Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right

hugo.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 863 posts

Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right

#121

Post by ryandrake »

joenot443 wrote: post #114
fouronnes3 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There were a lot of tablets before the iPad but it wasn’t until the iPad that tablets really took off as a serious market segment. Ditto with AirPods and Bluetooth earbuds. In the past, once Apple started pouring R&D money into a specific product type, the entire industry around it tends to advance very quickly. I’m optimistic about the Vision Pro, and I actually think the n+2 Meta release will be much better off for…

My question is why does it seem like only Apple can do this, over and over? Why are they the only ones who seem to be able to knock a product category out of the park and legitimize it? Is it just the vast amount of money? Are they the only ones who can create products? Is everyone else that bad? Competitors work for ages and ages fighting each other, refining v1, v2, v2.1, v2.2, v2.25, and then suddenly Apple comes out with something v8-ish and the whole industry scrambles. Why does this keep happening?

Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right

#122

Post by baby_souffle »

SeanAnderson wrote: post #111
throwaway74432 wrote: post #101

If people wanted to wear a phone screen taped over their eyes out in public, the technical limitations wouldn't barely make a dent in that desire. But the vast majority of people want to have real in-person human interactions when they're out in the world. That's what the makers of these devices fail to see. But they can't see that because they're self-described VR enthusiasts. If they talk to non VR enthusiasts (whi…

I think the key to your last bit is "indoors." People don't consider it rude when talking to each other outdoors because it's mutually understood that wearing the device is beneficial. All it takes is to get to that point with AR. So it's more a critique of the state of AR's present usefulness rather than an innate, immovable reflection on society.

I don’t think it’s just usefulness. I know that you can’t possibly be watching something else on your sunglasses when talking to me indoors or out.

At least with google glass it was trivial to see where the eyes were pointed.

Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right

#123

Post by AlwaysRock »

throwaway74432 wrote: post #101

If people wanted to wear a phone screen taped over their eyes out in public, the technical limitations wouldn't barely make a dent in that desire. But the vast majority of people want to have real in-person human interactions when they're out in the world. That's what the makers of these devices fail to see. But they can't see that because they're self-described VR enthusiasts. If they talk to non VR enthusiasts (whi…

> But the vast majority of people want to have real in-person human interactions when they're out in the world.

Is this true? Most of the time when I'm out and about I'm going from point a to point b and I'm not really interested in talking to anyone I dont already know. If I'm already at a specific place to do a specific thing... I'm not going to have a vr headset on and I'm not really interested in interacting with people I dont already know.

Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right

#124

Post by dylan604 »

ulfw wrote: post #72
dylan604 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

None of them cost even half as much as this thing. What's with the endless comparisons with previous Apple products that were completely different in a completely different market and competitive environment.

If you read the unwritten subtlety of the phrasing, you can see I'm not exactly comparing these devices. Instead, I'm providing an example of where the company's ego would allow them to think that whatever device they do release would eventually be a smash hit. I intentionally didn't list all of the ways these devices are not the same, as I assumed that the audience would be able to put 1+1 together. I guess I'm yet again reminded of why it is bad to assume

Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right

#125

Post by njovin »

SeanAnderson wrote: post #111
throwaway74432 wrote: post #101

If people wanted to wear a phone screen taped over their eyes out in public, the technical limitations wouldn't barely make a dent in that desire. But the vast majority of people want to have real in-person human interactions when they're out in the world. That's what the makers of these devices fail to see. But they can't see that because they're self-described VR enthusiasts. If they talk to non VR enthusiasts (whi…

I think the key to your last bit is "indoors." People don't consider it rude when talking to each other outdoors because it's mutually understood that wearing the device is beneficial. All it takes is to get to that point with AR. So it's more a critique of the state of AR's present usefulness rather than an innate, immovable reflection on society.

The problem isn't the form factor, it's the purpose. Wearing sunglasses is beneficial because it protects my eyes and makes it easier to look at you when you're talking to me.

Wearing an AR device is like telling you something more important than our conversation might come up and I need to be able to quickly shift my focus from you to it.

Maybe it's my age (early 40s) but it's common for our friend/family group to shame each other (in a half-kidding-half-not way) when somebody gets into their phone too much during a social event. "If you're going to be here, be here" is a mantra we tease each other with. We hold each other accountable enough to where when my elementary-age son picks out a movie for us to watch, if one of the adults in the room starts scrolling on their phone he'll pause the movie and ask them if they're going to pay attention or not.

Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right

#126

Post by w8whut »

throwaway74432 wrote: post #101

If people wanted to wear a phone screen taped over their eyes out in public, the technical limitations wouldn't barely make a dent in that desire. But the vast majority of people want to have real in-person human interactions when they're out in the world. That's what the makers of these devices fail to see. But they can't see that because they're self-described VR enthusiasts. If they talk to non VR enthusiasts (whi…

these things change quiet quickly. Ask any zoomers (which i might add arent young anymore either, the first ones'll start turning 30 next year!) if its rude to glance at the phone mid conversation. Gen Y/X generally considered that extremely rude, while gen Z started to see it as completely normal.

Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right

#127

Post by BryantD »

sunflowerfly wrote: post #108
protoman3000 wrote: post #17

No 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?

I believe he nailed it with the live sports argument.if Apple can get that going people will buy it for that alone. I have personally wanted VR for flight sims. It is jarring to have a screen full of instruments or looking out the window, but difficult to do both without a crazy physical setup that I do not want in my office. VR solves this by simply moving your head, the same as pilots do in real life.

Live sports is potentially huge. I am sure companies like Second Spectrum are thinking about how to use their player tracking tech plus traditional video coverage to provide a real time PoV shot from anywhere on the court/field.

Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right

#128

Post by bunnie »

Maybe I'm old fashioned but one of the biggest barriers for me adopting VR/AR is there isn't a socially acceptable way to "duck out" of a VR experience you're just not into. I've been given a couple of demos of headsets by friends and more often than not by the end I feel trapped -- you're strapped into a thing that fully occupies your visual field, yet it's obvious and socially awkward when you take it off.

And your eyes are both covered so there isn't a good way to non-verbally communicate waning interest levels...I suppose a solution is to simply care less if I hurt my friend's feelings but I'd also like a way to spend time with friends without feeling trapped.

At least in an f2f or video call meeting that I'm bored of, I can zone out or look at my phone or tap on my laptop, or do anything but stare at the slides. With eye tracking, the headset knows (and presumably everyone else could know as well) when you're tuned out.

The eye tracking thing also kind of weirds me out from a privacy standpoint. It's already bad enough that web pages track how long you engage with different portions of content. Now they know what parts of images I stare at, and can algorithmically feed me content based solely on my gaze alone. Does that prospect not weird anyone else out? Or are most normal users like "plug me into AR TikTok, but with gaze mechanics now!"

Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right

#129

Post by taylodl »

MR4D wrote: post #115
throwaway74432 wrote: post #101

If people wanted to wear a phone screen taped over their eyes out in public, the technical limitations wouldn't barely make a dent in that desire. But the vast majority of people want to have real in-person human interactions when they're out in the world. That's what the makers of these devices fail to see. But they can't see that because they're self-described VR enthusiasts. If they talk to non VR enthusiasts (whi…

> But the vast majority of people want to have real in-person human interactions when they're out in the world. I think this statement is too strong. I see too many people every day in elevators, in lines, all sorts of different places that are on their phone and specifically avoiding eye contact with other human beings. That suggests that the term “vast majority” is probably too strong.

Right? Eyes down at their phone, Air Pods in, it's not easy to get their attention even if you need to. They're essentially already connected to a VR headset, just a poor version of one.

Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right

#130

Post by i5-2520M »

hedora wrote: post #103
evan_ wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it won’t. It will still be seen as 4x the price of the Quest 3.

It could play out like the iPhone where it costs N times more than the competition, but lasts 2N times longer, and has better resale value. (For iPhone, N is ~1.5) I’m having a hard time imagining that level of planned obsolescence for VR displays though. If anything, I’d expect the quest 4 (or 5, or whatever generation matches Apple specs) to last longer. Of course, it’s a moot point for me and the large percentage…

iPhones on average don't last 3 times as much ib people's hands as Android phones that cost 66% as much. Better resale value is fair, but I am contesting that 2N figure strongly.
Post reply on HN