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

311–320 of 1001 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#311

Post by wellthisisgreat »

prawn wrote: post #178

I think the reason Apple pitched a device for solo use is that at the price point they needed, you can't bank on your friends having one, or multiple headsets in the house, or everyone at the office. I bet they figured the display quality is the crux, and other decisions flowed from there: needed more power, necessitating the power brick; expensive; early adopters likely to be richer people using it for content consu…

How is there a non-solo use for the 3D blindfold?

Are we expected to sit in the living room with goggles on our heads watching a movie? I mean casually like it’s TV.

I had a 3D glasses projector and the friction for glasses was way less and still it sucked socially.

The overall push to get people put boxes on their heads is so depressing

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#312

Post by nailuj »

seydor wrote: post #283
nailuj wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary, I think the passthrough will be one of the defining differences to other headsets for the time being. Not having anything to hold in your hand while you go ahead and do non-VR things in your real environment adds a layer of convenience that's hard to appreciate from product videos. The improved passthrough, as bad as it still is, is one of my favorite additions on the Quest Pro.

What other things and how often though? Is it worth it losing the improved precision of the controller (and adding so much more complexity and battery use) I think Facebook should consider usign only 1 controller though (i know I do). Also, to put the battery in the controller and tether it to the headset to make it even lighter. If apple is using a tether then it's ok to do it I wonder if passthrough can be done mec…

That really depends on what you're doing with the device I guess. For gaming, controllers will remain indispensable, and you're planning to disconnect from the real world for a while anyways.

For everything else, quickly being able to grab a snack or drink, respond to a phone notification or change the place you're using the device from reduce friction.

It might be enough to push VR over that "I don't want to use the device because I don't want to commit to not doing anything else for at least 30 minutes now" hurdle that still very much exists.

That being said, I have no doubt Meta is going to be able to get there in due time too.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#313

Post by teeray »

juunpp wrote: post #270
kumarvvr wrote: post #244

" By contrast, every demo that they showed was a person sitting on a couch by themself." Wait, I thought an Oculus does the same thing too. Its a blindfold on your face, and it doesnt matter if they are alone or in a crowd. Mark has got to be terrified. The power of Apple is the tight and efficient integration of hardware and software. Regarding battery power, I woukd not rule out versions that stream the video and o…

The $3500 price tag and closed ecosystem is self-sabotaging, so MZ doesn't need to be worried at all. Carmack's vision was a cheap device that could hit mass market, and that's where the real game still is. Also, games.

You underestimate Apple fans throwing ungodly amounts of money at new products. The early-adopters always generate FOMO among the not-quite-so-early adopters and it snowballs from there.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#314

Post by wellthisisgreat »

esafak wrote: post #229
Gigachad wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah the Quest always gave this corporate dystopia zuckerberg overlord world with NFT sneakers vibe. The Apple one feels like a high quality computing device I can imagine using in a few years.

Relax, nobody uses Facebook products at work.

Except if you are a marketer / work in advertising?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#315

Post by manquer »

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.

Quest pro is $1,500 (albeit 8 months old )

Yes, Apple is priced quite premium but that is also their strength Apple can price at this level and still command enough sales , Meta or any other company cannot .

Even at the same price point (HoloLens 2 costs the same) as Apple it is hard to imagine another headset competing.

Also none of the concept headsets MZ has shown so far come close to this

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#316

Post by dotnet00 »

Gigachad wrote: post #71
wdb wrote: post #51

Not being a Facebook helps a lot in my book

Yeah the Quest always gave this corporate dystopia zuckerberg overlord world with NFT sneakers vibe. The Apple one feels like a high quality computing device I can imagine using in a few years.

It's kind of surprising to see this perspective being so common. They're both the same kind of dystopia, Apple just has more black mirror style polish, while Meta has the more old school "obvious" dystopia style going.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#317

Post by fomine3 »

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…

An Apple company never become a monopoly in a big market. There must be at least one competitor, and Meta is the first candidate.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#318

Post by dotnet00 »

ubermonkey wrote: post #86

I cannot imagine why any critical thinker would care what Zuck thinks about a competing product.

These supposed critical thinkers apparently care what Apple thinks about computing, so caring about Zucc's opinion isn't all that unsurprising.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#319

Post by alaskamiller »

atleastoptimal wrote: post #204
veidr wrote: post #101

I use the Quest Pro right now, because my interest in spatial computing (I like Apple's new term so trying to use it, haha) is greater than my misgivings about Meta (even though those are significant). I will buy the Apple thing, too. There are a lot of interesting differences between them (obviously, the biggest one being the price, and deriving from that) but the one I find interesting is Apple's decision not to ha…

"spatial computing" is such a silly marketing phrase. All we saw was 2D windows placed in a fake 3D world. It's all just an aesthetic upgrade, a minor QOL improvement that has its own downsides, nothing more.

Spatial computing as an idea is from early 2000s. It was in Wired and sci-fi pulp and something the graybeards would hobnob about. Sometimes it just takes 20 years for an idea to come to fruition.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#320

Post by steve_adams_86 »

zmmmmm wrote: post #153
galkk wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hardly believe that with all headstart that oculus/mega had they don’t have enough patents to ensure mutually assured destruction

It's amazing how seamlessly people have switched from relentlessly mocking Meta's investment in VR to pretending it never happened

Perhaps Apple entering the space with such significant investment lends some validation to Meta’s efforts.
Post reply on HN