wireless which is why I’m excited for the new Apple headset

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#316

Post by jasmer »

jdprgm wrote: post #280

One thing which I don't get why people don't seem to get is long term (and perhaps with this release from Apple) headsets should be replacing tv's for at least a substantial amount of viewing. For example I have a fairly high end 4k projector setup but in an apartment with limits on light control. Even with a dedicated room and $3k allocated to a projector and a screen and high enough resolution (which i'm expecting…

A 'great' NFL/NBA game experience indeed would be the 'killer app' to make the platform, but I don't see how Apple will have something that crosses the threshold. But they probably have at least a surprise or two up their sleeves.

This will be interesting because clearly there's a high risk of failure, and Jobs was known to kill stuff that didn't full fly, I wonder if this is one of those 'momentum' projects that Execs just can't look back from?

Meta spent $25B and failed, man, that is a lot of good money after bad.

We'll have to wait to see what they announce though.

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#317

Post by BuyMyBitcoins »

parksoha wrote: post #225
zamnos wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that, dear reader, is how we ended up with hundreds of bland copy-cat Android phones to the iPhone. There's something to be said, mentally, for working somewhere that's inspiring. A shitty office in yet a clone of all the other office parks, buried in office-park-landia of San Jose, is not it. Even a stroll through the secret underground parking lot at Apple is inspiring with all the exotic cars that are owned by…

I feel like engineers and all the math-y sciences, especially male, tend to dismiss very easily aesthetics over functionality. I was once like that. Until I get over my anxiety and started to hang out more with girls. Especially from the arts and languages side. The way they choose their environments… where they go to eat out or have a coffee, the clothing they wear, buying flowers, how they setup their home… Even wh…

>In contrast, most of my engineer friends have either literally a mattress and a desk.

You’re describing my first two apartments. I only wound up buying a couch and a coffee table because I wanted to appear somewhat normal in case a woman came by my apartment.

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#318

Post by pony_sheared »

EnragedParrot wrote: post #50
vehemenz wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you could have UI overlayed on the world around you, it would be huge, and would change how people use computers, like the smartphone did. Is this really a game-changer? Technology adoption is all about tradeoffs. We already have location-based services and applications that are granular enough for most purposes. AR applications add sensory awareness and localized interaction at the cost of distraction and intru…

It's absolutely a game-changer. Imagine having driving or walking directions laid out on the street in front of you. Imagine using AI to help you identify things like engine parts in your car, plants, birds, other people (never forget a name again). Looking at a package and scanning the barcode to get price comparisons. Recipe directions on the counter in front of you, even labeling the next ingredient and how much o…

Sounds great, but I feel we'll be wading through ads and product placement

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#319

Post by chaostheory »

cubefox wrote: post #138

From the information available so far, the Apple headset will be fairly close to Meta's Oculus Quest in terms of hardware: Portable and with external cameras to allow for orientation and "mixed reality". Maybe Apple is on the right track here, since the Oculus Quest has sold more units than all the other VR headsets combined. But there is one big difference: Apple's headset will be a very expensive premium product (a…

> It may be more feasible to sell $3000 smartphones than to sell VR headsets at this price.

Apple feels that eventually this class of devices will replace smart phones. It’s the same reason meta is betting almost everything on XR

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#320

Post by olkingcole »

jdprgm wrote: post #280

One thing which I don't get why people don't seem to get is long term (and perhaps with this release from Apple) headsets should be replacing tv's for at least a substantial amount of viewing. For example I have a fairly high end 4k projector setup but in an apartment with limits on light control. Even with a dedicated room and $3k allocated to a projector and a screen and high enough resolution (which i'm expecting…

I can't see VR being a better home video experience for most people. For one thing, watching is often a group experience with friends, spouse, kids, etc regardless of content. But even alone I don't think most people want to feel so completely disconnected from their environment just for regular casual viewing. I think most people just won't see the appeal beyond the initial novelty. It's already only a subset of people who care much at all about video quality. There could be niche for enthusiasts of course.

On a personal level I also dislike the idea of being home in the evening and myself or my spouse decide to watch something and put on some goggles and completely shut off to the outside world and the other person. Or going in the living room and seeing 3 kids with goggles locked away in different worlds. If we actually did start using VR as the main way to consume media I think it would do us a lot more harm than good. Just my opinion.

Post reply on HN