Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As far as viewing with other people, this doesn’t seem like an insurmountable challenge. This can also be achieved with 3rd party apps. On Quest, this is already a reality with Big Screen.
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.
Apple Vision Pro review
941–950 of 1001 posts
Re: Apple Vision Pro review
#942Earlier 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.
Re: Apple Vision Pro review
#943Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but I can't get unlimited AR desktops for software development etc? You can't because it's computationally impossible. There is simply no computing device that can render unlimited high-res desktops at 60Hz per eye. Not to mention the need to stream all that data to the headset - since you're not going to put a high-end graphics card needed to even attempt this in anything approaching a wearable form factor. Good l…
To clarify, I should have said virtual "desktops" instead of monitors. I don't even need all desktops to be active at once, but be available in physical spaces for me to access in a way that is more intuitive and customizable than pressing the F2 button on my Macbook keyboard and then hovering my cursor over the desktops bar. That would totally suffice. Also, somehow that bar can show what's on each virtual desktop,…
That bar shows a small lower-res preview of each of the desktops, it is not rendering all the desktops at full 4K res. Essentially the smaller a window appears on the screen, the lower effort is needed to draw it.
Re: Apple Vision Pro review
#944Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just compress the stream. Total pixels increase the vram on the device but popping out a static window shouldn't take any more than a trivial amount of streaming bandwidth.
Everything is already compressed. Uncompressed 1080p is 3Gbit/s, which is already well beyond what's actually achievable with WiFi. Allowing an unbounded number of window surfaces to be streamed invites people to use it in a way that current technology simply cannot provide the kind of slick experience that Apple needs from this product.
This allows you to restrict full bitrate to a single window with a maximum resolution and keep the user experience high and astonishment low.
Re: Apple Vision Pro review
#945Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Want it for entertainment? people want to enjoy photos, videos, movies with other people and it can't include them. Not on a plane they don’t. Not in a hotel room on a business trip. IMHo, the Vision Pro is for being somewhere when you’re nowhere; not for being somewhere when you’re already somewhere.
I want to watch stuff or collaborate on projects with my wife on a plane or in a hotel, you just haven’t seen these use cases from Apple yet because the product lacks it in 1.0
The hypothetical use-case that the GP is talking about here, is AR -facilitated collaboration — people in your "see-through" view of the world being able to interact with the AR objects in your field of view, or vice-versa. Being able to AirDrop something to someone's iPhone by dragging a file from a window over to their body that you can see through the lens. You and your SO on the same flight, next to each-other and both wearing headsets, able to see the same set of shared/synced AR objects, and therefore watch the same movie. That kind of thing.
While this is an intended use-case for the Vision "platform" as a whole — it's an implicit promise of the whole "spatial computing paradigm" phrasing — I don't think this kind of AR-facilitated collaboration was ever intended to ship with the Vision Pro.
Why? Because, nobody in the Vision Pro's target market — at least as Apple would have it — wants or cares about AR-facilitated collaboration. I'll get to why in a moment, but in short — it's because it's the Vision Pro. And like Apple's other Pro products, it's mostly intended to be something possessed by an individual but owned and managed by their employer.
Now, Apple clearly intends to build VR -facilitated collaboration — but hasn't yet. That's what all the reviews mean when they say "the collaboration" is half-baked in the Vision Pro. The people in Apple's target market for this thing, expected VR collaboration, and it's not there. But that's an entirely different thing from AR-facilitated collaboration.
The Vision Pro as a specific product offering, almost certainly came out of Apple employees doing pandemic WFH, and realizing that all current "remoting" solutions sucked. Especially if you're a hardware engineer and trying to get a good look at a 3D real-world prototype of a thing. The people who are actually there in the office could just come in and stare at a real 3D-printed prototype. But the WFH people had to settle for looking at a 3D model on a screen... or maybe setting up a Windows machine, connected to an Oculus Quest, and using special compatible CAD software, in order to be able to do a walkaround. And that CAD software definitely didn't let them just paw at the 3D object with their hands.
The Vision Pro is clearly aimed at the "high-fidelity sensory feedback" half of the remoting problem. It's thus the complement to the companies who build telepresence robots — those robots solve the high-fidelity presence and interaction half of the remoting problem. (And you could really do some clever things by combining them!)
But note what else Apple released during the pandemic: Freeform, a piece of collaboration software. In fact, Apple added collaboration features to many of their first-party software offerings during the pandemic.
Apple never thought they'd extract their best work from their WFH (or now, travelling) employees by having them "show up to the office" with a telepresence robot. They rather expect that the best platform for all their engineers — in-office or otherwise — will be a digital office: one made of collaborative apps. And specifically, "level-of-immersion responsive" collaborative apps — apps that can switch between (or be compiled for) both lower-fidelity 2D screen-based UX, and higher-fidelity 3D spatial UX, on the same codebase.
It's this sort of 3D spatial collaboration-app UI experiences that the Vision Pro lacks in 1.0 but will clearly add later. (Which is why Apple cancelled WFH as soon as they could: their "solution to the remoting problem" isn't baked enough for them to usefully dogfood yet!)
But this is effectively VR-facilitated collaboration — working with other people who could be in arbitrary places, in VR or just interacting through a screen, where you see their VR avatars (personas) instead of seeing them. It's "Metaverse stuff" — but don't let Tim Cook catch you calling it that.
But AR-facilitated collaboration — i.e. having other people who are part of your work, present in the room with you, with some or all people in the room wearing Vision headsets with the see-through turned up, and where people wearing the headsets are interacting both with shared AR objects and with others present in physical space (rather than their VR simulacras in VR space)... this all has zero relevance to the remoting use-case. If you're in the office, then you're not going to be wearing a Vision Pro... because you can collaborate by just getting people in a room, and using various screens (AirPlay on an AppleTV display for shared viewing; your Macbooks for running collaboration tools; etc.)
Now, AR-facilitated collaboration is likely a use-case for the "Vision platform" as a whole. (Otherwise, why bother with the AR OS features?) AR-facilitated collaboration, is what a self-employed / freelance creative professional — someone who isn't remoting into some [idea of an] office, but who does have people [e.g. clients] physically present around them who they need to interact with them and with their work — would want. AR-facilitated collaboration would therefore be the defining use-case for a later "Vision Studio": a "prosumer" model targeted at such creative professionals — the same sort of people who buy themselves a Mac Studio. It would match the Vision Pro's targeting (which, if you haven't considered it, will almost certainly end up squarely on "businesses buying these for their remoting employees" — even if the early adopters are individual tech nerds.)
Re: Apple Vision Pro review
#946Earlier quoted context omitted.
People like to say this but my friend just sent me a recording of “drop dead home invasion” with the Quest 3 and my jaw was on the floor. He says it’s amazing too. I’ve also heard about players spending a lot of time in counter strike games like pavlov. At this point it seems like there’s a TON of things to do in VR (and I’m gonna be honest, there were a ton of experiences too on the Quest 1 when I had it). I’m just…
Oh I agree - I loved my experience with Drop Dead Home Invasion, and there are a lot of amazing experiences overall. But, I do think that most of these have more potential as a "demo", that you do a few times but would not motivate you to use a headset every day, beyond a relatively small group of people. It is like VR is currently stuck being Kinect in terms of sales and stickiness, while Meta and Apple would both l…
This matches everyone I’ve heard talk about it, too. It was fun, they enjoyed a few things and then at some point they realized that their headset had multiple months of dust on it.
I think the big question is when costs come down to the point where it’d be reasonable for a non-rich family to have enough headsets to use together. Most people mention technical limits (resolution, latency) but the thing which everyone mentioned as a dealbreaker was that putting the headset on was shutting out everyone around them.
Re: Apple Vision Pro review
#947Re: Apple Vision Pro review
#948Lots 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…
Re: Apple Vision Pro review
#949Earlier quoted context omitted.
in some ways even the reviews seem to be placed by Apple (same as they provided the exact photos of the device the media printed). all of them seem to present a full view with floating widgets, when there's really no way to photograph them
Surely the device just has a screenshot function?
A screenshot would be blurry because of the foveated rendering
The device doesn't even have a power button
Re: Apple Vision Pro review
#950Earlier quoted context omitted.
in some ways even the reviews seem to be placed by Apple (same as they provided the exact photos of the device the media printed). all of them seem to present a full view with floating widgets, when there's really no way to photograph them
Surely the device just has a screenshot function?