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

First impressions: Yes, Apple Vision Pro works and yes, it’s good

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 562 posts

Re: First impressions: Yes, Apple Vision Pro works and yes, it’s good

#141

Post by machdiamonds »

auggierose wrote: post #131
machdiamonds wrote: post #128

I'm curious if anyone's tried using the Varjo VR-3 as a monitor replacement? The Vision Pro seems like it might be in the same league. It's got this unique setup where the central focus area (27° x 27°) is a uOLED display with 70ppd and 1920 x 1920 px per eye, while the rest of the view is over 30ppd on an LCD display with 2880 x 2720 px per eye. While they're not directly competing (given that the Varjo is entirely…

Apple says they have 23 millions pixels, the Varjo seems to have only about 7 million pixels? That's quite a difference just in terms of resolution.

Yeah, but given that the central focus display is 70 PPD on the Varjo, it's probably higher PPD compared to the Vision Pro in that part of the screen. So, I'm curious if that 70 PPD area truly matches up to the clarity of a real monitor.

Re: First impressions: Yes, Apple Vision Pro works and yes, it’s good

#142

Post by PostOnce »

ChildOfChaos wrote: post #130
PostOnce wrote: post #72

I don't understand why there is no AR or VR killer app for this thing. Their sales pitch was "it makes it amazing to read articles in safari"? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYkq9Rgoj8E&t=5410s $3500 to... look at a floating web browser? Surely they can come up with something. Give me UV/IR vision, let me see the pipes under the ground, show me how to assemble the furniture I'm looking at, give me a template to pain…

I think 'killer app' is missing the point. Looking for a killer app you are looking at this to be a traditional VR or even AR device, that is not what this is. This is about having a screen anywhere, multiple screens and turning anything into a screen and any environment into one, hence the name Vision Pro, that is how Apple are trying to sell it. If you watched the keynote I think that was clear, everyone else seems…

But that's silly, it can do all that and also have a killer app.

I can already do all that traditional stuff on a macbook or ipad, and "have a screen anywhere", and those things are more portable because I can just sit it on the table instead of having to untangle A CABLE from my clothing and then find somewhere to place a headset that doesnt sit flat like an ipad or macbook.

Then there's the fact that ipads and macbooks have keyboards.

With no killer app, this is a boondoggle, I think.

Re: First impressions: Yes, Apple Vision Pro works and yes, it’s good

#143

Post by suction »

ChildOfChaos wrote: post #130
PostOnce wrote: post #72

I don't understand why there is no AR or VR killer app for this thing. Their sales pitch was "it makes it amazing to read articles in safari"? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYkq9Rgoj8E&t=5410s $3500 to... look at a floating web browser? Surely they can come up with something. Give me UV/IR vision, let me see the pipes under the ground, show me how to assemble the furniture I'm looking at, give me a template to pain…

I think 'killer app' is missing the point. Looking for a killer app you are looking at this to be a traditional VR or even AR device, that is not what this is. This is about having a screen anywhere, multiple screens and turning anything into a screen and any environment into one, hence the name Vision Pro, that is how Apple are trying to sell it. If you watched the keynote I think that was clear, everyone else seems…

[dead]

Re: First impressions: Yes, Apple Vision Pro works and yes, it’s good

#144

Post by auggierose »

makeitdouble wrote: post #137
auggierose wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple says they have 23 millions pixels, the Varjo seems to have only about 7 million pixels? That's quite a difference just in terms of resolution.

The Varjo would be more around 12 million per eye, but I think the actual feeling could be affect by the optics and how the central focus area is handled. The central 70ppd feels like a pretty solid number. Funnily enough it's price not that far from Apple's headset.

1920 * 1920 ≈ 3.6 million pixels per eye, what's your calculation for the 12 million per eye?

Re: First impressions: Yes, Apple Vision Pro works and yes, it’s good

#145

Post by LexGray »

PinguTS wrote: post #114
makeitdouble wrote: post #96

> Namely, 5,000 patents filed over the past few years and an enormous base of talent and capital to work with. It was mentionned in the keynote as well...should Apple really brag about their patent minefield in a field that is in need of more players and more efforts to push it forward ? > In many cases it literally hurt to do so. Not with the Apple Vision Pro – text is super crisp and legible at all sizes and at far…

> > Namely, 5,000 patents filed over the past few years and an enormous base of talent and capital to work with. > It was mentionned in the keynote as well...should Apple really brag about their patent minefield in a field that is in need of more players and more efforts to push it forward ? That I didn't understood. Should that be a message to the competition? What should that tell me as a developer? What should tha…

Having a patent moat is also a message to the consumer. Apple has had promised features pulled because it ran into somebody else’s patent minefield and it can affect device price considerably. Having a software update pull features for legal reasons is also a terrible experience.

Re: First impressions: Yes, Apple Vision Pro works and yes, it’s good

#146

Post by charcircuit »

sazz wrote: post #129

Is anything known about health risks? I could imagine that if the eye no longer has to focus on distance, that this could lead to refractive errors more quickly with excessive use. Or did I miss here something?

>if the eye no longer has to focus on [different distances]

The same problem exists with monitors. The recommendation is take breaks to focus at different distances.

Re: First impressions: Yes, Apple Vision Pro works and yes, it’s good

#147

Post by zztop44 »

holoduke wrote: post #119
inconceivable wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is it really this difficult to project 3-5 years into the future where this thing is cheaper, more powerful, and has an app library ... because all of the actual pros bought the launch model to develop software for it in 2024? then give it a 24-36 app dev cycle and you're going to hit the adoption curve. in about 5 years. this is literally how every single thing has worked in this industry for like 50 years now. are…

Iphone wasnt 3.5k. Imac neither. Ipad not. Ipod wasnt. The Macintosh maybe? No it wasnt.

The Macintosh was $7000 in 2022 dollars.

Re: First impressions: Yes, Apple Vision Pro works and yes, it’s good

#148

Post by suction »

nbittich wrote: post #34

Same pattern over and over, futuristic hardware, closed source software. This looks boring to me. I don't expect anything ground breaking from it. It's gonna be an iphone sticked to your eyes. Those big tech companies remove all the fun and excitement we used to have with new hardware. We know how it's gonna behave and it's limitation before it's released to the public.

[dead]

Re: First impressions: Yes, Apple Vision Pro works and yes, it’s good

#149

Post by hayst4ck »

sowbug wrote: post #23

24 million pixels across the two panels, orders of magnitude more than any headsets most consumers have come in contact with The Quest 2 has about 4 million, which is undoubtedly more than 0.24 million. Has "order of magnitude" joined "exponential" as another math expression stolen as a synonym for "rilly rilly rilly"?

When you're talking about computer systems, it's pretty normal for a bit to represent an order of magnitude.

Even the Wikipedia page makes reference to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_magnitude

"Similarly, if the reference value is one of some powers of 2, since computers store data in a binary format, the magnitude can be understood in terms of the amount of computer memory needed to store that value. "

int(log2(n)) is a perfectly acceptable order of magnitude, especially when considering computers, at least to me.

Re: First impressions: Yes, Apple Vision Pro works and yes, it’s good

#150

Post by jansan »

holoduke wrote: post #119
inconceivable wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is it really this difficult to project 3-5 years into the future where this thing is cheaper, more powerful, and has an app library ... because all of the actual pros bought the launch model to develop software for it in 2024? then give it a 24-36 app dev cycle and you're going to hit the adoption curve. in about 5 years. this is literally how every single thing has worked in this industry for like 50 years now. are…

Iphone wasnt 3.5k. Imac neither. Ipad not. Ipod wasnt. The Macintosh maybe? No it wasnt.

You could pay more than $50000 for a max spec Intel Mac Pro just a few days ago (at the risk of being outperformed by a Mac Mini). Marques Brownlee called it the most overpriced tech product currently on the market.
Post reply on HN