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

611–620 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#611

Post by Animats »

It's a good review.

Basically, the thing gives you some screens fixed in world space. You have to be mostly stationary for the effect to work. So it won't replace walking around staring at your cell phone. A lot of thought has gone into the interface for this sort of thing. That's the real achievement here, and that matters.

Workplace of the near future - a room full of people, crammed together as on an airplane or in a theater, each wearing a headset. No more desks!

It's still too heavy, though. If it's tethered to a belt-mounted unit, why isn't the electronics down there, instead of in a brick on the back of your head? The headgear part needs to drop to no worse than swim goggles.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#612

Post by pquki4 »

Vegenoid wrote: post #214
AlexandrB wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Underlying a lot of these discussions is the assumption that there is a future where this is an actually useful, mass-market device. I'm still not convinced this is true. For example, "killer apps/content" never arrived for 3D TVs and they have largely disappeared from the market. Same with various "waggling" input technologies like the Wiimote and Kinect. There were some compelling uses, like Wii Sports, but these w…

I see headsets like this as a way to have multiple, large, monitors that go away as soon as you aren't using them. After having a big dual-monitor setup for years, about a year and a half ago I got rid of them and work with just my laptop's display. I do this so that my desk doesn't have to have monitors on it, and is more conducive to artistic work and mechanical tinkering. I don't miss multiple monitors so much, bu…

I used to think the same, but now I don't see these headsets replacing monitors/TVs any time soon.

I don't have a TV at my small apartment but do have two 27 in monitors. Sometimes I wish I had enough space for a sofa and 55+ in TV for movies and shows. And maybe headsets will solve the problem, maybe I don't even need those monitors any more.

Now? I realize I don't need multiple monitors, 2 is enough. (4k is definitely better than 1080p and 2 is better than 1, but I don't think I can properly utilize a third monitor.) And these are good monitors -- not Pro Display XDR good but still premium 4k monitors -- that have been around for years and I'll keep using them until they die. And about movies -- I have tried using the Quest 2/3 to watch movies. It is usable, and apps even provide "scenes" that make you feel you are in a theater. Do I want to wear them and watch movies on a fake 100" screen? No, for obvious reasons (comfort).

If the day comes when they are light, comfortable to wear, allow very good passthrough and actually do a better job than my 4k screens, I'll take another look.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#613

Post by m463 »

slg wrote: post #537
nvarsj wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The better analogy is probably something like the Apple Watch. Apple certainly wasn't the first smartwatch, but anyone who owned one before that was obviously a geek (said lovingly). Apple made the first mainstream acceptable smartwatch by smoothing over a lot of the complaints about their competitors, while adding some of their own in the process, just like the Vision Pro. It took a few iterations, but today people…

Correlation does not imply causation. I think smartwatches (and step trackers) were a thing, independent of apple.

I remember a friend talking about load balancers when they were first came on the market 20 years ago. Cisco had this thing called "localdirector" which I believe couldn't handle load in the first place, while competitors did load balancing in hardware.

I was puzzled why people bought them.

My friend said, "Look, people buy $1M of cisco equipment, and they can just add a line item for one or 10 of these with no friction"

So, I think Apple made their watch a "line item". People buy a phone, and they need cables and the watch is sitting there, and they say "ok!" and try one.

(aside, I love my garmin watch. I just put it on my wrist. I haven't hooked it to my phone or connected it to the internet. It is great with battery life. I track my sleep, which seems to be when most people put their apple watch on a charger. I put my watch on the charger during my shower, which is all it needs)

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#614

Post by the-rc »

sangnoir wrote: post #577
eep_social wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re gonna love this — Motorola was bought by Google in an attempt to jumpstart their hardware business but it turned out to be a failed acquisition. They ended up grabbing the patent portfolio and selling off the rest of the biz fairly quickly.

> You’re gonna love this — Motorola was bought by Google in an attempt to jumpstart their hardware business but it turned out to be a failed acquisition. I wouldn't call Motorola a failed acquisition - Google bought Motorola as a shield in an increasingly litigious environment: this was the age of Apple going "thermonuclear", Microsoft and patent trolls were wantonly shaking down Android vendors, and beginning to cir…

Soon after the acquisition, Google, really Google X, started working with Motorola on a new watch, prototyping it on existing hardware (Motoactv?). Within a few weeks, the whole thing got cancelled. Not sure if that was because of the Samsungs of this world complaining or because of government agencies.

Source: I was supposed to run the dogfood program in the NYC office. I never got the watches, but somewhere I still have the USB extension cords and the (then quite fancy) chargers with dual USB ports, one for your phone and one for the watch.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#615

Post by mvkel »

Animats wrote: post #611

It's a good review. Basically, the thing gives you some screens fixed in world space. You have to be mostly stationary for the effect to work. So it won't replace walking around staring at your cell phone. A lot of thought has gone into the interface for this sort of thing. That's the real achievement here, and that matters. Workplace of the near future - a room full of people, crammed together as on an airplane or i…

I think your description is the absolute best case scenario.

In reality, it will collect dust.

It needs to "do work" faster, or at least more conveniently, than a computer can.

Just needing to put the thing on is a massive hurdle for regular adoption.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#617

Post by mvkel »

al_borland wrote: post #565
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…

The biggest thing for me, from the Verge review, was the limited field of view. Apple sold it as filling the users entire field of view and it sounds like that isn’t the case. When I first saw the reality of the Microsoft HoloLens, that was my disappointment there as well… Google Glass as well. I don’t want to feel like I’m wearing an AR device, as so far, that’s what everything has looked like. Limits of the technol…

That was the surprise to me too. Lower FOV than a Quest 3? Inexcusable.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#618

Post by pquki4 »

treprinum wrote: post #282
patapong wrote: post #26

I think we are now at a stage where VR hardware has surpassed software. Between this and the Quest 3, we have powerful, polished and consumer friendly devices, but beyond a few niches (fitness, simulation, gaming to some extent), there is nothing to convince users to put the headsets on. I am hoping we will see a lot of experimentation in the coming years, and I am excited for what the Apple ecosystem will bring to t…

I personally think MSFS 2020 and Automobilista 2 are killer VR apps. All (wannabe or pro) pilots could learn how to operate any given aircraft in MSFS and relive past glorious racing in A2 on current or historic tracks/cars. Senua and Alyx showed what is possible in gaming as well and why it's so much better than 2D. Elder Scrolls looks great in VR just the controllers make it a joke when fighting (too easy and weird…

they are killer apps, but how many people are going to spend $3500, no, just $1500 or $1000 for just for these things? Well, that is almost the entire market of Quest 3 which Apple does not want to be in. Which is why I feel Quest 3 is a product that makes much more sense than Vision Pro.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#619

Post by pquki4 »

mr_toad wrote: post #227
TulliusCicero wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a bunch of VR games/apps that are notable for fitness. Beat Saber is the most well known one that's explicitly a game, Supernatural is maybe the most famous one that's framed as more of a fitness app/service. But other notable ones include Synth Riders, FitXR, OhShape, Pistol Whip, Thrill of the Fight, and (maybe) Gorilla Tag. And this list is far from exhaustive. VR is pretty good for fitness just because it…

I’d be too worried about sweat damage to use it for serious exercise.

used a Quest 2 for 2 years, and I sweat a lot when doing intensive exercises. No issue so far. And it is $300, cheaper than the base iPad. What else can you ask for.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#620

Post by WheatMillington »

KolmogorovComp wrote: post #158

For me the two takeways from the various reviews are that: - The Vision Pro is the best VR set that can be done today, with massive investment (rumoured 5e9 USD) and competent staff, and hefty price. It is miles ahead of the competition. - It’s still not enough for most if any practical use, apart from films maybe. The technical requirements for a really useful VR are still largely out-of-reach, and will be for at le…

>It is miles ahead of the competition

I really don't think this is correct. It's a bit better at some things than any of its competition, and it's a little worse in some ways too. Other than the displays I don't think you can say it's substantially ahead at all.

Post reply on HN