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

191–200 of 863 posts

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

#191

Post by psunavy03 »

elorant wrote: post #179
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.

Yet.

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

#192

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

SeanAnderson wrote: post #149
njovin wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

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…

We don't have that with phones now, what makes you think AR will be any different?

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

#193

Post by RajT88 »

The blur is a great decision, btw.

Something I observed in the late 90's/early 2000's with my experiments of outputting video from a PC to a TV is - something that looks really rough even at the same resolution on a PC looks significantly better on a TV. The reason being twofold:

1. TV pixels on a CRT are usually diagonally arranged, instead of side-by-side, which helps to hide jaggies.

2. The phosphorous illumination on the glass itself isn't super sharp on a CRT like it is on more modern displays.

The result being - something a little fuzzier makes for a better viewing experience. You can perceive individual pixels (and resulting artifacts) less.

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

#194

Post by 93po »

wolverine876 wrote: post #85
mliker wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, I've had my Vision Pro for a month, and I still use it to watch shows/movies and as my portable external display. It has its daily and weekly use cases

The OP says it's too uncomfortable (including too heavy) to wear for that long. What is your experience with that? > It has its daily and weekly use cases What do you do with it?

I loved movie watching with my AVP but I agree it's too uncomfortable, even lying in bed and having less weight on my cheek bones. I watched two hours of Guards of the Galaxy 3 and got tired of wearing it and finished the last hour on my 13" laptop screen

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

#195

Post by [deleted] »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #9

I 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.

[deleted]

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

#196

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#197

Post by 93po »

rswail wrote: post #29

There's no consideration of the other "killer app" for VR/AR, porn. Porn is what got VHS to succeed over Beta. Porn is what got CC payments working online. Porn drives a lot of Twitch and other platforms. Apple won't allow porn on its platform, but someone will.

I found a single VR porn website that worked with the AVP. It was super finicky (around 30 seconds to load a page and actually get it playing, involving 6 button presses). Also was a paid website.

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

#198

Post by gryn »

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.

I'm sure they get a lot more people if they just advised: hey you can watch 3D p*rn unlike elsewhere.

it's nice for browsing the web, but you have to deal with ads inside their chromium fork.

for working with it as a monitor for work though. it's usable but the resolution is not there yet.

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

#199

Post by diffeomorphism »

evan_ wrote: post #89
dghlsakjg wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think, crucially, Apple also invented a price anchor for VR computing. Previously, only the extreme high end of VR broke $1.5k. 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.

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

Looking at the number of articles which compare m3 macbooks against "intel" but mean "the intel macbook from years ago", I totally expect to read lots of articles which pretend non-apple devices don't exist.

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

#200

Post by hedora »

i5-2520M wrote: post #130
hedora wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I regularly replace my screen 1-2 times between iPhone upgrades, and have never kept one until end of security update support. I've never managed to replace an android screen, and have only replaced one android phone that still had security update support (I've only bought flagship androids.)
Post reply on HN