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

931–940 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#931

Post by al_borland »

gpxyz wrote: post #763
tsunamifury wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple used to excel at making the right trade off here. Choosing what feels right over numbers.

I remember when the first Android phones with 4-inch screens hit the market, I saw someone comment online that if a 4-inch screen was better Apple would have figured that out during R&D for the iPhone and made the original iPhone 4 inches.

I still think the original iPhone was the best size. I use the iPhone mini today, and I wouldn't mind it being a bit smaller still.

It really lends itself to the phone being a tool, rather than a device for endless entertainment. It also suggests it is an accessory, with the desktop/laptop being the home base, rather than the phone being a primary device.

It really bothers me that the phone is now at the center of the ecosystem. It seems like the hub should be something that isn't as vulnerable (to theft, loss, or drops) as a phone.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#932

Post by wkirby »

abletonlive wrote: post #530
wkirby wrote: post #334

This seems like a prank. I simply cannot fathom wanting this even if it were free --- and I own and have used multiple VR headsets. The idea that I'd want to live any significant portion of my day in one seems like absolutely madness.

I don't think apple is expecting for normal consumers to buy this product. It seems like a dev kit for a future where AR glasses are possible

Even that future seems massively unappealing as a consumer.

Plus a $3500 dev kit that lets me set a kitchen timer, while simultaneously recommending I not wear the device while cooking, seems crazy to me.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#933

Post by LeonenTheDK »

NineStarPoint wrote: post #915
aenis wrote: post #764

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder who would actually do that. The only reason I watch tv is to socialize with my family. I think if we were just sitting on the couch all wearing VR googles it would ruin the entire use case for watching stuff together. Surely, some geeks, once or twice.

The use case is watching something with people who are half a world away I think, not with people who are physically present with you.

I wonder if that "theatre experience" would be a significant improvement for most people. I already do this with friends remotely by jumping on discord and hitting play on whatever service we're using at the same time. There more more automatically in-sync solutions out there for sure, but I can't see doing this in VR being more than a novelty that wears out after a few sessions.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#934

Post by solardev »

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…

Wouldn't it be simpler to just wall mount (or edge of desk mount) the monitors on pivoting arms so you can have desk space when you need it, with the monitors floating out of the way? VR seems like such an unnecessarily complicated way to do multi monitors.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#935

Post by lelandfe »

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.

I’m imagining trying to do burpees with this on my face. Or attempting to press a barbell up and shattering the device. No thanks!

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#936

Post by LeonenTheDK »

ravenstine wrote: post #895
danpalmer wrote: post #627

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does Airplay from a Mac to the headset. You look at the Mac and then tap the "connect" button that appears in mid air above it. Apparently it's very seamless and has good latency. What you don't get is Mac windows intermingled with AVP windows, it's just your Mac screen as one window that you can move about. It sounds good though, and there has been a fair amount of movement in screen sharing over the last few mac…

Yeah, that's not great. I guess that's slightly useful, but what I'm looking for is the ability is more like virtual desktops but being able to place each desktop into physical space. Being able to do that with individual windows would be even better, but I'd be fine with the virtual desktops. If Vision Pro can do Airplay, then I don't know why Apple decided not to do an integration with virtual desktops from macOS.…

I've been keeping an eye on the Simula One for some time, it does what I think you're looking for[1]. I have to assume outside of the Apple ecosystem this type of this is already possible with existing VR headsets, but the closest I've seen is Virtual Desktop[2].

I guess for the Apple ecosystem we've gotta wait for some software updates to make it more useful. Not that I can justify paying my own money for the Vision Pro or Simula One.

[1] https://youtu.be/a3uN7d51Cco?t=16 [2] https://www.vrdesktop.net/

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#937

Post by ashildr »

parentheses wrote: post #726
ravenstine wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, I remember when it was announced, to press materials gave the impression that it would be closely integrable with macOS. I was picturing using VS Code from within it. Which I guess I could do if I set up VNC... but I'm not paying thousands for that. Is an AR productivity tool really so hard? Apple owns the whole stack here. Nintendo can do Mario Kart AR in your living room with an RC car, but I can't get unlimit…

I'm surprised we still don't have an X-like "render on the drawing device" model. Rather than sending pixel, you send a higher abstraction model from which the UI can be drawn.

We still had this (--NSDisplay ?) in the first Developer Previews of MacOSX.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#938

Post by dwaite »

al_borland wrote: post #929
Solvency wrote: post #922

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of wearing a VR headset so I can "enjoy photos with friends" is absolutely hilarious and so deeply disconnected from what human beings want and need as a species.

Every time I see the spatial photos and spatial videos, I always view it as someone putting on their VR headset to reliving a memory of someone who died. Then they take the headset off and realize they are alone and the loss broke them. I have a lot of trouble not seeing those videos from a very depressing place.

People are totally allowed to watch videos of their children without their children being dead.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#939

Post by Xirgil »

Roark66 wrote: post #743
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well there’s FOV and there’s pixel density which are both too low right now and antagonistic to one another feature wise. There’s also display brightness which is an issue and I’m not sure how that fits in to the FOV/density spectrum. And then more pixels means more compute… That prototypes exist doesn’t necessarily mean much in a space that is full of prototypes showing off one particular feature. The very hard thin…

>Well there’s FOV and there’s pixel density which are both too low right now. Exactly. You know what is the best "goggle" type display I ever saw (and I tried quite a few)? Recent FPV goggles (hdzero) that have 1930*1080 OLED displays at approximately 46 degrees fov. I'm very glad the manufacturer decided to use the his low fov instead of increasing it to 55deg and more like others. The picture is insanely crisp, and…

motorized displays also sounds HEAVY which is a big issue for a device intended to be used for long periods of time

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#940

Post by dwaite »

jojobas wrote: post #787
saagarjha wrote: post #775

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did you get those numbers? They seem quite low, considering that they do 4K mirroring and all.

They don't do 4k mirroring. A 4k monitor has 8 million pixels while the googles have about 11 million pixels per eye. True 4k is only possible if you use 85% of vertical and 85% of horizontal FoV, like when staring at a 24" monitor from 15cm.

Even if they were double the resolution per eye, you aren't going to have "native" 4k reproduction because you are looking at a projection of a screen rather than an actual screen. What is the value of achieving one "accurate" pixel if it is surrounded by eight bilinear-interpolated ones?

But then, you usually don't buy a 4k screen because you can perceive the individual pixels either, unless you are creating content that requires that.

I suspect it aligns easier with the quality concerns of reality and not with virtual components - if I can use a monitor through the screen with no noticeable loss of quality or additional eye strain, there's no reason to think a virtualized monitor won't be at least as good.

Post reply on HN