I think the description of the VisionPro as a dev kit is spot on. It's also a beta product in many way. Apple know full well that this is not a mass market product, they have made no attempt to make it even remotely affordable to most people. But they also know that every aspect of the hardware will improve over the next decade, and as it does they will have ironed out many of the problems with how we use AR/VR and w…
Hopefully you're right, but the cynic in me thinks we've been saying the same thing about every VR headset that has come out in the last ten years.
Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right
71–80 of 863 posts
Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
Incomplete, with a poor launch app ecosystem, dependent on owning another of the company's devices to scan your head to get a rather variable quality of mask fit, and when that phone guesses wrong it costs the customer a further $300 for a second guess? As long as the fans keep paying, I suppose you're right.
you just described the first iPod, iPhone, and iPad. they were right about them. you could see where they would assume the magic would happen again just from hubris.
Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right
#73I like my Oculus Rift. But the software is so bad. It is confusing, after a month not using it, I don't know where each setting is. Sometimes I misconfigure, and there is no easy way to reset it and move everything into view again. Hardware is fine for my needs (playing Alyx), but the software looks like somthing bought from seven sources and glued together.
Is there something inherently difficult or novel about VR operating software that would make it difficult to design or implement controls? I can understand tracking hands is difficult, but I mean the problems you have. It seems crazy that after investing so much in the 'hard part', the VR hardware and software itself, they'd drop the ball on what seems mundane - basic design of UI controls.
We don’t come up with totally new ways to interact with our computers often. And Facebook has never stood out for their UI brilliance.
Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right
#74I think the description of the VisionPro as a dev kit is spot on. It's also a beta product in many way. Apple know full well that this is not a mass market product, they have made no attempt to make it even remotely affordable to most people. But they also know that every aspect of the hardware will improve over the next decade, and as it does they will have ironed out many of the problems with how we use AR/VR and w…
Now if apple puts out an Apple Vision SE or non-pro or whatever at $1,999 it will be seen as an absolute steal.
Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right
#75I think the description of the VisionPro as a dev kit is spot on. It's also a beta product in many way. Apple know full well that this is not a mass market product, they have made no attempt to make it even remotely affordable to most people. But they also know that every aspect of the hardware will improve over the next decade, and as it does they will have ironed out many of the problems with how we use AR/VR and w…
Hopefully you're right, but the cynic in me thinks we've been saying the same thing about every VR headset that has come out in the last ten years.
Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right
#76Makes me think of the blurring effect of phosphors on a CRT.
Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right
#77Great article. It's so long, the four-part title is deserved and necessary to understand what's here. I found this part somewhat funny or perhaps disingenuous: > "I admit Vision Pro is the ultimate tech toy, but since I’m not an active developer I can’t justify the $4,049.78 price tag (512GB model + California sales tax) simply for keeping up with the VR market, so I returned my Vision Pro for a full refund inside th…
In this situation I’d either keep it and use it infrequently (or maybe it’d grow on me), or perhaps sell it.
Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right
#78Great article. It's so long, the four-part title is deserved and necessary to understand what's here. I found this part somewhat funny or perhaps disingenuous: > "I admit Vision Pro is the ultimate tech toy, but since I’m not an active developer I can’t justify the $4,049.78 price tag (512GB model + California sales tax) simply for keeping up with the VR market, so I returned my Vision Pro for a full refund inside th…
I have found that many of the affluent engineers that I know exhibit this sort of... line of thinking. this how should I say, false frugality, that at the end of the day doesn't really move the needle much (since they're making 200-300+K TC minimum) but makes them feel good people who will, instead of directly using their subsidized subsidized clipper card benefits, will load their clipper card with credit cards for…
Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right
#79No matter how much I contemplate about it, there was still no “killer” app that affords me to buy a VR set. I’ve tried them, it’s nice. But it really has no place in my life. And how could this change? Even with better displays etc. the whole idea of disconnecting my main sense - the eyes - from my surroundings is so strange to me that it seems irreconcilable. Can anybody relate?
FWIW Apple's fundamental concept is to address that very problem - to not disconnect your eyes from your surroundings; they work very hard so that you can see your surroundings and that others can see your eyes, and so that their apps tend into integrate your surroundings.
(The article talks about it, and the author thinks they are shortchanging VR.)
> Can anybody relate?
The way I personally relate is the old, seemingly fundamental human instinct I have that shows up especially when new tech is incompatible with my existing life. It forces change if I adopt it, which I don't appreciate, and worse I might be compelled to change if it becomes a normal part of life - if it's necessary competitively or to sufficiently fit into society (e.g., smartphones).
So it's the old story: First I laugh at it (we seem past that for VR); second I say it conflicts with the orthodoxy (my established life, in this case); and third, someday, I'll say I knew it all along. :)
I'm kinda in the second stage, and maybe you are too? As a technologist - that is, as someone whose job is to evaluate and adapt new technologies - I can't afford to indulge that 3-step cycle or I will be giving people advice based on those instincts (1. 'that's ridiculous/vaporware/useless, don't worry about it', 2. 'it's not compatible/applicable for your business', 3. 'it's what everyone is doing!') and fail to be ahead of the curve. Plus, those instincts limit me as a person. So I've needed to learn to recognize that cycle and not act on it, but to evaluate new tech on its own merits.
That turns out to be hard even after lots of practice - it's hard to ignore all the instinct and the constant signals from everyone else, and think for yourself. We're social animals. So it's hard to imagine the killer, high value apps until they are out there, until everyone else signals their value. But some that stand out as possibilities to me:
- AR: Data and metadata on things in the world around me. It seems especially good for work with physical objects: Showing me their specs, diagrams of how they should look, alternate perspectives. Imagine working on your car with AR.
- 3-D VR work rooms: A room with all of your electronic documents, videos, applications, etc. for a project. Also you can have virtual objects - the live control panel from the router, copies of the physical object you are designing, etc. The room can be as large as you want. It seems especially great for teams, where people can bring in documents and objects to share and work on together with everyone else. This seems so much better than current collaboration.
- Presence at things like sporting events: Seats right on the sideline or even views from the field itself: Watch Messi's dribbling and goal form the goalie's perspective. Watch the pitch from the batter's perspective (or the referee's, for those controversial calls). Also for theater, etc.
- 3-D, immersive films and games, of course. Art seems to have great potential, but will need some time to develop, as artists learn the nuances of the medium (and as only games get funding).
Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right
#80I remember being sooooo tempted to buy a devkit just so I could play about, see if I can get it to work with my own 3D games. Would it be a pointless exercise? Yes. However, would I learn from it as a programmer? Yes. To this very day, I still dont have a VR headset. I am actually a tad behind with the latest ones, if I am honest about it. There is a VR place in our City which I take my children to (and myself) for s…