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

341–350 of 527 posts

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#341

Post by wahnfrieden »

danpalmer wrote: post #330
pzo wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is effectively a reasonable graphics card per eye . Sure it's no Nvidia 4090, but the M2 is running recent games with very good graphics on Macs. Combine that with foveated rendering, possibly implemented deep in Metal, and being careful about graphically intensive applications, and this could be high FPS on 3K resolution, and be a significant step up in immersion.

4k

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#342

Post by [deleted] »

judge2020 wrote: post #304
pradn wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like consumers just don't want VR/AR. We've had compelling experiences for a decade. But it seems like only a subset of console gamers, already a small population, care to buy a VR headset.

Part of it is that the cost to play VR - which is primarily the time cost - is too high for the experience you get out of it. For example, the only games that provides a true VR-only experience you can boot up on a dime are Beat Saber and VR Chat - other VR titles tend to follow the pattern of " but in VR". To add, you need 2x the processing power since you need to render the game twice, so you are going to take a hi…

[deleted]

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#343

Post by prng2021 »

danpalmer wrote: post #323
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…

> From the information available so far, the Apple headset will be fairly close to Meta's Oculus Quest in terms of hardware That's not really accurate. The rumours suggest optics at least as good as the Meta Quest Pro ($1k), possibly with a substantial move forward from there. They suggest resolution of 3k per eye, significantly above the Meta Quest Pro, and using Micro LED for a big improvement on the screen door ef…

You think 2x M2 chips could play a AAA game at 6k res (3k per eye) and 90+ fps?

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#344

Post by fouc »

d3nj4l wrote: post #310
addisonl wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They said “done as well”, not “doing well”, two very different things.

Ok. Do you think airpods are not doing as well?

"done as well" means "built as well", not the same as "doing well" or "doing as well"

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#345

Post by adanto6840 »

judge2020 wrote: post #196
tough wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would it even be possible for apple to do so

Apple's total comprehensive income was $24B in Q2. Their total assets were $332B, and total liabilities $270B. Assuming all product sales dropped to 0, they could make the best effort to liquidate assets, after which they'd only have $62B - which would last them a little over a year at $13.6B in quarterly operating expenses. https://s2.q4cdn.com/470004039/files/doc_financials/2023/q2/...

The link shows ~ liquidate any assets, likely for multiple years.

It's an unrealistic & impractical scenario, obviously, but IMO it's more likely they'd want to increase their liabilities (and likely WOULD be able to - lol!) without touching their assets. It's actually an interesting & somewhat comical mind game, even if nothing else.

FWIW, I've no personal position.

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#346

Post by lowbloodsugar »

givemeethekeys wrote: post #199
nerdjon wrote: post #37

I continue to believe that IF (and that is a big if) anyone can make AR/VR a mainstream market it would be Apple. Just for the simple fact that Apple has in multiple occasions done 2 things: 1. Come out with something that shapes the rest of the industry. I mean how many times has Apple done something and within a year or 2 basically the entire industry follows. 2. Not captured a large (or majority) percent but conti…

Apple products: - PCs were already growing in popularity. - Mp3 players were already growing in popularity. - Smart phones were already growing in popularity. - Bluetooth headphones were already growing in popularity. - Home automation was already growing in popularity. Apple usually takes a look at a growing trend and decides that it can provide a far better experience. ... with the exception of: Apple Watch. - Appl…

- PCs were already growing in popularity.

And then Apple introduce the Macintosh and changed the industry forever.

- Mp3 players were already growing in popularity.

And then Apple introduce the iPod and iTunes and changed the industry forever. The ability to purchase and download music sealed the deal.

- Smart phones were already growing in popularity.

LOL. Blackberry? Windows Phone? And then Apple introduce the iPhone and changed society.

- Bluetooth headphones were already growing in popularity.

Meh. I'm not sure these are game changing, but that said my technophobic wife loves her AirPods Pro and has somehow not lost them, so shit, actually that's pretty game changing.

- Home automation was already growing in popularity.

Well, Siri kinda sucks TBH, and Alexa works just fine, so maybe not this one

Let's hope this is a Windows Phone situation, and Apple's headset is night-and-day compared to previous headsets. If it's a me-too like home automation, then it can only be a flop.

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#347

Post by piperswe »

ketzo wrote: post #311
jdprgm wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As an opposing anecdote, my husband's not all that interested in sci-fi and almost all the shows & movies I watch are sci-fi, so we don't end up really watching anything together.

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#348

Post by fouc »

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 to replace monitors/laptop screens completely for a headset that I can do productive work with.

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#349

Post by johnfn »

cubefox wrote: post #202
criddell wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think consumers just don’t want to spend a lot of money on VR And I don’t think Apple wants those people as customers, at least not initially. $3000 for a headset from a company that sells $1000 monitor stands for $5000 monitors and $500 wheels for the computers doesn’t seem about right to me. In a year or two, the next generation of VR headset will be much better and still $3000 and you will be able to buy this…

All the expensive VR headsets sold terribly, except for the cheap Oculus Quest. The lesson seems clear: When it comes to VR, people strongly favor price over quality. Which in turn suggests the Apple headset will fail. VR is perhaps like the original Game Boy: Not very powerful, no color screen, but low price and long battery life. It sold a lot, unlike the competition.

> The lesson seems clear: When it comes to VR, people strongly favor price over quality. Which in turn suggests the Apple headset will fail.

That doesn't seem like the lesson to me. I think the lesson here is: VR is not good enough yet to demand a high price tag. And that's certainly my experience with it as well. It's a fun novelty right now, but not worth dropping a couple grand on. But if someone could push it, and make it, I dunno, twice as good, then I could be willing to spend a whole lot more on it.

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#350

Post by dwaite »

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…

> 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.

Is this similar to how AMD's Bulldozer architecture back around that timeframe was the writing was on the wall for their current competitive dominance over Intel?

PA Semi was a great talent accu-hire, but AFAIK at the time of acquisition they only had Power-based designs ready for market.

> It kind of feels like Steve picked the last of the low hanging fruit and then bowed out before it came to stagnation.

PT Barnum was a renowned showman as well, but that doesn't mean he trained all the elephants.

For instance, I would hardly say the release of a market-dominating phone was a foregone conclusion based on the success of the iPod, and an Apple without the iPhone would look incredibly different.

Sure, people wanted to take their music with them, but the nearly purely multitouch interface was a fresh invention - the iPod did not have a touch interface AFAIK until three years later.

I just don't see something which was such a fresh take and new engineering - to the point that other smartphone vendors thought the original keynote demos were staged - was low-hanging fruit.

Post reply on HN