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

Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 1001 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#301

Post by johnnykree »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #262
baby wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should they be in panic? They already iterated on 3 headsets, they definitely have the advantage (weren't people complaining that they spent too much $$ in VR? Now they should be terrified?)

FB does not appear to be attracting young people. Apple appears to be a magnet for them. FWIW, Apple does PR and presentations a lot better ( I honestly can't remember FB VR rollout, but I was interested in Apple's toy ). If FB is not worried, their CEO may not be doing his job.

I'm a middle school teacher in Europe. None of my students use Facebook. They even don't use Whatsapp that much anymore. FB has a big problem.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#302

Post by seanmcdirmid »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #261
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was supported on PlayStation before Meta bought them, and they promised to continue supporting it on PlayStation. But that promise probably doesn’t include new platforms from other players.

The question asked was whether it’s a meta exclusive. The answer is unequivocally no. Will it be released on Apple Vision? Maybe. But that was not the question asked and incorrectly answered by multiple people, yourself included. FWIW, I don’t think it will be, but not because of exclusivity. Haptics is indeed a big part of what makes it fun and Apple has made it clear that there won’t be controllers, at least at lau…

It wasn’t an exclusive before Meta bought them, and even the new PSVR2 version they recently released is just a recompile. So…where do you think Meta’s interest is? It sounds like they made a promise to support the PlayStation, and that won’t extend to Apple.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#303

Post by 0cf8612b2e1e »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #194
tjpnz wrote: post #157

>could be the vision of the future of computing, but like, it’s not the one that I want. We'll have to wait and see with Vision Pro, but it's already pretty clear that Zuckerberg's vision is not one that anyone wants.

I’m much more interested in the Quest 3 than the Vision Pro. At least Zuck’s vision includes BeatSaber.

What is to stop Apple from implementing their own BeatSaber? Apple has infinite money, and the core gameplay loop is pretty straightforward. As far as I know, game mechanics cannot be protected, so Apple would just have to use their own design and music.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#304

Post by Foxhuls »

jsnell wrote: post #195
Foxhuls wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As others have mentioned, I’m sure that this will support controllers such as a PlayStation controller like the other iOS devices. I also just personally view this as more of a computer worn on your head than a VR headset. I personally purchased the first Vive that released and sold it shortly after. I’ve also tried a few other headsets afterwards. I have yet to experience a time that VR headsets have seemed to be mo…

You're not going to play VR games with a vanilla console controller. And if you're thinking of emulating non-VR PC games on the headset, that seems like it would not be all that compelling. What's the draw?

I was never talking about VR games, other people keep mentioning them. I brought up the game porting toolkit because of the performance people are achieving on their laptops that have similar or the same apple chip that the headset will have. I understand not everyone will see the appeal of playing regular games on a headset but I feel that it makes sense with what the way they are marketing it. The draw is that I could play AAA titles practically anywhere I want with just a headset and a controller. Those games would appear to be displayed on a full size TV or smaller/larger depending on personal preference.

I have yet to find a reason to buy and keep a VR headset as most things just feel so gimmicky to me. At this point unless you’re either tethered to a more powerful device to be able to do the heavy lifting for the headset or you have a standalone headset that can play some basic arcade like games. A single device that can be taken on the go and play new releases not made specifically for the headset would be amazing to me. Obviously until it’s released who can say what it will actually be capable of but if it has the equivalent power of a MacBook, when my mid 2015 MacBook Pro finally dies I’d honestly consider replacing it with the vision pro but wouldn’t run out to buy one to have in addition to the MacBook.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#305

Post by [deleted] »

kumarvvr wrote: post #264
baby wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should they be in panic? They already iterated on 3 headsets, they definitely have the advantage (weren't people complaining that they spent too much $$ in VR? Now they should be terrified?)

Thats what I am saying. They had 3 iterations, yet, are technologically behind Apple. I mean, just pure technology wise, the screens, number of sensors, processing power itself is mind boggling. I am sure that all their hadware decisions regarding oculus were constrained by the compute hardware. Apple has the moat of world class custom silicon that means, the constraints on its designers are far less. And we are seei…

[deleted]

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#306

Post by homarp »

corndoge wrote: post #291
kumarvvr wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats what I am saying. They had 3 iterations, yet, are technologically behind Apple. I mean, just pure technology wise, the screens, number of sensors, processing power itself is mind boggling. I am sure that all their hadware decisions regarding oculus were constrained by the compute hardware. Apple has the moat of world class custom silicon that means, the constraints on its designers are far less. And we are seei…

One is priced at $300 and the other is more than 10x that. I don't understand why people keep comparing the two as if they were designed with the same objectives.

isn't the objective to capture and define the market?

metaverse vs spatial computing?

and whoever can make money for their respective business: sell ads or sell apps/integrate with rest of apple ecosystem?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#307

Post by homarp »

johnnykree wrote: post #301
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FB does not appear to be attracting young people. Apple appears to be a magnet for them. FWIW, Apple does PR and presentations a lot better ( I honestly can't remember FB VR rollout, but I was interested in Apple's toy ). If FB is not worried, their CEO may not be doing his job.

I'm a middle school teacher in Europe. None of my students use Facebook. They even don't use Whatsapp that much anymore. FB has a big problem.

but they are using instagram no?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#308

Post by askafriend »

nonethewiser wrote: post #297
askafriend wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a skeumorphic anchor to get people comfortable with a new technology. If you're going to introduce technology to the masses, you have to do it in stages. There's a lot more going on here than is apparent on the surface. You could have said all of things about the original iPhone. It did similar things to a lot of existing smartphones at the time (send email, play music, browse web, make call).

They made a VR headset and used their own marketing name for it. A term which no one else uses.

It's called communication.

It's not a VR headset and it's not an AR headset. It's something else. It's reasonable to give your specific vision of these technologies a more human name.

Also, it's something that's going to be released in very limited quantities in a year from now. And it was announced at a developer conference so developers can start to prepare apps. We've only really seen a preview and the technology is in the earliest stages.

There's a ton of stuff they only mentioned in passing - like their proprietary camera format and cameras that can record the world in immersive depth-mapped 3D. Those will likely be licensed out to studios and sports leagues which can prepare content for Vision Pro.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#309

Post by dotnet00 »

throw9away6 wrote: post #281
MikusR wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or Quest 2 that is 11 times cheaper. And has a higher refresh rate than Vision Pro.

Why does refresh matter? It’s all about pixel density

Refresh rate is more important than pixel density, the former has a big impact on comfort, lower refresh rates are more likely to cause motion sickness, while a lower pixel density mostly just means that the details are smoothed out.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#310

Post by hinkley »

zmmmmm wrote: post #166
veidr wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe OP is referring to how most Android phone vendors make no profits.

That's fine with him, he doesn't want to make profits from the hardware.

Most of the software profits are on IOS as well.

I think you must know this, so I’m not sure what the angle is you’re playing.

Post reply on HN