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

Apple Vision Pro available in the U.S. on February 2

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 442 posts

Re: Apple Vision Pro available in the U.S. on February 2

#311

Post by satvikpendem »

93po wrote: post #304
satvikpendem wrote: post #89

The main issue I have with the Vision Pro is that Apple learned with the iPad what to do and what not to do when it comes to their customers, chiefly to have an app store that you could not install software outside of. Had the Mac been invented today, it surely would follow the same model, and the Vision Pro is very likely to be following such a model. If I can't use it to have my own applications, whatever they migh…

> Sidenote, but imagine in 20 years when everyone's wearing miniaturized versions of AR/VR glasses: https://vimeo.com/166807261 I have a lot of sensory sensitivities and this is what real life already feels like to me. I look forward to VR glasses I can walk around with something that actively filters this shit out. No more billboards, blaring building lights, blinding headlights, and logos everywhere. Real life ublo…

Only if Apple lets you install an adblocker. That's the issue with these closed systems, they might not allow it at all and then you're stuck with it. That's one reason why I use an Android over an iPhone, superior adblocking everywhere.

Re: Apple Vision Pro available in the U.S. on February 2

#312

Post by goosedragons »

scarface_74 wrote: post #302
goosedragons wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think the iPod would have been the same sales success if it cost 700% more than a Nomad instead of being basically the same price? $399 for 5GB iPod, $500 for 6GB Nomad?

The iPhone Pro Max I referenced above is 10x as expensive as the cheaper good enough Android phone. Even the high end iPads are about 10x as expensive as a Fire Tablet. The original iPhone was unsubsidized at $700 compared to “free” phones and was laughed at by Balmer for that very reason.

How many months did it take for Apple to lower the price of the iPhone to $400 and drop the 4GB model again? Or did they do that out of the goodness of their hearts?

Re: Apple Vision Pro available in the U.S. on February 2

#313

Post by dagmx »

lelag wrote: post #236
zaptrem wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just use the FaceID camera on users’ iPhones.

I'm sure Meta will be very happy helping Apple selling more iPhones.

Meta actually do promote the use of an iPhone in their codec avatar videos to capture a face.

Granted, none of that is available to consumers yet.

Epic as well, recommend an iPhone for their meta human capture.

Feuds don’t often stop pragmatism.

Re: Apple Vision Pro available in the U.S. on February 2

#314

Post by FireBeyond »

unsupp0rted wrote: post #164
nottorp wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I trust Apple-made lenses a lot more than any strip-mall optician. Who said anything about strip mall opticians? At least they let you swap the lenses. Will they do the unthinkable and let the iPad be multiuser as well?

There are lot more strip mall opticians than there are expert craftspeople of lenses. Apple's lenses will be fine... probably much better than fine.

This doesn't make sense.

Most strip mall opticians don't grind the glass themselves. Measurements are taken and sent to a specialist facility.

On the other hand, how much training does the Apple Genius fitting your headset receive?

Re: Apple Vision Pro available in the U.S. on February 2

#315

Post by FireBeyond »

unsupp0rted wrote: post #288
sangnoir wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make it sound like opticians hand-hew lenses from blocks of glass with various levels of craftsmanship. AFAICT, they take measurements and send the prescriptions off to be made by specialist manufacturer. Glasses are regulated medical devices with real oversight, not some rinky-dink industry that Apple can waltz in and be the best manufacturer by default.

Recently my optician kept getting me the wrong (Zeiss) lenses, i.e. I could see much worse with the new lenses than I could with my 3-year-old lenses. I got excuses like: "oh, these are better for computer work but worse for distance". Great... why are my old lenses more clear for both computer work and distance? I went home with the new lenses and tried them for a night and a day. Unusable. I went back and the optic…

> I expect that whatever Apple's Standard Operating Procedure will be for supplying the right lenses to people, it'll be mostly superior to your average optician.

I love that your anecdote has determined that most opticians will be worse at their job than an Apple Genius who might get two-three hours training on fitting the headset.

Re: Apple Vision Pro available in the U.S. on February 2

#316

Post by FireBeyond »

MBCook wrote: post #168
nottorp wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I trust Apple-made lenses a lot more than any strip-mall optician. Who said anything about strip mall opticians? At least they let you swap the lenses. Will they do the unthinkable and let the iPad be multiuser as well?

Do we even know this is multi-user? I remember that being a big question hit don’t know if it was ever answered.

This reminds me of Om's gushing review of these that he thinks will put movie theaters out of business because now the whole family "will sit on the couch together, each watching the same movie on their Vision Pros".

Oh good, one more step towards Gargoyles (a subculture of people choosing to remain continuously connected to the Metaverse by wearing portable terminals, goggles and other equipment; they are nicknamed "gargoyles" due to their grotesque appearance - from Snow Crash).

Re: Apple Vision Pro available in the U.S. on February 2

#317

Post by cpuguy83 »

bluescrn wrote: post #173
the_gastropod wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand the huge screens thing. The Vision Pro has 4k resolution (if I remember correctly). Most decent monitors have the same. Isn’t this basically the same as moving your existing monitor closer to your head to make it a huge monitor?

With a real monitor, a 4K screen on your desk covers maybe 45 degrees of your horizontal field of view. And it's pixel perfect. In VR, that 4K needs to cover over 100 degrees FOV. And any 'virtual monitor' content is being resampled and filtered, inevitably blurring/softening things. I suspect that we're going to need a lot more than 4K resolution before you can comfortably work with small text (e.g. coding, web brow…

> Apple Vision Pro features ultra-high-resolution displays that deliver more pixels than a 4K TV for each eye.

That is likely some clever wording, but according to the announcement, a non-pessimistic interpretation does seem like each eye is getting more than 4K.

Re: Apple Vision Pro available in the U.S. on February 2

#318

Post by FireBeyond »

MBCook wrote: post #176
ActVen wrote: post #143

Has anyone seen a negative review from someone that has had a chance to try it a few times? All of the reviews I have seen have been pretty phenomenal. That is one of the reasons that I am looking to give it a try. If the UI and screen quality is so fantastic, it will be a great virtual screen for productivity and entertainment.

The press has had two chances to try it, at most. Both being guided demos by Apple. No one has been free to just “try it out“. There may be reviewers who are doing that right now, but the articles are certainly behind a embargo. That said I don’t remember anyone saying anything other than that they came away extremely impressed. Which is why I’m really curious too.

That absolutely is untrue.

Om Malik, for just one, has posted at least three articles discussing in depth his extended reviews of the Vision Pro. Here's one (https://om.co/2023/12/14/why-vision-pro-will-change-photogra...):

> Over the past few months, I have had the opportunity to spend time with Apple’s soon-to-be-released Vision Pro, a spatial computer that you wear on your face.

Re: Apple Vision Pro available in the U.S. on February 2

#319

Post by npteljes »

snarfy wrote: post #134
Podgajski wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Porn. Your going to use it for porn. Edit: geez, just don’t have a sense of humor here? Or is it the truth Then you’re downloading this because you’re embarrassed?

It's a valid argument. We got VHS over Betamax because of porn. The VR headset that best supports it is going to win. Since this is Apple, probably not this.

Last thing I listened to was Technology Connections, doing their long-format series on the format wars. According to him, porn haven't played a major role. He highlighted that the beta tapes of the time were shorter and the players a bit more expensive, than the VHS system. Because of this, VHS players sold more, so the market was bigger, so the catalogue, including porn, was bigger as well.

Re: Apple Vision Pro available in the U.S. on February 2

#320

Post by trogdor »

Podgajski wrote: post #294
Hehohei wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been plenty of studies for a long time regarding this and a practical 'study' going on for now a long time across the globe with billions of people. What is your specific worry? getting cancer? The paper you reference states the same: "Hence, VR headsets and mobile phones are safe." And yes light is the same thing as anthropomorphically generated electromagnetic radiation, depending on what radiation you t…

Why do people have to constantly degrade the legitimate science going on between the question of man-made electromagnetic radiation and human health? One of the biggest differences between light and electromagnetic waves created by humans is that they are polarized. Light waves are not polarized they are scattered. Light waves are also not pulsed. Cancer? Maybe. What about cataracts? What about tinnitus? What about m…

>I’m sure that’s all in my head though right?

I don’t know, but it doesn’t seem too difficult to create a blind (better, double-blind) test so you can know for sure.

Is that something you are interested in doing?

Post reply on HN