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

481–490 of 527 posts

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#481

Post by KaiserPro »

yayr wrote: post #148
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 think with respect to compute/GPU capability the Apple headset will be vastly superior. One of the major issues with the Quest is the lack of graphics quality that can be brought to the virtual environments. Unless you run it via Link to a PC with a top end GPU it is just a toy. Having VR experiences like the recent Unreal Engine provides is simply orders of magnitude away for Quest in the current state... Thats on…

> I think with respect to compute/GPU capability the Apple headset will be vastly superior.

They still have the same issues that everyone else has: compute/heat/battery. Sure they have the vertical and are able to offload rendering onto ipads or laptops, but then you're basically tethered like the quest/vive/etc.

Running unreal requires a 300watt graphics card, plus ~60watt CPU. even assuming apple can quarter that, its still 90 watts. and not 90 watts of 37 degrees, its 90 watts at 65c. you can't keep that kind of heat next to your face.

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#482

Post by KaiserPro »

crooked-v wrote: post #385
danpalmer wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The current leaks and analyst claims are saying an 8K screen per eye [1], with some kind of advanced eye tracking and foveated rendering to keep the GPU processing requirements under control. PSVR2 has already shown that at least the foveated rendering part is totally practical even at a much lower price point. [1]: https://www.techradar.com/news/apple-vr-headset

eye tracking isn't really reliable enough to make foveated work well enough for users.

most hardware support foveation, its not that challenging to do in software. its not the magic bullet until you get low latency accurate universal eye tracking.

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#483

Post by yayr »

cubefox wrote: post #475
chaostheory wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need a PPD of about 35 - 40 for reading comfortably. 50 is retina quality. Even with the Meta Quest Pro, it only gets to about 24. The same goes for the HP reverb g2. For $1999, the Varjo Aero PCVR headset comes at 35 PPD, but at that price it doesn’t include the $3000 -$4000 PC to run it or the $600 base stations and controllers. It’s also wired to the PC At $3000, i am guessing that the Apple headset will be 35…

The original Game Boy did sell quite well despite low resolution and ghosting. There were other devices with better screens and higher price. People chose the lower price and the worse screen. Is this also plausible for VR? The success of the Quest suggests: yes.

but at the time the market was different and the product at the time was an improvement over single purpose game toys by allowing changing games. Totally different story. Of course there is a low price market for lower resolution and compute... But there is a reason that retina displays on all device types are a thing too, usually at higher price points, at least initially. And economies of scale, manufacturing hardware depreciation etc. will bring these devices also to lower price points sooner or later.

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#484

Post by EnragedParrot »

pony_sheared wrote: post #318
EnragedParrot wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You're already wading through ads and product placement. They're just physical signs.

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#485

Post by yayr »

pzo wrote: post #313
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.

now that is an interesting thought, they would be more powerful than current MBPs... Screen Mirroring can already be done from MacOS to iPadOS for example. It would be super awesome if one could connect the headset to another Mac and use the screens / keyboard / touchpad of that device. Ideally it would allow virtual desktops to have quick access to both devices by simply swiping on the touchpad.

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#486

Post by EnragedParrot »

majormajor wrote: post #82
EnragedParrot wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There's plenty of neat ideas for what AR could do - but how often are you changing tires or having to find an oilpan plug on an unfamiliar car? Some great professional use cases, potentially, but for a consumer? A lot of this sounds like an open-world video game with no design restraint, where your map gets littered with dozens and dozens of points of interest all at once and it just makes it that much harder to focu…

I think there's certainly a risk of information overload, but I'd say that's a risk of our modern lives in general, whether we have AR glasses or not. Well-designed AR would, in my opinion, be vastly less intrusive than having to stare into a handheld device for hours a day. I would trust Apple to make a well-designed UI for the thing if and when they manage to release them. 3rd party apps not so much (although certainly there will be a handful of great ones). That's more on users making informed choices about the apps they download than a downside of AR, though.

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#487

Post by prng2021 »

danpalmer wrote: post #390
oblio wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A single M2 chip is able to play a recent-ish AAA game and decent-ish settings, on ~2k at >30fps, while also running the whole game itself and macOS. Doing the math to the OPs numbers. 6k vs 2k = 3x. 90 fps vs 30 fps = 3x. That an extra 900% performance difference right there. Reality, out the window.

3k (there's supposedly an M2 per eye). 2k->3k = +125%. If foveated rendering can half the necessary pixel count, that's pretty much a wash. FPS alone is +200%, but games are running above 30fps already so it's less than that. Add a reduction in system load due to not running the full OS, potentially framework improvements as we usually see at WWDC, and slightly reduced graphical fidelity that is typical for VR games,…

https://www.tomsguide.com/news/macbook-air-m2-vs-macbook-pro...

The M2 doesn't even hit 30fps at 1080p. You also have to consider the power draw limits they set on these 2 chips placed near your eyes compared to a M2 running in a laptop with lots of heat dissipation.

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#488

Post by solarmist »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #13

I don't think there is a consumer market for head mounted AR anymore - if there ever really was. That makes me sad having been in AR since 2010 - and knowing what we could do with it if done right. I just don't think society currently has an appetite for a $3000 product that gives the wearer visual superpowers (that is the promise after all) and is an impossible to ignore distinction between classes. I honestly think…

Isn’t this always the response to Apple products.

It’s might have been possible 5 years ago, but they missed the bus.

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#489

Post by als0 »

saagarjha wrote: post #441
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 worked in Apple Park. I now work on Android from a suburban office park. Believe me, the cars are the same, and completely irrelevant to anything you’re talking about.

What's it like to go from working at Apple to now working on Android?

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#490

Post by MichaelZuo »

crooked-v wrote: post #382
dev_tty01 wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have people ever really had a quality vs. price choice? With all the computing power being discussed, the quality may be well beyond what has been available in any previous headset. Much lower latency with much higher resolution graphics. If that is the case, there is no existing applicable lesson concerning price vs. quality. You may still be right, but my point is that if the quality is pushed enough, the price/qua…

I would say the current choice for high-end quality in the VR space would be a Pimax 8K ($1,387), a tracking setup and controllers (another $577 if you get the de facto standard equipment from Valve), at least a NVIDIA RTX 2080 with 10+ GB ($900, but you'll want something significantly more powerful to run anything beyond the bare minimum), plus of course the rest of the computer to keep up with that and extra-long c…

Isn't the top end of the market the Varjo VR-3/XR-3?

Apple's headset would be cheaper and even higher quality from what it sounds like.

Post reply on HN