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

981–990 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#981

Post by Civitello »

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…

I'm pretty sure one of the varjo headsets had displays like you describe.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#982

Post by hyperdimension »

ActorNightly wrote: post #731
jnaina wrote: post #654

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what you are going on about, that the original iPhone was a PoC. Given what was available at that time (I was using a Windows Mobile O2 XDA AND a Blackberry at that time), the iPhone was simply magical. The ability to browse the full web on the go and a proper mail client, was amazing. Worth the money to travel to San Francisco from Singapore just to get one (and the cost of the AT&T SIM masker to spoof it o…

Again, no. You completely somehow forgot tech in late 2000s lol. The internet on anything mobile was pretty painful when it launched in general. Websites weren't optimized for mobile, mobile data was unusably slow. Most people who wanted portability were using things like netbooks, which you could actually multitask on. Blackberry was the goto for actual phone because it was much easier to type on due to the best key…

I am so glad his website is still up and running.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#983

Post by chaostheory »

LeonenTheDK wrote: post #933
NineStarPoint wrote: post #915

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You should actually try it before coming to that conclusion.

The main difference between discord, zoom or any other flat viewing experience vs VR is immersion. Words don’t do it justice, you have to experience it yourself.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#984

Post by ls612 »

__m wrote: post #756
ls612 wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was always going to happen. The human eye has a field of view and dynamic range no display technology can hope to match anytime soon. The future of AR is not reprojecting the outside world on a screen; it is screens which can become transparent.

For that to happen we would need a transparent display that can block light. Seeing content on an additive display will always look somewhat transparent, with no hope of displaying blacks. The augmentation on the vision pro look so much better than on a HoloLens2, it's like looking at 3d printed objects.

My impression is that this is known to be possible and it’s mainly an engineering challenge to get good yields cheaply.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#985

Post by ekms »

presentation wrote: post #725
FPGAhacker wrote: post #606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wait, Memoji is still a thing?

I have literally never had anybody I know ever send me a Memoji. Maybe there's a different community that uses it, but I don't know who that is.

I think parent comment was maybe trolling a bit with a memoji comparison lol. Hard to say though

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#986

Post by OrangeMusic »

Solvency wrote: post #922
bjacobel wrote: post #910

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The end goal here - multiple people who are isolated by the technology they're wearing experiencing a simulacrum of human interaction mediated by that technology - is not only unbelievably depressing but also honestly just really boring. We've already built this. It was called the "metaverse" and it sucked. Everyone left.

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.

It's all about tradeoffs. If you get at the same time:

- gigantic (virtual) screens showing your photos/videos in a spectacular way

AND

- a incredibly small, light, comfortable, and almost unnoticeable (e.g. glasses) headset

then, yes people will absolutely use that instead of actual photos printed on paper.

Obviously we're not there yet.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#989

Post by chfalck »

bjacobel wrote: post #910
al_borland wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The end goal here - multiple people who are isolated by the technology they're wearing experiencing a simulacrum of human interaction mediated by that technology - is not only unbelievably depressing but also honestly just really boring. We've already built this. It was called the "metaverse" and it sucked. Everyone left.

I mean, I work full time remotely at home (company is in a different state, family is here where I live). If you watch the FaceTime section of MKBHD’s review, that would be a phenomenal improvement over Teams chat with web cams.

While I wouldn’t move back just to go into the office, I absolutely miss the ability to look at a specific person while talking in meetings, and for other to have the context about who you’re looking at with head turning or gestures etc…

In a Teams group chat, I’m always talking to the whole wall of faces essentially. Only by context of the conversation can you figure out who someone is talking to, and even then their webcam might be off center or on a separate monitor from where they’re looking and you don’t even pretend to make eye contact. There is no way to break out into an isolated side conversation or select your gaze and there’s a lot of value there.

There’s also the concept of sharing a virtual room with a person I’m collaborating with. Drawing on a whiteboard, walking around pointing at things on the monitor and such. The feeling of a shared physical space is powerful for collaboration.

Anyways, what I’m trying to say is this: The thought of replacing all human interaction with tech is of course depressing, but I don’t view this like that. This is technology that can meet people where they are and improve an existing experience. I’m not moving away from my family, esp. as my parents get older, and I will remain working remotely for the company because I very much enjoy what I work on, my team, and the way the company treats me.

This tech is a step towards making the shortcomings of remote work less impactful. It’s stupid expensive and the first iteration so it’ll have problems, but I’m much more excited by Apple’s approach to this than Facebook’s nonsense. Excited to see where it develops and how it’s adopted as it becomes cheaper.

Post reply on HN