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

771–780 of 1001 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#771

Post by unsupp0rted »

o1y32 wrote: post #719
unsupp0rted wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re constrained by price: they haven’t trained the market to accept a $3500 piece of hardware from Facebook. Apple has. The “people with $3500 to spare” market knows that it’ll be polished and likely worth the price tag due to the “sparks joy” factor that Apple regularly delivers.

Apple "has"? Hey the device is not even released and there is nothing like a preorder number that can tell a story. Please just be more mindful of the facts here. Your own speculation is simply meaningless.

Apple has (past and present tense) trained its audience to accept the most expensive hardware of any major consumer electronics company.

They did this by delivering consistently on their “coupled with our ecosystem, this is the best one of these you can possibly get” promise.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#772

Post by bushbaba »

paul_grisham wrote: post #513
bushbaba wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not joking. Checkout VR porn. Then it hits you. Holy shit this is the future of media and entertainment. Something about perspective in VR gives a human touch of interactivity not possible with other media forms. I have no doubt this new medium will revolutionize mainstream TV and Movies. The infinite desk. Infinite whiteboard. Improved conferencing. Are just added bonuses.

>Not joking. Checkout VR porn. Then it hits you. Holy shit this is the future of media and entertainment. Something about perspective in VR gives a human touch of interactivity not possible with other media forms. One of the most pathetic things I've ever heard. Gushing about immersive cuckoldry.

Media technology has seen past innovation on by the porn industry. A major VR selling point is entertainment. I say this less as gushing about omg porn. But more that immersion VR video at a human to human perspective changes video entirely. It feels more human. Feels like you aren’t looking at a celeb but a real human being. This will change the way we do TV, Social Media, and a Movies.

https://www.thrillist.com/vice/how-porn-influenced-technolog...

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#773

Post by ChrisLTD »

websap wrote: post #341
juunpp wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

$3500 is pretty cheap for the HW it provides. An iPhone 14 Pro Max starts at $1100 and has nowhere near the HW that this device has, let alone the economics of scale.

The question is not whether the parts add up to $3,500 worth of tech, but whether the tech provides $3,500 worth of value to the buyer.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#774

Post by brookst »

cracrecry wrote: post #588
marcus_holmes wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The simplest contrast is ChatGPT vs VR right now. OpenAI is up to over a billion of users and hundreds of millions of subscribers in There is no demand for VR outside gaming. Efforts to try and create that demand are failing.

Excuse me, but how much time people have been developing the technology that powers ChatGPT. How much time and money has Google spent to create Transformers? How much time has been spent developing neural networks or CUDA devices. How much money has ChatGPT invested? Billions. GPT1 is from 2018, but neural networks have more than 70 years now. VR have more than 30 years since the early prototypes.

I bought a commercial VR product in 1995: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VFX1_Headgear

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#775

Post by cloudking »

hedora wrote: post #139
gnicholas wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A friend of mine works at Meta and was telling me about how much of the AVP's functionality exists on the recent Meta devices, for a fraction of the cost. My reply: great! If that's true, that'll be a boon for Meta (as customers learn this) and for customers (who will save tons of money by getting Meta devices).

I think there is a large market of people that will never trust meta, but ignoring that, they have AR goggles now? If not, their comments about overlapping features sound like the “but nokia candy bar phones already have a WEP browser!” objections from back in the iPhone 1 days. (I’m personally not all that impressed by the apple vision announcement, but I also wasn’t impressed by the iPhone announcement, and for sim…

The Quest 3 has passthrough mode for "mixed reality" similar to Apple Vision Pro, albeit Apple's hardware has way higher resolution.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#776

Post by TheCondor »

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…

Some of the games are good. It’s a little surprising how immersive the primitive current devices are. My kids do the psvr pretty heavily for a weekend and then leave it for weeks without touching it. I think it’s the interface that is wonky but that will get better.

Immersive is the key here. There are entertainment things where I think that could be killer, maybe seeing a concert from impossible to get vantage points, maybe viewing the nfl game from on the field, maybe some movies and some games. Do I want to be immersed in work? I’ll write code and you know what I do at times? I go outside for a walk, my quality goes up and the problems get solved. Same thing doing data analysis, I’ll find some interesting bits and then I need to think, maybe I could have more ‘screen real estate” in VR but I don’t know if I want it, need it, or could actually use it.

There is something about production to consider too. There are things in the nfl games that you don’t see, maybe some people want to, I’m pretty sure a lot don’t want to. “Taking some football outa guys” is a thing. Someone on another thread mentioned climbing Everest; you never do that for the views, people actually die doing it and then others just sort of pass by their dead bodies because the quest they are on is so so very different than seeing the world from the top of Everest. Maybe that’s the point, but it’s not for everyone.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#777

Post by eloisant »

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…

The Internet was first available to the public in 1993. 10 years later, in 2003, it was so ingrained in everyone's life that we could no longer imagine living without it.

VR is available to the public since the 90's, it's as old as the Internet. Even if you consider that "actually useable VR" started with Occulus it was already 10 years ago.

I'm not saying the turning point for VR will never come, but it's certainly taking its time.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#778

Post by coffeebeqn »

sangnoir wrote: post #507
nologic01 wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never had the same feeling about tablets. If anything, I am still somewhat surprised that they have (in relative terms) flopped. I was really expecting much more widespread use given it is quite a sweet-spot form factor (small and lightweight to carry around to far more places than a laptop yet offering a good fraction of the laptop functionality)

> I am still somewhat surprised that they have (in relative terms) flopped. I am not - Apple's "Post-PC" vision was clearly not viable to me, despite initially out-selling the entire desktop industry initially. The "What is a computer" ads were cringe.

They never stopped their PC lines so I don’t think they believed it either.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#779

Post by brookst »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #512
marcus_holmes wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The simplest contrast is ChatGPT vs VR right now. OpenAI is up to over a billion of users and hundreds of millions of subscribers in There is no demand for VR outside gaming. Efforts to try and create that demand are failing.

And peak VR gaming circa 2023 seems to be Gorilla Tag and Beat Saber. Not saying those are bad games, but…

Sure, to the extent peak non-VR gaming is candy crush.

Most gaming will be casual, in VR just like non-VR.

But there are much better and deeper games in both cases.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#780

Post by landhar »

imiric wrote: post #643
grncdr wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure, but the actual current use case doesn't matter. Once the capabilities, price and user experience improve, it will become more appealing to a mass audience. I'm not the poster you're replying to, but I think you've missed their point here. Market penetration of mobile phones was (initially) driven by the advantages they provided as a work tool. This growing market that was willing to pay helped drive the cost…

I get that, but my point is that it doesn't matter what the initial use case that drives adoption is. Whether the ROI is financial/business, or enjoyment from entertainment, there are early adopters willing to pay high prices and tolerate the poor UX for the tech to improve. This is clearly Apple's angle with this product. They understand that this is not a mass market product, but are betting on their brand appeal f…

You might be right that it won’t matter in the long run. But I’d argue that targeting gamers and tech enthusiasts is going to make it harder to reach mass market adoption.

For instance, with computers, laptops and cell phones being first and foremost business tools it was common in the early days for those to be provided by the employers. That really played a big role in normalizing their presence around the home before they became mainstream products.

I have a hard time seeing a similar thing happening with these goggles, but I’m far from being an expert in these things.

Post reply on HN