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…
Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right
181–190 of 863 posts
Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right
#182If 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…
Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
VR as a category is niche. Apple will expand the public consciousness of it, but at $3,500 AVP is also niche.
There's nothing wrong with that. If it takes a decade for the tech to be good enough so be it--I'll be glad people were innovating and experimenting in the interim to get it right, and that the folks willing to sign up as beta testers helped push progress forward.
People get mad about this stuff--you don't have to buy it! I still haven't and probably won't until it feels more ready.
Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right
#184His point on the significant motion-blur / image quality issues that exists with pass-through is my biggest complaint with the device hardware-wise. I got the prescription lens inserts that Apple had suggested, and when I first put on the device I thought that either my eye doctor had gotten my prescription wrong, or something was defective with my device. The blur is distracting -- and looking further away makes it…
Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right
#185If 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…
Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right
#186If 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…
This is why linux perpetually has <5% adoption. It's made and maintained by linux enthusiasts who are incapable of understanding how the average person wants to use a computer.
Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
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: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Having AR glasses on is totally different.
Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 corne…
Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right
#190If 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…
The second paragraph seems silly. Nobody thinks its rude to talk with normal glasses on, and that's the same form factor. Meta's AR glasses are already available as both sunglasses and normal glasses (though obviously lacking in actual AR).
https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/meta-launches-expanded...