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

A developer's view of Vision Pro

david-smith.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 371 posts

Re: A developer's view of Vision Pro

#301

Post by ladberg »

programmarchy wrote: post #300
ladberg wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks! My motivations were mostly comp based (I'm in HFT now), I loved the product and the team I was on! Feel free to ask any questions here and I'll answer anything I can (e.g. no unreleased info, but maybe go into more detail about the kind of stuff that was shown to devs at WWDC). No blog right now but maybe in the future :)

What’s the best way to develop for Vision Pro until the headset is available to buy? Use ARKit/RealityKit/Unity in an iPhone to develop some of the basics and hope the code translates well enough?

Yep, the simulator (will come with the SDK when it's released) plus an iPhone/iPad is the best you're gonna get. Most code will definitely translate! Would recommend ARKit+RealityKit over Unity for the best OS integration unless you've already started with Unity or don't need OS integration (i.e. a videogame).

Re: A developer's view of Vision Pro

#302

Post by greedo »

BulgarianIdiot wrote: post #290
greedo wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people who have actually used the VP have said text rendering is excellent.

[flagged]

You keep illustrating that you didn't view the keynote, or any of the followup videos and are just judging based on your priors.

Clearly you haven't seen the VP in person, or you wouldn't be making such assumptions. I'm not, I'm trusting people who have used the device in person, people who have said the text is very sharp and easy to read. People with much better credentials than a random on HN.

And if you had done even the most minimal research, you'd know that the VP has fans that eliminate heat build up and fogging.

But hey, you've repeated ad nauseam that you don't like the VP and think it won't succeed. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. You remind me of how ESR was continually predicting the failure of the iPhone until he went quiet on it a few years ago. Same circular reasoning about how it won't succeed because reasons... Yet the people who have seen and used the VP differ greatly with you.

Now the VP may not be for everyone, and some elements of Apple's marketing are a bit cringe, but people said the same thing about AirPods.

Re: A developer's view of Vision Pro

#303

Post by TillE »

andrewmunsell wrote: post #230
BananaaRepublik wrote: post #226

Btw, how do any of these work for people with glasses? My vision is too bad to survive without them and I'm sure half the city dwellers around me are too.

You have to purchase (rumored to be expensive) magnetic clip-in prescription lenses, or use contacts. The device is too close to your face to fit glasses

> (rumored to be expensive)

Despite Gurman's personal speculation, Zeiss already makes prescription VR lenses for under $100:

https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/06/07/vision-pro-prescr...

I would pretty confidently bet on $99 for Apple, with an outside chance of $149.

Re: A developer's view of Vision Pro

#304

Post by greedo »

TillE wrote: post #299
MBCook wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some will come from mass production lowering costs for components. Some from the components being less cutting edge (and thus cheaper) too. But I agree it’s not getting cheap soon. Maybe to $2k for the non-pro version (similar to the announcement Vision Pro) in a few years. Maybe even $1500. You want to pay $500? You’re going to wait a long time.

When Apple releases one of these for $1999, that's the point where they'll be taking the general consumer market seriously. The price of a MacBook Pro. I think you could get there pretty quickly by cutting out all the AR stuff and making a VR-only "spatial computing" device, but I dunno if that's something they want to do.

I think that would be a mistake and definitely not what they want to do (from their focus on AR in general the last few years).

I think at $1999 for a "base" model, they'll sell millions. I just think that the tech they need to improve (optics and batteries) are hard to miniaturize. Chips and sensors they're the best in the world (in terms of consumer electronics). Batteries are just tough, and despite how good the iPhone is as a camera, it still is easily trounced by dedicated digicams.

Re: A developer's view of Vision Pro

#305

Post by musictubes »

BulgarianIdiot wrote: post #262
musictubes wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And do you realize that’s by taking the displays off of your desk you can have more of them? Oh, at any size and any location you want. You can continue using the input devices you like but now have as many displays as you want and you can take it with you easily. You assume you will hate it, maybe you will. But maybe the future won’t involve dedicated furniture to put things on and cables connecting them. Maybe you’…

[flagged]

I admire the commitment to your opinions lol. Never really sure what motivates someone to tell the world what they aren't interested in using. My snark was aimed at highlighting the weirdness of how important you thought it was for us to know what you hate.

It's almost as though you're explaining why current and previous VR goggles haven't done very well. David Smith, among others, have had some experience with the device and are really excited. That excitement also includes several VR specific reporters.

I have yet to hear any complaints about screen sharpness. The most upvoted comment is from someone that worked on it and he also thinks the screen Rez isn't a problem. Foveated rendering is probably the reason it looks good. That same guy also said that the active cooling prevented it from getting hot on the face. We'll see how it works IRL.

Some have complained about the weight. I'm not all that concerned since this is the first version. I'm excited by the potential, especially since developers are excited about it.

Re: A developer's view of Vision Pro

#306

Post by NotMichaelBay »

ladberg wrote: post #20

> In short, my brain has crossed a Rubicon and now feels like experiences constrained to small, rectangular screens are lesser experiences. I left Apple 1.5 years ago but was working on the Vision Pro while I was there. I have spend many hours working in the headset and I know exactly the feeling he's describing! Leaving felt like going back in time to using clunky technology and I've been waiting for outside world t…

[flagged]

Re: A developer's view of Vision Pro

#307

Post by htag »

CrazyStat wrote: post #204
htag wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't click without looking at my mouse pointer. I think it's possible eye tracking is just better than mouse/trackpad.

I do, when gaming. I can think of some Portal puzzles in particular where timing is important, and you need to hold your aim but wait to click until something happens somewhere else on the screen (so the place you're clicking is not the same as the place you're looking). I think the same thing applies to e.g. recording network activity in Chrome dev tools. My eyes are on the page to see when the thing I'm interested…

Yea, I agree with this for gaming. Eye tracking as a gaming interface probably requires rethinking a lot about games. In VR for example the movespeed is much slower. In normal video games the character movement is constantly super-human speed, and this is jarring while in VR.

I am speaking mostly about the desktop interactions. In your Chrome Dev situation, I would look at the cursor before clicking on the stop recording button. I think I might be able to trust the MBP trackpad to do a primed click without looking at the cursor, but I wouldn't trust a traditional desktop mouse to have stayed steady enough.

Re: A developer's view of Vision Pro

#308

Post by jacquesm »

yurishimo wrote: post #115
ladberg wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not exactly sure at all, I wouldn't have been able to predict this large of a leap before finding out about it myself. I do think a bunch of incremental improvements will eventually allow different use cases though. E.g. you'd never take it on a run or a bike ride in its current state but with enough weight and battery improvements you could have a HUD for exercise stats + navigation when biking with stuff like a vid…

I do think we'll see a fitness related product in the future but holy crap the early adopters trying it out should be super careful! It might be easy to forget that your eyes are completely covered with a screen. Imagine riding a bike at 30kmph and accidentally unplugging the headset. Boom. Black. Instantly. That's a scary place to find yourself. I'm curious if Apple will utilize the gyroscope to try and detect movem…

If you wear this thing in traffic you have a deathwish, and if you hit someone else while wearing it in traffic I hope you'll be sued into poverty to the point where you never ever will be able to buy another one.

Re: A developer's view of Vision Pro

#309

Post by hbn »

throwaway675309 wrote: post #287
hummingly wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every headset I have seen looks really unfashionable. Even the Vision Pro looks kind of bad. It is too bulky for the relaxing atmosphere Apple was going for in its adverts. And too rounded to appear more edgy. It is not commiting to anything, kind of like the new Macbook Pro design. This stands in contrast to Airpods (small but bold shape) and the Apple Watch (practical and elegant).

I must be one of the only people in existence who absolutely hates the aesthetic look of AirPods, for lack of a better word, they're abnormally "long" looking when they're hanging from one's ears.

The stems make them easy to orient in your ears without looking, and it brings the mics closer to your mouth.

Re: A developer's view of Vision Pro

#310

Post by [deleted] »

jayd16 wrote: post #272
madeofpalk wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we count that then we count an iPad remote-deskoping into a Mac, which severly limits the actual use.

This isn't correct. The AVP can run apps side by side so you can have a window for xcode open along side your app. With the iPad you only get one app at a time, which is a bummer. (Even if you had multiple windows open only one app can have the full screen experience at once. Beyond that, even though an iPad can act as another monitor, it's not a big monitor. It doesn't really achieve the ideal of a workstation repla…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN