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

Apple Vision Pro review

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#391

Post by mrguyorama »

karaterobot wrote: post #206
willio58 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen a few ideas that seem really interesting, just not at the price point Apple is offering. And honestly I'm just going to wait for these headsets to be smaller and lighter too before buying one. I don't think anyone at Apple is under the impression this device is going to be a money maker, but more of a gen-1 device to provide a place to start from for further work. - Learning instruments in a guitar-hero way…

Working out with a VR headset on seems like a great way to get the whole thing disgusting. Hope I can put this $3500 face computer through the washing machine.

Unless Apple has truly screwed the pooch, this has been a solved problem. Sometimes, if you are purposely trying to work out with a VR headset, you just wear a headband to catch the sweat. Most headsets also have cheaply replaceable or even machine washable face "gaskets". If the idea of any sweat in your poor device saddens you, just point a fan at yourself while you work out.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#392

Post by herval »

kaonwarb wrote: post #374
epolanski wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first two iWatches were borderline pointless/bad. The first two iPhones weren't as innovative as they make them,just more polished than other symbians with cameras and internet, it took off with apps really in third iteration. I think visionpro has lots of opportunities in the next iterations, early users will provide feedback this gen.

To each their own perspective! As for me, as a user at the time of fairly cutting-edge cell phones from other manufacturers, my first hands-on with the first iPhone was one of the most memorable technological experiences of my life. Just using the Maps application with multi-touch was magical. Yes, it was slow, limited, etc., but it felt like an entirely different class of device, and that proved to be true.

Isn’t that what people are saying about the Vision Pro too?

Clunky and sorta useless, but “a new class of device”… eventually

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#393

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #371
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first iPhone was pretty terrible. I couldn't get my Marketing peers to take it seriously (which they came to regret). The first Watch was awful. I love my Series 8. Don't get me started on the first Mac...

> The first iPhone was pretty terrible. I definitely do not think that opinion was widespread. If anything I think that the biggest discussed shortcoming of the first iPhone was that it was only available on AT&T.

In the case of my company, the camera was bad.

Also, it took over a year to be able to write apps for it.

JS Web apps were not “apps.”

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#394

Post by epolanski »

TillE wrote: post #356
epolanski wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first two iWatches were borderline pointless/bad. The first two iPhones weren't as innovative as they make them,just more polished than other symbians with cameras and internet, it took off with apps really in third iteration. I think visionpro has lots of opportunities in the next iterations, early users will provide feedback this gen.

> The first two iPhones weren't as innovative as they make them Yes they were. Multi-touch in particular was a revelation. Making a big screen with one physical button is a simple idea, but making it work well was the hard part that nobody else had figured out. Those first iPhones were dog slow, sure, but they absolutely defined how smartphones work ever since.

Do you remember the first phone that allowed you to play music? No. The first one to take photos? No. The first with internet? No.

Yet we're supposed to give to consider the iphone a revelation because of multi touch. I had the iphone 3g. It was a more polished experience than other phones but that revelation part was just not there. Apps made it big, later.

I swear people treat iPhones like a cult.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#395

Post by astrange »

spogbiper wrote: post #88
amlib wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't just about any available headset that costs 10x to 20x less suffice for this?

Pretty much, but I haven't seen anyone on a plane watching movies with a Quest or similar headset

I met someone at a party once who claimed to do this. He turned out to be a cofounder of Twitch. There may be something to conclude here, not sure.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#396

Post by zmmmmm »

coconut08 wrote: post #343
zmmmmm wrote: post #276

Lots of surprises on the downside from all the reviews. Pass through much more limited in quality with motion blur, pixelation, distortions, limited color and dynamic range. The eye tracking driven input method which was seen as holy grail turns out to be annoying after a while because people don't naturally always look at what they want to click on. Personas straight up aren't ready. The lack of AR features is the b…

i generally agree with the sentiment of this post. it does appear to be a beta/dev kit. i will say that the productivity criticism is a BIT unfair. It may be the case that you can only have 1 MACOS display, but you can have many non macos apps running right alongside the 1 macos display. You could have your macos display doing things that only macos can do, and then run the vision pro version of discord or teams or s…

yes true - a lot depends on the integration in that scenario though. Can I seamlessly copy and paste rich content between the, drag and drop, does the mouse seamlessly move from my Mac desktop to the safari window next to it, etc.

At a deeper level it depends a lot on the question of does Apple want this? If they do then all these will be solved over time. But if they actually see MacOS as a legacy integration then they simply aren't going to invest in encouraging people to use it. I'm waiting to see indications on which way they are going to play it.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#397

Post by Flatcircle »

Apple seems to do well with products that are essential. Phones, computers, iPads, airpods, even iPods were essential to walk around the city and listen to music.

The Vision Pro is like Google Glass, a none essential luxury item that seems cumbersome.

I don't think this will make it TBH. But perhaps it does. And if so, seems a bit dystopian.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#398

Post by fishpen0 »

kccqzy wrote: post #234
travem wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For years I’ve been complaining that I can’t easily use my private iPad with my company Mac because they have separate Apple IDs. I have a similar complaint with my Apple Watch and my corporate issued laptop. When I am using my own computer (mac mini) I love how easy it is to use my watch to login, use it to approve actions, etc. However when it comes to my company laptop I have to type my password in repeatedly. I…

No security-conscious corporation is going to allow you to approve any actions with security implications using an Apple Watch secured by a four-digit passcode, rather than an alphanumeric password on a Mac.

MDM is supported by the watch. My organization requires a 10 digit code for watches plus requires biometrics to be resolved on the primary device prior to the watch being able to control that device or interact with apps on that device

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#399

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

stephc_int13 wrote: post #259

I quite often have buyer impulse when seeing the newest high-end Apple products. Even if I don't like the brand monopoly, even if I find their design language mostly boring and bland, there is often something weirdly appealing in their marketing. But in this case, I would probably try this device during half a day if someone gave it to me, but I feel zero desire to own or use one. It does not enable anything that I c…

> I quite often have buyer impulse when seeing the newest high-end Apple products. Even if I don't like the brand monopoly, even if I find their design language mostly boring and bland, there is often something weirdly appealing in their marketing.

This is an utterly bizarre stance.

I can't possibly imagine buying a product, any product, let alone a $1,000+ product, purely based on their marketing, when you admit that you don't even like the product.

Most people, when marketing convinces them to buy something, aren't really consciously aware of it. Not only are you consciously aware of it, but you acknowledge that you don't like it, and buy it anyways.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#400

Post by astrange »

miohtama wrote: post #221
joshstrange wrote: post #124

> Q: What if I wear glasses? > A: The Vision Pro wasn’t designed to be worn with glasses. Instead you have to order prescription Zeiss optical inserts for $99. The two monocle-looking pieces snap right into place. It's $99 for readers (non-prescription) and $149 for a prescription. Very odd that she would have gotten that detail wrong since it's so easy to check and it's been repeated so often in coverage of the AVP.

Can you use Vision Pro with contact lenses?

Depends on your prescription and if they're cosmetic/colored. If you go through the purchase flow it'll tell you if yours work.
Post reply on HN