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

371–380 of 442 posts

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

#371

Post by unsupp0rted »

FireBeyond wrote: post #324
unsupp0rted wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple is a 2.8 trillion dollar company because they're good at process. They don't expect or rely on the Apple Genius to get the fitting right. That would be their biggest ever blunder. Getting the fitting right is built into their products from years earlier in the design process. The Apple Genius is perhaps the last or second-last step in an SOP that results in their customers not angrily returning hundreds of thou…

But yet a poor experience at an optician for you leads you to the claim that "strip mall opticians" are generally poor at fitting glasses. But somehow we don't have mass revolt and complaints about optical care.

My story was illustrative, not exhaustive.

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

#372

Post by burnerthrow008 »

satvikpendem wrote: post #156
ladberg wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you know how Apple wants you to run a code editor on Vision Pro? That's right, own a Mac and literally stream the video output to the Vision Pro Source for this? I could believe not wanting a compiler on Vision Pro for battery reasons, but I don't see a reason why something like Sublime Text or VSCode (w/wo Remote) won't be available.

What's the point of running a code editor without a compiler? Obviously I could write code in the Notes app, it doesn't mean I literally want a code-as-text editor, I want to run the code I write. VSCode with remote will be available as it runs on the browser anyway.

But most modern IDEs (I know JetBrains and VSCode both do...) support editing on one machine with a remote backend that compiles and runs your code. What you're complaining about isn't much different, except for some technical details of how it is implemented.

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

#373

Post by agg23 »

eddieweng wrote: post #99
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…

Shameless plug: I've built a web app which allows you to stream PC games/software to Vision Pro using webRTC without any restriction. https://windowsvisionpro.com

I'm interested. What is the subscription for? Are you running it through your own server?

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

#374

Post by burnerthrow008 »

adastra22 wrote: post #343
apetresc wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How could you possibly think this unironically?

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

Ok, but:

1. Your link gives directions for enabling a setting on M1/2/3 Macs that does allow running unsigned apps from the internet without prompting. (see the heading labeled "Big Sur and later on Apple M1 ARM64 processors").

2. Even without following those steps, I can run unsigned apps (I just have to click through a gatekeeper warning the first time I run it)

3. Requiring technical users to run two terminal commands and adjusting one setting in system preferences one time to globally allow unsigned apps seems like a reasonable trade-off to prevent non-technical users from running malicious programs... like, if I were setting up a Mac for my grandmother, I would never enable this gatekeeper bypass.

Gatekeeper is one of those things that is loud when it gets in your way, but silent if it isn't working... so having it off by default doesn't really make sense. The only way I can see having it off by default is by adding a screen to the onboarding flow that asks a question like "do you plan to submit an app to the App Store in the 12 months?", and then disabling gatekeeper if the user clicks yes.

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

#375

Post by curioussavage »

dcchambers wrote: post #250

To be honest I am incredibly disappointed that most of the app mockups I have seen from developers are just 2D windows floating in a 3D space with traditional simple point and click ux. I know that it's only possible to do so much in a simulator, and we'll have to wait to see what devs can really do with the tech, but if this is all we get I think this product is DOA.

Hard disagree. Pretty much a ll of the UIs I’ve tried on other headsets that try to make everything 3d really suck. Most of the content we view on devices IS 2d. Trying to turn it into 3d and making the user “move” stuff around just sucks especially with hand tracking where there isn’t even haptic feedback.

Just having apps that can be contextual and pop up when and where you need them is useful and interesting. Using eye tracking to make interactions with 2d apps faster and smarter could be interesting.

Trying to 3dify everything just because you are in vr is about as dumb as that old desktop os that tried to have the gui be an actual desktop projected on your flat screen.

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

#376

Post by Podgajski »

Hehohei wrote: post #370
Podgajski wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The studies don’t only include people who are genetically susceptible to EMFs. so if only one and 10 people have the sensitivity, the probability they will be in the studies are reduced. Then you have the problem in the studies of people claiming they have the sensitivity when it is an anxiety or psychological issue. These are widely known issues with the studies that say there’s no effect. As for myself, the last fi…

"If such individuals exist, they represent a small minority and have not been identified yet." -> You should talk to them then. A good blind study would be a EMF isolated room (shielded mesh, etc), a assistant you don't see (no visual or accustic cue at all) and a procedure you can repeat. You go out, the assitant sets up the experiment (which is recorded, somehow EMF free), either activates an active EMF (perhaps co…

I have an acoustimeter am-11 which measures RF radiation up to 8 GHz and a 50Hz meter which measures both electric and magnetic field separately.

The area I measure is close to my body, not near the source cause that would be stupid.

I measure at several angles and positions.

My house has background rf EMFs below 5 mircrowatts per meter with no cellphone on in the house.

You are making it more complicated than it needs to be.

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

#377

Post by bombcar »

elicash wrote: post #148
bombcar wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the accidental tech podcast accidental leaks from Vision Labs (you have to listen between the lines) you’re going to want much much more resolution than the 15 Pro does. Wait for the 16 or further, I’d say.

Fair, though I'm also getting married in April. I've considered renting one for a single day, if that's even possible, because once moments past you can't really get them back. It's the same for people with kids, you can wait and just capture through all our existing great cameras, but if spatial video is eventually a thing you'll wish you had that from when they were a certain age, too. Even if you don't have the vi…

As someone who got married in an April, I can highly recommend just using a professional photographer, and if you really want, pay a bit extra to make sure they bring an assistant with an iPhone 15 Pro Max.

You could rent one, but hire someone to do that; you won't have the time to run a camera.

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

#378

Post by bombcar »

bluetomcat wrote: post #146
bombcar wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the view of a “hobby” it’s not that excessive- especially for the class of people likely to appear on HN. It’s the cost of a high end MacBook Pro, or a vacation to Paris, or about twelve days in an apartment in San Francisco :)

A high-end MBP is costly, but is generally seen as a workhorse that will serve you well for at least 3 years. Spending a similar amount of money for a gadget with a questionable purpose and quick obsolescence is certainly out of reach for the majority of people not living in the SF tech bubble.

It's out of reach for the vast majority of the human race, sure, and perhaps it's a "bad idea" for even a majority of HN, but there are quite a few people who can and will drop the coin on it, for one reason or another.

As mentioned elsewhere, the people who went to the Vision Labs are buying them on release day, so there must be something there.

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

#379

Post by Podgajski »

Eisenstein wrote: post #367
Podgajski wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is totally ignorant on the science behind electromagnetic fields that are used for telecommunications. If light or like anthropomorphic EMF, it would be a laser. If telecommunication radio frequency waves were not polarized they could not transmit any information.

I'm not sure I understand the metaphor. What is wrong with lasers? If they are pointed at your eye they could be harmful, but we don't have an 'eye' for the waves that are pointed at us, and a laser powerful enough to do damage to us for other reasons like heat would show likewise the same damage in non viewable wavelengths. No one is contending that EMF waves can't harm people, since it is know that they can if they…

Do you just say things without even verifying them with a quick search?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3799025/

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abs...

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

#380

Post by Eisenstein »

Podgajski wrote: post #379
Eisenstein wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I understand the metaphor. What is wrong with lasers? If they are pointed at your eye they could be harmful, but we don't have an 'eye' for the waves that are pointed at us, and a laser powerful enough to do damage to us for other reasons like heat would show likewise the same damage in non viewable wavelengths. No one is contending that EMF waves can't harm people, since it is know that they can if they…

Do you just say things without even verifying them with a quick search? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3799025/ https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abs...

And do you google for studies you don't read and use them to prove a point that the studies don't address?
Post reply on HN