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

151–160 of 863 posts

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

#151

Post by ericd »

diffeomorphism wrote: post #138
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…

It used to be extremely rude to not take off headphones when people talk to you. Nowadays it is quite accepted for earbuds and "transparency mode" is even a selling point. My guess would be that once AR allows easy sharing, e.g. showing others a funny AR cat video, it will quickly become socially accepted to wear frequently.

Not sure that's changed for millenials, maybe it's more acceptable in gen z/alpha?

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

#152

Post by short_sells_poo »

diffeomorphism wrote: post #138
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…

It used to be extremely rude to not take off headphones when people talk to you. Nowadays it is quite accepted for earbuds and "transparency mode" is even a selling point. My guess would be that once AR allows easy sharing, e.g. showing others a funny AR cat video, it will quickly become socially accepted to wear frequently.

There's an important difference: the subtle face mimicry is extremely important for sub-conscious (and conscious) communication. Having headphones on is rude because it indicates that the other person is not interested in hearing what you have to say. The problem with having an opaque visor covering your face is not that it's rude, it's that you completely lose the non-verbal part of communication. This is why email and phone communication can be so easy to misunderstand. Without seeing the face and body languages of the other person, your mind will have a tendency to overlay biases and prejudices on what is being communicated. A simple "sure, whatever" can be interpreted as obnoxiously dismissive, as a surrender, or friendly banter. If you can see the body language of the other person, the intent is usually clear. If you can't, it isn't.

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

#153

Post by smoldesu »

ugh123 wrote: post #136

IMHO Meta's #1 mistake with VR thus far has been presentation. No good press has ever come with screenshots of silly cartoon avatars (with or without legs). The focus on games highlighted its lack of utility. AVP only highlighted utility, which draws instant connection to our daily lives.

Just speaking for myself here, but owning a Quest I don't entirely agree. The utility of it is kinda crazy - I can browse the web and OpenXR apps from my browser, or tether myself to my PC with the push of a button. Wanna sideload streaming apps and watch movies over SFTP from your homeserver? There are no guardrails in place to stop you.

If I try to imagine myself living the same workflow on Apple Vision Pro, I get hung up on the cost. $3,500 is a big ask for a VR iPad with a lot of the same pitfalls as the tablet.

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

#154

Post by nerdjon »

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 disagree, there is a difference between desire and practicality.

For example, I would love and could easily justify the 12.9 inch iPad but the logistics of traveling with it make no sense for me.

I could justify the benefits of traveling everywhere with my high powered gaming pc but logistically it makes no sense.

These devices are still largely impractical for long term use, and particularly outside use. They won't be until the hardware catches up with what we are working on with the software and it is an almost invisible technology except for a mostly standard looking pair of glasses.

People already walk around with their phone almost attached to their face, it isn't hard to imagine wanting an AR headset.

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

#155

Post by montagg »

andsoitis wrote: post #144
diffeomorphism wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It used to be extremely rude to not take off headphones when people talk to you. Nowadays it is quite accepted for earbuds and "transparency mode" is even a selling point. My guess would be that once AR allows easy sharing, e.g. showing others a funny AR cat video, it will quickly become socially accepted to wear frequently.

> Nowadays it is quite accepted for earbuds Hard disagree. Except for brief interactions like ordering a coffee, I don’t think it is at all socially common for people to keep headphones on when they talk with others. Maybe it varies by culture, or social circle.

It varies. I’m totally fine with it if it’s clear the person can hear and interact with me, and the people I interact with a lot do it to varying degrees, and no one’s offended.

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

#156

Post by SeanAnderson »

baby_souffle wrote: post #122
SeanAnderson wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree it is unfortunate that you can't tell where someone's eyes are at when talking with sunglasses on and I also agree that it detracts from the socialization experience.

I do not feel that this loss makes it rude to have an outside conversation wearing sunglasses in a sunny environment.

So, I still think that AR will find its way in. I'm not saying it won't reduce the socialization experience further. It'll just be perceived as semi-necessary, understandable, and life will move on.

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

#157

Post by move-on-by »

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…

> Most people think it’s rude to talk to each other indoors with sunglasses on

…really? I have prescription glasses/sunglasses and I often don’t bother switching them during a quick excursion- such as daycare pickup/drop off. It’s never crossed my mind that I could be perceived as rude. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that anyone with such opinions do not have the level prescription that are required for driving and just general consent use. And for anyone thinking transition lenses would be the solution- those do not work in vehicles with UV blocking windows.

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

#158

Post by dmix »

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…

Apple Vision wasn’t designed to be used outdoors in public settings with moving backgrounds.

Those were just viral memes of people using it like that for fun.

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

#159

Post by px43 »

ryandrake wrote: post #116
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 don’t buy this. So many people walking around absolutely glued to their smartphones. Neck crooked down, ignoring the world, even inside businesses, social situations, at home, at work, and the taboo is very quickly softening! I often notice couples sitting in a restaurant, basically ignoring each other in favor of their phones for an entire meal. No human connection going on here! People want human connections less…

IMO people on their smartphones are generally experiencing 10-100x the human connections that people without their smartphones are experiencing. That's exactly why they're so addictive. Smart phones let people push themselves right to the very edge of Dunbar's limit for social connectivity, which is why it can get stressful and exhausting, and is probably damaging when done in extended periods.

Putting your phone down for a few hours to stare at the trees, or the water, or the clouds passing by, and maybe chatting up a couple nearby people doing the same, that is now the epitome of disconnected blissful ignorance.

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

#160

Post by noneeeed »

ryandrake wrote: post #121
joenot443 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They seem prepared to go in at higher price points.

Most other manufacturers seem to take the approach of getting as many features on the side of the box and then compete on price. They cost engineer the crap out of everything and it ends up being somewhat disappointing.

I often maintain that so much technology is 80% of the way to being amazing, but is stymied by commercial concerns that cause companies to cut corners and cheap out, or they hobble their own product to create barriers to interoperability.

While Apple still have to strike the right balance between between features and cost, and also like to make their own walled gardens, they are able to go for the higher price points, and also integrate really well between a wide swathe of products. They are prepared to let specific products be less competative in general (e.g Homepod), because they know that they integrate well into their overall ecosystem.

Post reply on HN