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

351–360 of 371 posts

Re: A developer's view of Vision Pro

#351

Post by faeriechangling »

LoganDark wrote: post #282
animatethrow wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've been trying to explain to people how certain I am that doing work in headsets will become mainstream but am (understandably) met with doubt Tech enthusiasts underestimate how much the general public hates having gear strapped to their faces and over their hair, especially more than half of women who put considerable effort into their face makeup and hair.

I'm definitely not the general public, but the biggest factor for me has always been screen resolution, not size or weight. Until HMDs can achieve 8K+ per eye and match the fidelity of a sub-$100 4K monitor, I'm not going to be interested.

>match the fidelity of the sub $100 4K monitor

This can

>8k per eye

Not required to get 4K fidelity… you only need somewhat higher than 4K resolution.

Re: A developer's view of Vision Pro

#352

Post by LoganDark »

faeriechangling wrote: post #351
LoganDark wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm definitely not the general public, but the biggest factor for me has always been screen resolution, not size or weight. Until HMDs can achieve 8K+ per eye and match the fidelity of a sub-$100 4K monitor, I'm not going to be interested.

>match the fidelity of the sub $100 4K monitor This can >8k per eye Not required to get 4K fidelity… you only need somewhat higher than 4K resolution.

I'm not talking about "4K fidelity", I'm talking about "the fidelity of viewing a 4K monitor", which is different. When I'm looking at my monitor in front of me, it fills a small fraction of my visual field (around 15–25%?). So for a headset that covers nearly the entire visual field, the resolution would need to be much higher in order to reproduce the pixel density of the monitor.

This is, for most people, pointless, as the rendering costs will be much, much higher (>8x for a quadrupling in resolution per eye), they probably won't care if text is not quite as sharp as a real 4K display, and they might not even be able to tell if their eyes haven't been trained on them.

Unfortunately though, I require a 4K display for sharp text (I get really weird visual effects from low-resolution displays), and my current HMD (HP Reverb G2 at 2160x2160 per eye) is uncomfortably blurry, so I don't imagine the Vision Pro at an estimated 3400 pixels per eye according to their marketing figure (`sqrt(23000000 / 2)`) can do much better.

I know it's revolutionary and this is about at the current limits of HMD technology, I'm not at all claiming that it's not impressive for the industry. It's just part of the reason why I don't use HMDs often is because the tech hasn't yet advanced enough to be comfortable for me.

Re: A developer's view of Vision Pro

#353

Post by highwaylights »

swader999 wrote: post #176
ladberg wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol, I'll expect people will figure out tells for whether you're slacking off irl in a headset just like being distracted in a zoom meeting. Reprojected eyes jumping around too much? Holding your hands below the table to pinch out of sight?

I'll be plunking down 3,500 if it lets me sleep through meetings.

Found the killer app.

Re: A developer's view of Vision Pro

#354

Post by realharo »

MBCook wrote: post #105
king_magic wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess the big question I have is... what's the point of an extremely expensive headset when it looks like Quest 3 at 7x less the price is going to deliver a roughly similar experience, quality-wise?

We don’t know anything about the Quest 3, other than “better than 2”. I seriously doubt it comes close to what Apple is doing. The price just isn’t anywhere near high enough.

A lot of information has come out about the Quest 3 already.

Full color passthrough from cameras and a depth sensor (better than Quest Pro), 120Hz, slightly higher resolution than Quest 2, 40% smaller (whatever that means), Snapdragon XR2 Gen2 (they claim more than twice as fast as Quest 2), pancake lenses, controllers without the tracking rings, $500.

Compared to Apple's, the main downsides are lower resolution display (also not OLED), slower, no eye tracking.

Main advantages are price, support for games/controllers (you can still use hand tracking if you just want to watch movies), and no external battery pack.

Re: A developer's view of Vision Pro

#355

Post by [deleted] »

dang wrote: post #319
BulgarianIdiot wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our request to stop. Not cool. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html .

[deleted]

Re: A developer's view of Vision Pro

#356

Post by swader999 »

highwaylights wrote: post #353
swader999 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll be plunking down 3,500 if it lets me sleep through meetings.

Found the killer app.

Yep, I'll be sound asleep and the visor will show my eyes focused intently. It'll blink at an appropriate rate and maybe raise eyebrows during interesting conversation.

Re: A developer's view of Vision Pro

#357

Post by drewbeck »

ladberg wrote: post #203
mlajtos wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. How about drinking stuff with it? Is it possible without getting it off? 2. What about sleeping with it? VRC people do that, so they might be curious. 3. Is it usable outside? 4. What was the longest time you had it continuously on? 5. Have you ever dropped it? :D

1. You can drink stuff but have to be careful. Hand-eye coordination gets a bit wonky the closer you are to your face. I've done it and it works though! 2. Never tried sleeping with it... I don't see why it would be any worse than other headsets though. 3. I've never used it outside, but that was for secrecy and not technical reasons. 4. Honestly not sure, maybe an hour without taking it off at all but I've definitel…

> (I would keep the battery pack plugged into the charger most of the time).

This sounds like the battery can be charging while using the headset, right? Which imo makes the 2 hour battery life much more understandable – if you're stationary in the device most of the time then you only have to rely on the battery when you move. If you can plug in to charge when you're back at your desk/couch, it's not really a limiting factor (for the use cases Apple is pursuing).

Re: A developer's view of Vision Pro

#358

Post by Tagbert »

Tagbert wrote: post #222
Dudester230602 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think reviewers who don't get excited about Apple products stop getting invited to new Apple products.

Marco Arment was invited to WWDC as he is north a developer and operates a Mac focused blog. He is frequently very critical of Apple’s tools and actions. I don’t think Apple just invites ’yes men’

"both" not "north"

Looks like I could use that new AI autocorrect. :)

Re: A developer's view of Vision Pro

#359

Post by mrguyorama »

ladberg wrote: post #192
mrguyorama wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eye tracking has been $100 to own for many years now through a certain company. Why hasn't it taken off? The mouse is the superior input device. When people who actually need a better input device get one, they get more advanced mice: https://3dconnexion.com/us/spacemouse/

I'm not sure what the SOTA is currently but the Vision Pro has much better eye tracking that other systems I've used in the past. Idk if the sensors are actually better or if it's just the native integration into the OS and apps, but it feels more seamless than a mouse and I've never "misclicked" on the wrong thing with my eyes. It kinda feels like if the mouse cursor instantly jumped to the right place every time wi…

Tobii https://gaming.tobii.com/product/eye-tracker-5/ is standard in consumer eye tracking, they even have integration with some popular video games! There's just no value in it. I tried an older version in a store, and it was basically perfect, tracking my eye's movements exactly, with zero delay.

Nobody wants it for day to day computer interaction. Most people using eye tracking for computer interaction are disabled, because it's a terrible experience.

Re: A developer's view of Vision Pro

#360

Post by spywaregorilla »

MBCook wrote: post #286
spywaregorilla wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm mostly just amused that someone would say Apple selling a product for a high price means anything. Although I do think that facebook has sold a lot of their devices at a loss?

Look at what they announced. Do you think Meta could match it at the price point of the Quest 2? Double the Quest 2? Apple loves their profit margins. But it’s not $3500 for fun. It’s clearly expensive to make, even if their profit margin in still baked in.

I would guess the gross margin on this product is over a thousand dollars if we're putting numbers to it.
Post reply on HN