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

501–510 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#501

Post by mbreese »

epolanski wrote: post #394
TillE wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I had phones before the iPhone that took pictures and played music (and a Nokia tablet with wifi internet browsing).

The iPhone was the first one that I actually used to take pictures and play music. It wasn’t the first to have those features (and the edge network was super slow), but that polished experience is what made it work. And made it clear to everyone how we would interact with phones for decades to come.

It was a technological inflection point. That’s why it is looked back on the was it is.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#502

Post by lapcat »

mbreese wrote: post #478
nightski wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The iPhone was subsidized by mobile carriers and/or interest free payment plans. I don't see that same path for this VR device, but maybe I am missing something.

The original iPhone wasn’t subsidized… it was bought outright. It was only after Apple proved the potential of the iPhone did the carriers get on board (and even then, it was limited support for quite a while).

> The original iPhone wasn’t subsidized… it was bought outright. It was only after Apple proved the potential of the iPhone did the carriers get on board (and even then, it was limited support for quite a while).

Completely untrue. The original iPhone required a 2-year contract with AT&T/Cingular. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_(1st_generation)#Releas...

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#503

Post by diebeforei485 »

Johnie wrote: post #424
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…

Reminds me of iPhone 1. Everything you've said is reminiscent of the reviews of the first iPhone.

The first gen iPhone had a much better UX than other phones, so missing a few features like copy and paste was palatable.

I do think future generations of AVP will do well. Iterating and applying learnings and customer feedback will make this a good product.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#504

Post by Nifty3929 »

My main objection to these type of technologies (I feel similarly about voice control) - is that I don't WANT to use large hand gestures (or verbal expression) to control my device. It's exhausting, and too much interference with the ambient experience. I can control my whole desktop experience with very little wrist motion using my speedy mouse. I have a bunch of extra buttons under my thumb for a variety of tasks as well.

Reaching out with my whole arm to click, or pinch to zoom, is a HORRIBLE user experience. (For most things - clearly VR games and such will be fine).

It seems I can connect an ordinary keyboard and mouse to it though, so I could see using it as essentially a really large monitor. As long as I can point and click with my mouse independent of my eyes or head position, and my text-entry focus doesn't move without permission.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#505

Post by nvarsj »

Johnie wrote: post #424
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…

Reminds me of iPhone 1. Everything you've said is reminiscent of the reviews of the first iPhone.

This iPhone trope has gotta die. I worked at Motorola when the iPhone came out. Every single engineer knew this thing would blow everything else out of the water. It was one of the largest leaps in consumer tech devices ever. I assure you the Vision Pro is nowhere close to that.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#506

Post by nylonstrung »

Johnie wrote: post #424
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…

Reminds me of iPhone 1. Everything you've said is reminiscent of the reviews of the first iPhone.

iPhone 1 was the effectively the first mass market smartphone

This however is coming after a decade of existing AR/VR consumer electronics and still misses the mark

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#507

Post by iteratethis »

My hot take:

VR enthusiasts, which I guess now includes Apple, assume there's some natural, obvious mass market demand for such a solution if only the tech is good enough.

I'm telling you that this mass appeal doesn't exist. Nobody cares about AR/VR. We've had AR on iOS for a decade and other than navigation and Pokemon, there's no killer apps, no ecosystem.

I took my colleagues to a VR center, where they could experiment with lots of setups, try out games and experiences. They had a great time but nobody spoke about it ever again and nobody bought any device. And these people work in tech.

The tech isn't the problem. The entire interaction simply isn't a fit.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#508

Post by penneyd »

oomun wrote: post #487
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…

genuine curiosity, how often are you clicking something without looking at it at least for a moment? or, how often do we believe other people are clicking something with out looking at it? im examining this for myself...hard to feel organic while im actively focusing on it, but i at least glance at my mouse pointer target while traversing the pointer towards the target across my screens

Often times I'll look to position the mouse and then look at something else when I actually hit the button.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#509

Post by naravara »

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…

> Want it for productivity? it can't run MacOS applications and if you want to use your actual Mac it can't do multiple monitors.

I don’t know why, but while I feel multiple monitors helps my productivity a lot in Windows and Linux I find myself not caring as much in MacOS as long as the screen is big enough. I think it has to do with my habits around how I use the windowing in each. I tend to teasselate and arrange them in MacOS while I tend to maximize or lock to screed edges in Windows.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#510

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

ssl-3 wrote: post #401
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

For example: It didn't multitask, even though other pocket computers for a Long Time had at least the appearance of multitasking. It didn't have the ability to install any additional software, even though other pocket computers for a Long Time handled third-party software just fine. It didn't even have a copy/paste function, even though [WTF? Srsly, Apple?]. All of these things were eventually corrected by Apple, but…

I guess I (and to be honest, reviewers at large at the time) just have a very different definition of "pretty terrible". Sure, it was easy to see how it wasn't "fully complete", but I think that is true of literally every brand new product.

And to take two of your examples, multitasking and 3rd party software, yeah, other pocket computers had them, and they generally sucked hard (see, Windows Mobile). Even the lack of copy/paste - other phones had them, but there was (and honestly still is) considerable debate over how it should be implemented given multitouch was new.

Post reply on HN