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

Apple forced to make major cuts to Vision Pro headset production plans

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 446 posts

Re: Apple forced to make major cuts to Vision Pro headset production plans

#171

Post by charcircuit »

dagmx wrote: post #167
charcircuit wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Apple has been smart to present it as a desktop replacement It means that now you are competing against desktops which have been iterated upon for decades and have a lot of value already. Instead of standing out by having apps that are only possible in VR people will way if they would rather use the app outside of VR.

Imho this is the foible of many technical people in that they want to advertise unique use cases. But the problem is: 1. The people who aren’t already engrossed in the field, don’t have a good view on how to bridge between their current world view and the new one. 2. The people who are already in the space don’t need to be sold on unique cases. Very few post-jobs-return Apple products show dramatic new use cases even…

>Unique VR experiences only matter to a fringe set of users

I disagree with this. Why would someone buy a headset instead of use an ipad or desktop? If there is nothing unique to VR why should people put a heavy thing on their head for about the same experience?

>Take the ability to run iPad apps on it natively. VR enthusiasts will scoff at it

No, where have you seen this? Everyone likes the ability to run these apps, but my point is that these apps are not a draw. Most people find it more convenient to use these apps on their phones or tablets.

>To which I’d say, who cares?

Developers care. Most big developers don't care about devices unless they have a large amount of users. Their time is better spent on devices / platforms which have hundreds of millions of users.

Re: Apple forced to make major cuts to Vision Pro headset production plans

#172

Post by RC_ITR »

taeric wrote: post #129
RC_ITR wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People (admittedly access-dependent friendly people [0]) have worn it and say it roughly lines up with demoes. There is no such analogue for Meta, Nreal, etc. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFvXuyITwBI

I'm interested, but I'm not seeing anything in that video that really sounds as magically new as it is being reported. Eye tracking, in particular, is already doable with the existing options. For what it is, it works well. Still isn't nearly as good as using a controller. This was also the first time I read about your FaceTime usage being an odd 3d rendered version of you.

Full color pass through and good hand tracking are not available on any headset even near the mainstream.

Re: Apple forced to make major cuts to Vision Pro headset production plans

#173

Post by charcircuit »

criddell wrote: post #119
charcircuit wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A MacBook or ipad will be more portable if you want something you can take along wherever if you want to do that.

If you want a really big workspace, you are going to have to also haul your large monitors with you.

If you are doing quick edits you don't need a really big workspace. If you don't want to haul things around you probably don't want to also haul around a vision pro carrying case.

Re: Apple forced to make major cuts to Vision Pro headset production plans

#174

Post by RC_ITR »

Someone wrote: post #23
RC_ITR wrote: post #8

From the beginning, this product was a very classically Apple strategy of 'let's just take the Next Gen technology, integrate it well, and beat everyone else to market.' Similar to the iPhone 'winning' capacitive touch (or the iPod winning with Toshiba's mini HDD's), Apple plans to 'win' on SOTA hand tracking, camera-based full-color passthrough, face tracking, etc. These are all things that Meta (and the rest) have…

> classically Apple strategy of 'let's just take the Next Gen technology, integrate it well, and beat everyone else to market.' If that were true, they’d long have an iPhone with a foldable screen, and would have shipped AR/VR glasses years ago. I don’t think that ever was their strategy. IMO, they figure out what a good product needs and build it as soon as technology allows. That always requires integrating technol…

> If that were true, they’d long have an iPhone with a foldable screen, and would have shipped AR/VR glasses years ago.

I think you’re really confusing my point here.

There were plenty of touch screen devices before the iPhone, but only a few niche devices had capacitive touch screens.

Apple doesn’t throw too-early technologies against the wall (folding phones still have visible creases when opened, for example).

Re: Apple forced to make major cuts to Vision Pro headset production plans

#175

Post by taeric »

RC_ITR wrote: post #172
taeric wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm interested, but I'm not seeing anything in that video that really sounds as magically new as it is being reported. Eye tracking, in particular, is already doable with the existing options. For what it is, it works well. Still isn't nearly as good as using a controller. This was also the first time I read about your FaceTime usage being an odd 3d rendered version of you.

Full color pass through and good hand tracking are not available on any headset even near the mainstream.

The pass through on the PS5 is nice, I'm assuming the cameras are not color, though? That or there is some other reason to not have color pass through? Curious on if anyone has given that a discussion.

The tracking of my hands, though, is one that just feels misguided. The controllers provide haptic feedback that is needed for many games. To the point that I would view hand gestures as completely irrelevant?

Is the eye tracking much better than the PS5? Again a thing that feels neat and is nice to see. But then I quickly turned off all controls based on it, as I would rather the indirect options with my hands. In almost all cases.

Re: Apple forced to make major cuts to Vision Pro headset production plans

#176

Post by criddell »

charcircuit wrote: post #173
criddell wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want a really big workspace, you are going to have to also haul your large monitors with you.

If you are doing quick edits you don't need a really big workspace. If you don't want to haul things around you probably don't want to also haul around a vision pro carrying case.

> you don’t need

To be clear, I don’t think any of this will be driven by need, especially at first. It’s going to be something people want to use. If the virtual screens are just barely usable, they are going to sell a bunch of these things to people who want to work on virtual screens. I can’t seem myself ever doing it, but I know there’s some demand for it.

Re: Apple forced to make major cuts to Vision Pro headset production plans

#177

Post by dahwolf »

I think the limiting factor of this device is apps/experiences.

For this kind of money and discomfort you require mind blowing 3D experiences for it to be worth it. The problem with that is that those are impossibly hard/expensive to build by 3rd party developers.

The risk is that you'll end up with endless 2D apps projected into 3D, or poorly made 3D apps similar to today's AR apps with shitty graphics.

Re: Apple forced to make major cuts to Vision Pro headset production plans

#178

Post by rchaud »

haswell wrote: post #144
rchaud wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm typing this on a foldable phone right now, which is plenty reliable. One of the enduring myths about Apple's late entry into product sectors is the idea that they're waiting to "get it right". The first iPhone was a joke, it took them until the 3GS to get it right.

> One of the enduring myths about Apple's late entry into product sectors is the idea that they're waiting to "get it right". The first iPhone was a joke, it took them until the 3GS to get it right. I don't agree that this is a myth. If you look at the first generation iPhone in a vacuum, it was limited, perhaps (but I think there are plenty of arguments that the first gen iPhone was pushing envelopes - name one othe…

I'm not looking at the iPhone in a vaccuum. I'm also taking into consideration other things Apple has inexplicably delayed for multiple years:

- support for mouse input

- a native file manager app (2017!)

- pressure-sensitive pens and screens (~ 4 years after Samsung)

- Multiple apps on same screen (2019!)

None of these are things that take years to get right. Apple commentators simply get lazy and recycle this iPod-era talking point.

Re: Apple forced to make major cuts to Vision Pro headset production plans

#179

Post by rchaud »

turnsout wrote: post #131
rchaud wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This assumes that an independent accessory vendor could somehow worm its way into Apple's multi-billion dollar marketing campaigns. Airpods sell primarily due to the value of being a 1st-party Apple accessory.

First of all, I disagree with the premise—plenty of Android users buy AirPods. But putting that aside, why does the success of AirPods invalidate the point that Vision Pro could be successful without being as big as the iPhone?

Airpods are an existing product category (headphones) that everybody with a phone already uses. Couple that with Apple products being a status symbol, advertised everywhere, and it's not hard to see how Airpods could succeed even at a $200-ish price point.

As for AVP, it is a brand new category where the use cases are yet to be identified. It costs 2 months' rent, it has no killer apps that people are going to line up for, and you'll look weird wearing it. It's a completely different proposition.

Re: Apple forced to make major cuts to Vision Pro headset production plans

#180

Post by Retric »

ffgjgf1 wrote: post #158
Retric wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think 3rd party developers are largely irrelevant for it’s initial success. It’s like the original iPhone, if the hardware and built in apps are compelling then people will buy it which will eventually create an ecosystem. That’s IMO why VR has largely failed, out of the box there hasn’t been a compelling reason to get one and there isn’t enough software to keep people interested.

The iPhone had some very clear and straightforward use case which were appealing to some extent to every person who had a phone and used internet. To me VR seems closer to where PCs were in the 80s at this point.

Being able to work/watch a movie with great sound and effectively a 100” screen while on a long airplane/train/bus ride seem rather compelling IMO. Not worth 3,500$ alone, but it doesn’t need to solve every problem for every person just be worth using for enough people to get things rolling.

I doubt anyone is going to be using one of this in a spin class any time soon, but there’s plenty of situations where a laptop/phone/tablet don’t really work well.

Post reply on HN