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

Notes on Vision Pro

notes.andymatuschak.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 700 posts

Re: Notes on Vision Pro

#391

Post by 9dev »

gnicholas wrote: post #273
FabHK wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple addressed that in the keynote. There’ll be an invisible canvas over the window content, and the app never learns where you look (nor Apple, ie it is not further stored or processed). Only when you click (ie tap your thumb and index together) does the app get an event. (Downside is that one loses the capability for hovering, but strikes me as the correct trade off.)

Sure, that works for certain contexts. But what about a game, where your vision is used to aim a weapon? The app has to know where you are looking in order to know where to shoot. If it's an online game, then the information cannot be isolated on the device since you're shooting at other players. Now imagine the game has advertisements, or loot boxes, or something else that the game company wants to know if you've lo…

I’m absolutely happy if the answer to that will be that gaming is not the core focus of the device. Let AR be more than FPS in 3D for once.

Re: Notes on Vision Pro

#392

Post by bbu »

Dalewyn wrote: post #345
jillesvangurp wrote: post #310

I think Apple is doing smart things here with their software: - leverage existing content means they won't have an empty room problem or a big "now what?!" moment for users after the novelty wears off. Without Steam, most existing VR platforms would be completely pointless. So far VR is for games and most of those are published on Steam. That's because most VR hardware vendors suck at software and end up outsourcing…

>a focus on the living room experience with a high end movie theater experience One of my biggest impressions watching Apple's trailer was that this paints a big target on televisions and home theater hardware in general. If the experience is executed well, it would be much cheaper (yes, really) and easier and simpler to just get Apple's VR goggle instead of a TV and peripherals that will infuriate you. Clearly we li…

I rarely watch tv all by myself. I couldn’t imagine but two, three or four of these devices and then sit on the couch with three other ppl in isolation.

Re: Notes on Vision Pro

#393

Post by MikusR »

ojbyrne wrote: post #202
dvt wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have a product that's 5x as good, but 2x as expensive, literally everyone will buy it. The iPhone is the perfect case study.

If you’re comparing the Quest 2 to the Vision Pro, it seems more like 2x as good for 5x the price.

11 times the price

Re: Notes on Vision Pro

#394

Post by sebzim4500 »

mikenew wrote: post #69
balaji1 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fitness and gaming wasn't demoed much yesterday, but are going to be insane on the Vision Pro - so I guess it was just too obvious to demo. Or is it? Also Meta could catch up if it was just software. But how big of a deal is the M2+R1? Anyway the metaverse was already being retracted, else this Vision Pro could have hammered Meta. Clearly Occulus has to evolve to match VisionPro. Controller has to be optional. It has…

> I guess it was just too obvious to demo. Or is it? Gaming can't be good, because there's no controllers. Even if the hand and eye tracking is absolutely S-tier, you're never getting something like button input from swinging your empty hands around, twitching your fingers. Just the occlusion from the back of your hand would be enough enough for that to be impossible. Fitness might be more doable, but even then I thi…

>Of course you can use a game pad or MKB, but that kinda misses the point of being in VR in the first place.

Why? When I go to an imax cinema I am impressed with the immersion, I don't feel the need to jump around and act out the scenes in front of me.

Re: Notes on Vision Pro

#395

Post by seydor »

jb1991 wrote: post #315

I use quite a few Apple products every day of the last 10 years, and I’m very impressed with certainly all the technology and reviews and explanations of how this device works and what the user experience will be. However, this is the first Apple device that really makes me pause. All of the marketing material, the WWDC videos, all of it feels very uncomfortable to see all these people isolating themselves in a room…

I dont think this is ever going to happen. Phones sell because they made computers unintrusive. This tech has some time go until it becomes as simple to wear as sunglasses or even less. IMHO something like a new google glass is more likely to win this space

Re: Notes on Vision Pro

#396

Post by timidiceball »

iainmerrick wrote: post #378
bluescrn wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It feels like another pretty Apple device which is purely for consuming content, and of little use for serious work (or serious play). And $3500 is way too much to pay for that sort of device. A UI that relies entirely on eye tracking and arm motion tracking, without a single button for 'accept' or 'back' or 'fire' in the case of games seems incredibly limiting. They didn't demonstrate text entry, did they? I expecte…

For “serious play” I imagine you could hook up a Bluetooth game controller, just like you can with an iPad (and it sounds like this will run iPad apps). Likewise for work you could use a normal keyboard. I think they did mention that in the presentation.

This ability was demoed in the third or fourth minute of the intro. (NBA 2K23 with a PS5 controller)

Re: Notes on Vision Pro

#397

Post by cal85 »

princevegeta89 wrote: post #328
dwayne_dibley wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree, however when was the last time you walked into a room where at least one person wasn't solely focused on their phone. The 3D photo thing is super weird, they could release a stand alone camera in future, BUT, I think this is a v1 product, imagine where it'll be in 5 years time, or an SE model which isn't wrap around. I already wear glasses so having AR glasses is no big leap.

I don't see phone as being equivalent to a VR headset. Phone is just a few sq. inches of distraction whereas the VR stuff is a 360 degree false world full of delusion.

It’s the world of instant information and social contact that makes phones distracting, not the screen dimensions. Actually I’d say the small screen form factor makes this problem even worse - makes it socially acceptable to be half-present with people, the worst thing. It feels like no big deal to glance at a phone while talking to someone, and feels churlish for the other person to take issue with it.

But if someone didn’t remove their VR headset when getting into a conversation with me IRL… I can’t see that ever becoming commonly accepted. It’s completely different from phones because you wouldn’t even know if and when they are glancing at messages or other content (or even filming you), so there’s just way more social norms for the tech to contend with. With a headset, there is a 100% clear distinction between when you’re using it vs when you’re not, and a distinct act putting it on and taking it off, whereas with phones you can flick a glance at it.

Direct-to-brain AR will be another matter though. Then we will be forced to accept that anyone we are talking to may be secretly engaged with other stuff at the same time.

Re: Notes on Vision Pro

#398

Post by elif »

I'm about 90% sold but I'd love to have someone's experience using it as an emacs terminal for coding.

As long as it doesn't get sweaty or nauseating after 30 minutes, I would still be content with it as a glorified monitor, not needing new UI paradigms or gesture controls.

Distraction-free huge monitor computing anywhere in the world is a huge advantage over laptops imo.

Re: Notes on Vision Pro

#399

Post by samhuk »

seydor wrote: post #395
jb1991 wrote: post #315

I use quite a few Apple products every day of the last 10 years, and I’m very impressed with certainly all the technology and reviews and explanations of how this device works and what the user experience will be. However, this is the first Apple device that really makes me pause. All of the marketing material, the WWDC videos, all of it feels very uncomfortable to see all these people isolating themselves in a room…

I dont think this is ever going to happen. Phones sell because they made computers unintrusive. This tech has some time go until it becomes as simple to wear as sunglasses or even less. IMHO something like a new google glass is more likely to win this space

> Phones sell because they made computers unintrusive

Respectfully, how does this make any sense? Didn't mobile phones end up becoming the most intrusive technology on Earth? (I'm not sure what you specifically mean by "intrusive", but I'm assuming that you mean "the extent to which the object interrupts your life/tasks/etc.").

Phones sell because they are:

1. Convenient

2. In most civilizations on Earth, it became a necessary item in order to live (authentication, payments, maps, etc.).

I'll skip the lesser points, such as the fact that they took over the camera for >99% of people for 99% of the time.

Re: Notes on Vision Pro

#400

Post by landhar »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #388
jb1991 wrote: post #315

I use quite a few Apple products every day of the last 10 years, and I’m very impressed with certainly all the technology and reviews and explanations of how this device works and what the user experience will be. However, this is the first Apple device that really makes me pause. All of the marketing material, the WWDC videos, all of it feels very uncomfortable to see all these people isolating themselves in a room…

It'll become accepted I'm sure, if it breaks through; could anyone have imagined walking into a living room 30 years ago [0] and seeing everyone hunched over a phone? Or 80 years ago and seeing everyone around a television? I mean I get what you mean, but I also think that some things get normalized in subsequent generations. Our 15 year old and his gf have their phones out at all times, frequently switching to inter…

> could anyone have imagined walking into a living room 30 years ago and seeing everyone hunched over a phone?

True, but I don't recall smartphones ever being unveiled with promotional videos of people all being hunched over them at dinner.

Smartphones were promoted by enabling us to do things on the go: making and receiving phone calls, getting directions, finding restaurants in the area. This is why this feels different: the experience that is promoted is one that feels already slightly dystopian.

Post reply on HN