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

171–180 of 863 posts

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

#171

Post by beAbU »

wolverine876 wrote: post #162
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'm confused by comments like this one. Apple very specifically designed Vision Pro to address this problem, going to great lengths to make the outside world visible to the user and the user's eyes visible to others, and marketing that they don't want to create isolation. It is also described in the article (where the author thinks they went too far). What do you think of how the Vision Pro addresses this problem?

Most decent NC headphones have audio passthrough which allows you to temporarily easily hear the outside world without problem.

Do you enjoy talking to a colleague while they still have their headphones on, even if you know they have this setting on?

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

#173

Post by lern_too_spel »

whynotminot wrote: post #139
ilrwbwrkhv wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not though. It has all the problems of previous VR headsets. Heavy, digs into your face, gets warm and sweaty, field of view is limited.

It has many of the problems, but it also has crucial improvements (mostly nails the user interface, vastly better pass-through, massively better screens). Did you read the article or just immediately come here to drop comments?

The author is also delusional, having pushed Oculus before VR was ready for the masses. It wasn't then. It isn't now. The technology won't be good enough for a decade.

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

#174

Post by ilrwbwrkhv »

skc wrote: post #96

I recently saw Dune 2 on IMAX. If the Vision Pro can soon replicate that experience they will print (even more) money and could lock the big film studios down forever pretty much. That is the killer use case. Everything else seems like fluff.

Eh not really. What IMAX does with the sound matters too. You can't replicate that with Airpods. Also you do not feel like a weight is pushing into your face. That is a big part of an enjoyable experience.

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

#175

Post by wanderingstan »

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.

Seconded. One glance around coffee shops, buses, or the like is enough to show that screens dominate “out in the world” too. And looking at the trend lines for the past decade, it seems set to continue.

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

#176

Post by SeanAnderson »

_aavaa_ wrote: post #161
SeanAnderson wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My assumption is that this expectation will shift as time passes. I can see a future where people use AR, there's a setting that indicates "full focus" vs "distracted", and people will ask others to stay in "full focus" mode when talking. This would minimize the number of notifications the user receives in an effort to lend focus to the conversation. It'll be the same general expectation as what you're describing, bu…

Full focus mode would have to be passthrough with no notifications or external information. I feel like anything less would just be the current phone status quo.

I dunno. Some people have trouble reading emotions from other people's facial expressions. A heads-up display that conveys this sort of information in real-time could help improve the conversation. Or pulling up highlights from the last time a conversation occurred so you can more easily pick up where you left off.

Of course, some people will feel like these changes reduce the humanity of the interaction because you're letting the device do too much of the work and others will disagree and say that the tech is just helping automate and improve a task they were already performing. Both camps will have fair points.

These sorts of behaviors which augment the conversation seem distinct from concepts like "be shown new text messages while mid-conversation" which I do think should be able to be silenced and conveyed as being silenced.

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

#178

Post by jayd16 »

I'm going to die on the hill that gaze sucks. I really hate focus follows gaze and not having a workable keyboard or buttons makes it hard to actually use this for productivity. It's fine for an alt mode type thing but as the main form of input I kind of hate it.

That said, forcing your hands to be full of controllers also sucks but at least you can play a game. I don't have a solution but it needs to get solved for these things to be seamless enough to wear and useful enough to want to.

And I would call myself an enthusiast.

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

#179

Post by elorant »

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 wouldn’t mind wearing glasses outdoors as long as the environment could provide me with useful information. From a nearby shop that has discounts, to real time traffic updates. What AR was supposed to deliver but never really materialized.

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

#180

Post by The-Bus »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #137
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…

People used to think it's rude to stare at a phone screen too, but here we are. I'm not saying VR will become as normalised as smartphones, mind you, just that it's a possible outcome. That said, VR / AR as we know it now has been a thing for a while now and it hasn't taken off as much.

It still is rude... it's just become commonplace.
Post reply on HN