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

331–340 of 442 posts

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

#331

Post by elicash »

sigmar wrote: post #306
elicash wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we're saying the same thing, that it's not the same as 3D video. Totally fine to say their version of it is bad because you can only change perspective very little. But saying it's "only" 3D would I think confuse people more, since it'd be wrong.

I would call it "3d with parallax using sensor-derived depth data." 3d mesh models can be rotated and are still considered 3d, not 6dof or any new term.

I like that description very much. It's a bit wordy so don't exactly fault Apple for not using it in marketing materials. But I do prefer it for more general use and might steal that!

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

#332

Post by bilalq »

deadbabe wrote: post #48
ssgodderidge wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m curious to see the type of adoption here. I think this is more of an enthusiast device than anything. I suspect true success of the Vision Pro will be the introduction of a smaller, cheaper headset aimed at the masses, rather than wide-spread adoption of a $3k+ device

Why can’t Meta Quest 3 be that device?

I think the pricing and marketing of Meta Quest 3 position it as a device that is fit for the general public. But VR just isn't good enough yet. The Apple device will also be not good enough, but because the average person won't buy it, the air of exclusivity will keep intrigue. Maybe in another decade, we'll have something really amazing.

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

#333

Post by adastra22 »

jprete wrote: post #181
freeone3000 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Space is limited, screens are expensive and hard to transport, and people are more mobile than ever. Having your multi-monitor setup at a coffeeshop just as it is at home is a huge gain. I’m not expecting this to replace monitors for most people now. But next monitor upgrade, if you already work on a Macbook, it might be a better option than an external display for some people.

It would be easier and simpler to use a portable LCD monitor. They do exist and are simpler, smaller, and cheaper than a VR headset. Tablets could have been used for the same use case. But...they aren't. People don't want it. What they want is a computer so light that it's always available. Most people seem to carry phones for consumption and sometimes lightweight laptops for work.

Or just multiple virtual displays on your laptop? There are plenty of laptops with 4K of better resolution, which is what the Vision has.

VR lets you swivel your head to get more real estate, but it doesn’t let you look at more pixels at once. Not unless you zoom out, which is what exposé already does.

But sure, you can strap a couple kilos of hardware to your face and take on that neck strain, disconnect yourself from the environment around you, and introduce motion sickness just to avoid pressing F3.

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

#334

Post by adastra22 »

bilalq wrote: post #328
adastra22 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question: why do you expect VR to take off with the general public? A decade into VR experiments, and nobody has come up with good non-gaming applications better than cartoony chat apps. It’s got a worse track record than blockchain.

I don't think it's a worse track record than blockchain. Things are clunky now, but there are some genuinely fun and cool experiences to be had: - Playing table tennis in VR is more fun than in real life since you don't have to go chasing around the room to pick up balls. - I've used VR headsets to show my parents and other elderly folks photosphere shots I've taken from mountain summits that they would never be able…

I said "non-gaming applications." I can see the immediate and obvious application to gaming, even though I'm not a gamer myself. But the hardcore gamers that would use such a device are still a niche market. If Apple's making it, they're expect mass consumer applications though. I just don't see that.

Being able to "summit" a mountain without actually being there is an interesting use case though. Thanks for that.

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

#335

Post by adastra22 »

shafyy wrote: post #180
adastra22 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question: why do you expect VR to take off with the general public? A decade into VR experiments, and nobody has come up with good non-gaming applications better than cartoony chat apps. It’s got a worse track record than blockchain.

> It’s got a worse track record than blockchain This is not true. VR gaming is something some people genuinely enjoy doing and paying money for. There are more than handful of VR gaming studios that can run healthy businesses based on this market. I'm not saying that the Vision Pro will make VR replace laptops, someday it might, who knows. But suggesting that there is zero value from VR is also not true.

I said "non-gaming applications."

Apple is marketing this for general consumer adoption. What are those applications?

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

#336

Post by Philpax »

drgoodvibe wrote: post #128

I was an early adopter with the original PlayStation VR. The screen door effect was an issue but the biggest one is that I couldn’t last more than 30 minutes before getting nauseous. Granted I get seasick and likely susceptible more than most but I really hope Apple have solved it for people like me. Either way Im pre-ordering as well.

The PlayStation VR was not very good. Modern headsets, including the AVP, are much better at presenting a consistent low-persistence view - you should feel much better with it.

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

#337

Post by Podgajski »

Ynottingten wrote: post #323
Podgajski wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sun light is polarized. I literaly have a polarizing filter for my camera. And bluntly saying: yes you do fully read as someone with a head problem. You would not survive a blind study regarding EMF and your nose bleeding and would be a very famous person if you could proof that. All EMF fields we have and face daily are not strong enough at all for any 'ion channels'. Are you even aware how many fields you walk thro…

This is the second time I’ve read this Mr. interpretation of sunlight being polarized on hacker news.

Sunlight is not polarized. When you use a polarizing filter, you are polarizing the light. That’s why they call them polarizing filters.

Sunlight, reflecting off of a lake is partially polarized which is what creates the intensity.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3049010/#:~:tex....

Light arriving on Earth from natural sources, either directly from the Sun or reflected from the Moon, is unpolarized or, at most, weakly polarized.

There is some amount of polarization once it strikes the Earth, but all EMF radiation from telecommunications is polarized, like a laserbeam.

https://www.edmundoptics.com/c/laser-polarization/760/

Since you don’t know enough about the polarization of light, it’s not fair to me to comment on your ignorance about man-made electromagnetic fields in the rest of what you said.

And please post something deeper than a Wikipedia article, or actually just look up anything that is opposite of your current bias.

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

#338

Post by Podgajski »

Ynottingten wrote: post #323
Podgajski wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sun light is polarized. I literaly have a polarizing filter for my camera. And bluntly saying: yes you do fully read as someone with a head problem. You would not survive a blind study regarding EMF and your nose bleeding and would be a very famous person if you could proof that. All EMF fields we have and face daily are not strong enough at all for any 'ion channels'. Are you even aware how many fields you walk thro…

Polarization: A Key Difference between Man-made and Natural Electromagnetic Fields, in regard to Biological Activity

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14914

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

#339

Post by the_gastropod »

amerkhalid wrote: post #224
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?

I think it may have something to do with less strain on your eyes when focusing on distant screen than one up close. I have Quest 2, I really enjoy watching flat 2d videos on it. Even with screen-door effect, sometimes, I prefer to watch shows on it.

I'm largely an ignoramus about how eyeballs function. But this sounds... suspicious. When a screen is inches away from your eyeball, isn't your eye focusing on that? I'd expect a VR headset to cause more eye strain than almost any alternative. Am I misunderstanding something?

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

#340

Post by adastra22 »

jwells89 wrote: post #152
lbourdages wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true, you can, but you have to approve them from the system preferences panel.

Or right-click unsigned binary → Open. The system basically wants acknowledgment from the user that they actually want to run the unsigned binary in question for the first launch, after which it’ll run like normal.

Not on the most recent macOS releases. I maintain binaries of an open-source app, and used to have instructions to right-click open on first use. This stopped working recently, I forget if it was on version 13 or 14. The users would get a denial, with no option to override.

I ended up having to pay $100/yr for a developer account to be able to sign and notarize the binaries. They can now open them like usual, with just a warning that it was downloaded from the internet. But without the signature they get an uncircumventable gatekeeper error.

ETA: See https://wiki.freepascal.org/Code_Signing_for_macOS#Big_Sur_a...

Post reply on HN