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

481–490 of 1001 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#481

Post by quenix »

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…

> Regarding battery power, I woukd not rule out versions that stream the video and outsource the computing to a mac or a standalone box, like Apple TV.

I imagine wireless latency would be too high here. I think they mentioned a 12 ms number to avoid motion sickness.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#482

Post by roomey »

darawk wrote: post #428
nologic01 wrote: post #393

There is something quite remarkable and puzzling about the VR/AR and now SC (spatial computing) space. All major (ad)tech companies are convinced that this is a major market that will materialize and be profitable if the right combination of hardware and software is developed. Their VR "visions" differ but only at the margin. No matter how you execute it, we are talking about people (homo sapiens) putting a major som…

> So far at least, this is a tech that is being pushed onto people rather than being pulled. I think it's very hard to tell the difference between these things ex ante. Everything that succeeds looks like it was pulled. But many things were pushed before they were pulled. Buying things on the internet, for instance. This was laughed at for quite a while, while a few people and companies were committed to the idea tha…

I'm sorry, but buying things on the internet wasn't laughed at, if anything people were worried about it cause of their credit card numbers. It was that basis of the dot com boom of the late 90s.

Everyone saw the potential and lashed money into it. It didn't deliver at the time, but that dynamic is totally different to vr headsets.

Think smart phones, they weren't pushed, people wanted them in a serious way

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#483

Post by rvz »

juve1996 wrote: post #104
impulser_ wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I highly doubt it, maybe in a few years when cost of the components needed to build a Vision headset decrease. There is a lot of expensive tech in the Vision Pro. You have two processors, 4K eye pieces, expensive sensors, expensive cameras, expensive LIDAR. How are you suppose to build a similar product for half the price? You would have to gut a lot of features and you would end up with a completely different produc…

> The Quest 3 will outsell Vision Pro by 10x because of this. Which is perfectly fine and why Apple will eventually win - they don't need to sell a ton of units right now. Apple is going about it the right way, the same way that Tesla did with their electric cars. Eventually there will be a model 3 of the vision pro - and all that R&D they put into making it the best will pay dividends down the line. Meta simply won'…

> Which is perfectly fine and why Apple will eventually win - they don't need to sell a ton of units right now.

Eventually, both headsets will be shrunken down into the glasses form-factor, and Meta will be the Android of XR headsets and glasses or in second place overall if users want a cheaper alternative to the Apple Vision product line. Just like what Google had with Android phones, Microsoft had with Windows PCs.

Meta with their Quest headsets will win in quantity and price since there are more Android devices out numbering iOS devices regardless.

> Meta simply won't have that experience because they just did the cheap thing targeted a small market.

They have the money to acquire companies specialised in VR and AR just like what Apple has done recently.

> Betting against a veteran hardware company like Apple and in favor of Meta seems ludicrous to me.

Both will succeed. Apple will have the ecosystem lock-in advantage for those who can afford the best experience and Meta will win in quantity and make it much more accessible. Zuck's 7 - 8 year bet on Oculus seemed to be the right move all against lots of naysayers and the exaggerations of Meta's stock collapse which recovered against the news.

It has always been Apple vs Meta in XR.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#484

Post by nologic01 »

jen729w wrote: post #422
nologic01 wrote: post #393

There is something quite remarkable and puzzling about the VR/AR and now SC (spatial computing) space. All major (ad)tech companies are convinced that this is a major market that will materialize and be profitable if the right combination of hardware and software is developed. Their VR "visions" differ but only at the margin. No matter how you execute it, we are talking about people (homo sapiens) putting a major som…

This feels like a technology that will be ‘ready’ in ten (twenty?) years, but to dismiss it now a) feels unimaginative and b) precludes that from ever happening. Do I want to wear big goggles? No. Do I, one day, want a device that can magically project anything I want on to my field of vision, and for it to be as realistic as my actual vision? Hell yeah I do! And we can’t get there unless we go through the ski goggle…

The first time (I am aware of) people experimenting with immersive computing experience was in the nineties CAVE @ ncsa [1]. It has not really taken off and I don't think its down to device specifics.

It is possible that there is a non-linear threshold type thing (Like LLM's requiring billions of parameters before doing a decent imitation of human language) that has prevented (thus far) making this technology really interesting.

[1] http://www.visbox.com/products/cave/

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#485

Post by theaussiestew »

sm_1024 wrote: post #192
zmmmmm wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sticking point is the silicon which they don't control. After watching Android flail for 10 years unable to match Apple's ARM processors in phones, I'm unfortunately not super optimistic that Meta can influence Qualcomm to suddenly make the necessary leap in performance needed. Of course, if they concede having an external power brick perhaps they can just stack multiple XR2's in there and get into the range ...…

Modern Android processors are pretty competitive with iPhone's silicon: S23, 1.4k (Single core), 4.8k (Multi core), 79.3 (3d mark/GPU) 14 pro max, 1.8k (Single core), 5.3k (Multi core), 74 (3d mark/GPU) Looks like gen2 is already on-par in multi-core and GPU perf. Single core still is 28% faster in iphone. --- https://www.tomsguide.com/news/galaxy-s23-ultra-vs-iphone-14...

Yeah but the Vision Pro rocks an M2 chip, not the A-Series in the iPhone.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#486

Post by psiops »

wiz21c wrote: post #432
jen729w wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This feels like a technology that will be ‘ready’ in ten (twenty?) years, but to dismiss it now a) feels unimaginative and b) precludes that from ever happening. Do I want to wear big goggles? No. Do I, one day, want a device that can magically project anything I want on to my field of vision, and for it to be as realistic as my actual vision? Hell yeah I do! And we can’t get there unless we go through the ski goggle…

I alreday feel exhausted when I walk my town because there's so many information to process: front of shops, advertising, road signs, people, cars, bikes, nice buildings,... If I had to add yet antoher layer of information on top of that, it would be exhausting. Now, if I was someone who works in construction, I'd be happy to have glasses that add the position of eletrical wire in the wall where I'm going to drill a…

The iGlasses could just as easily block information making a walk through downtown Manhatten look like a stroll through the woods. Use at your own risk :)

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#487

Post by curiousgal »

kickbutt22 wrote: post #472
nologic01 wrote: post #393

There is something quite remarkable and puzzling about the VR/AR and now SC (spatial computing) space. All major (ad)tech companies are convinced that this is a major market that will materialize and be profitable if the right combination of hardware and software is developed. Their VR "visions" differ but only at the margin. No matter how you execute it, we are talking about people (homo sapiens) putting a major som…

I would agree that the putting goggles over your face is absurd and it will never be a hit, not in a million years. However! Having that proof of concept to be able to manipulate your environment with just a gesture of your fingers and simply by looking at something - this I believe can be extended to external cameras, screens, and all sorts of IoT devices.

Not to mention how dry your eyes would be from wearing that thing for hours, like seriously, why is no one talking about that?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#488

Post by Lewton »

mrtksn wrote: post #454
the_gipsy wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook is not in panic, they're relieved that they're not the only fools betting on VR anymore. None of this will be relevant soon to consumers, except maybe games, and then it will be console makers who will push it and cash in. For Facebook and Apple it's just shareholder porn.

Apple’s implementation appears years ahead of anyone else. Just the way iPhone was when introduced. Back in the day Nokia, Siemens, Blackberry, Palm and Ericsson had smartphones that you could do everything that iPhone could do or even more. These were devices that only those who have to use it or those who are techno nerds used it. When Apple introduced their implementation of smartphone, those who were using the de…

except, you know, there's a massive market for non-iphone smartphones now. Facebook would not weep if it was android to the iphone

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#489

Post by gorbypark »

faeriechangling wrote: post #188
albert_e wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MKBHD reveiw of the AVP says Apple WILL NOT make controllers for the AVP. That struck me as odd. (Obviously anyone can connect a bluetooth controller and give users some extra control, assuming this device supports open bluetooth for audio etc.) It is one thing for Apple to claim that their latest gadget does not NEED any controllers for basic navigation and selection. Because they invested so much in perfecting a ge…

I’m sceptical for a very simple reason. When Apple came up with the UI for the iPhone, the functionality of it wasn’t some vague promise, Steve Jobs gloated at length about how intuitive it all was while audiences gasped and applauded over and over. He did this by introducing several new sensors and technologies simultaneously. Not really seeing that this time around.

I think the eye tracking is the multitouch of this generation of devices. It's not a new idea, but it's the first device to ship with it (at least in the "consumer" space). Even if they end up with some sort of controllers in the future, the eye tracking enables so many interactions. Not to mention foveated rendering, which they mentioned in a few of the slides. Basically, render a super high quality dot where the user is looking, and fade out the quality in the peripheral vision. 2x4k screens is a lot of pixels to render, even with the M2 being a decent GPU, but with eye tracking, it's possible to really push the rendering quality.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#490

Post by Hypergraphe »

nologic01 wrote: post #393

There is something quite remarkable and puzzling about the VR/AR and now SC (spatial computing) space. All major (ad)tech companies are convinced that this is a major market that will materialize and be profitable if the right combination of hardware and software is developed. Their VR "visions" differ but only at the margin. No matter how you execute it, we are talking about people (homo sapiens) putting a major som…

> we are talking about people (homo sapiens) putting a major something on their heads that dramatically takes over their visual field for the pursuit of... what exactly?

In the simulation field, the advances are already major. There is a huge gap in the gaming experience when playing simulation games for instance.

Post reply on HN