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

401–410 of 442 posts

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

#401

Post by philistine »

cpuguy83 wrote: post #317
bluescrn wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If we'd be getting 5K, they'd say 5K. So it's between 4 and 5. Not that great.

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

#402

Post by [deleted] »

Miraste wrote: post #260
dagmx wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People always make the mistake, year after year, product after product, of doing simple paper comparisons of features and drawing similarity conclusions between different products. They miss that implementation and ecosystem are things that you don’t see on paper. The Quest 3 offers many of the same technical points on paper, but it’s also not capable of many of the things the Vision Pro can deliver. Whether that’s m…

People saying the Quest 3 and the Vision Pro both support AR reminds me of the feature comparison checklists back in the day between iPhones and Windows Mobile. Yeah, they both have a "browser." They both have "apps." Turns out there's a difference.

[deleted]

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

#403

Post by ed »

FumblingBear wrote: post #386
the_gastropod wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

My understanding of it is that the eye-strain that people tend to get isn't from your eyes focusing on the glass, but rather due to the Vergence-Accommodation Conflict (VAC)[0]. Essentially, there's a mismatch between the vergence (a movement of both eyes in opposite directions simultaneously for a binocular-style effect), and the accommodation of the eye (the way your eyes change focus based on distance). When those…

Focal depth is fixed to ~1.3m (for quest 3, don’t think we know the value for AVP yet).[1]

So you’re not focusing on the glass, but on the image at that virtual depth.

The strain comes from looking at things rendered further or closer than 1.3m.

1 - https://x.com/id_aa_carmack/status/1371485209603022853

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

#404

Post by gen220 »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #221
scarface_74 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I won’t buy it because I don’t have any use it for it. But $3500 for a gadget is not crazy. I look back at what some of my computer set ups cost over the years in non inflation adjusted terms - An Apple //e with a duo disk drive, a green screen monitor, and a dot matrix printer in 1986 was $3000 - A Mac LC II with 10 MB RAM, an 80MB hard drive, a laser printer a little 12 inch monitor, and a //e card with a separate…

$3500 for a headset isn't crazy. $3500 for a headset that isn't allowed to do the overwhelming majority of VR things is. Even if it could, it's not even remotely a competitive price. 90s hardware cost what it cost because that's what was available. Today, there is plenty of competition for VR, and Apple is explicitly ignoring it.

Like it love it or hate it, but this is what Apple does.

They sell premium hardware with a walled garden of software that meets the full expectations of 80% of people in general and 90-95% of people who can afford these devices.

For their target audience, $3000-3500 is probably the perfect the price point for the “first” generation of a new (to them) tech platform. Insofar as it allows them to turn a profit, ship best in class mass-manufacturable hardware, and not price out their core demographic of new adopters.

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

#405

Post by dagmx »

dcchambers wrote: post #391
curioussavage wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Usin…

If all we are going to get is 2D windows floating around, how is that any better than what we already have?

They didn’t say everything should be 2D. You seem to be dealing in the extremes of the gamut.

The UI paradigm here is progressive. UIs that make sense in 2D can be 2D and slowly introduce 3D elements into the mix.

That provides an easy on road for app developers. They can take their iPad app and augment it.

Not everything is better with extra dimensions. A lot of data and interaction is better off reduced down in fact.

But even if theoretically everything was 2D (it’s not, but sake of argument), you would still benefit from being able to make content break out of your physical bounds. In a cramped space? You can still have giant monitors.

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

#406

Post by eddieweng »

agg23 wrote: post #373
eddieweng wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Hello, we've updated our pricing to a one-off payment of $15 for lifetime support. Please let us know if you have any more questions. Thanks!

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

#407

Post by 1oooqooq »

Eisenstein wrote: post #256
1oooqooq wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right, but wrong. For 99% of the price point people will pay for VR, it is still there. ...and will be for Apple Vision (non-pro) and Apple VisionSE.

The Quest 2 does not have screen door, which came out two years ago and was/is the majority of the VR market, so I am not sure what you mean.

quest2 have it, AND it is not what 99% of the market will pay. You live in a bubble where $1200 for a phone is "normal".

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

#408

Post by Hehohei »

Podgajski wrote: post #384
Hehohei wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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’m noticing you created this account six hours ago and I’m the only one you’ve had any interaction with. Is that you Apple?

[dead]

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

#409

Post by Hehohei »

Podgajski wrote: post #387
Hehohei wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is, that we talk about a potential placebo/nocebo effect, which means you need to make sure to get rid of all ambigiousities. And tbh buying / using a device made by a Anti EMF Page/Company who sells EMF protection is everything but trustworthy. You know bias, fake shops, gold audio cables, crystals etc. Now: Have you done a proper blind test? What was your experiment setup? How often did you repeat it? And…

I already told you what I purchased. Now you’re just trolling me and it’s useless to continue with you. I was a freaking network engineer I think I know how science works.

[dead]

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

#410

Post by goosedragons »

scarface_74 wrote: post #393
goosedragons wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

$400 was still more than the “free” phones that carriers were giving away and it’s my understanding that in the rest of the world, most people still have to drop the cash for the total cost of the phone

You don't slash the price of something selling within your expectations after a few months. And you know that crummy $0 free on contract phones weren't the competitor to the iPhone. It was $400 on contract smartphones like the Palm Treo 750 or Cingular 8525, actually comparable devices.
Post reply on HN