Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right • Hacker News Board

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

#201

Post by SeanAnderson » Fri, Mar 15, 2024, 3:56 PM UTC

treflop wrote: post #188

SeanAnderson wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sunglasses may detract but they actually serve one purpose -- it's too damned bright out. Having AR glasses on is totally different.

Maybe for this generation, but give it time. I think expectations will shift.

Children used to be told "don't sit so close to the TV" and now we're strapping monitors to our heads.

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

#202

Post by ayewo » Fri, Mar 15, 2024, 3:58 PM UTC

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…

Steve Jobs is on record that Apple doesn’t care about being first (to market). They care about being the best.

This is why secrecy is a huge part of their culture: it allows them to spend years doing R&D work on multiple prototypes until they land on something they think is better than what is already out there.

If they can’t make it work due to the laws of physics (e.g. Apple AirPower) or indecision (e.g. Apple Car), they can shut it down without much fanfare and move on to the next secret R&D project.

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

#203

Post by fouc » Fri, Mar 15, 2024, 3:59 PM UTC

The author of this article and quite a few people in this HN thread all seem to be mainly looking at Vision Pro through the lens of VR gaming. Why else would the author return his Vision Pro?

What makes Vision Pro truly interesting to me is that we can replace our laptop screen with a view containing a larger display and multiple ancillary displays.

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

#204

Post by dspillett » Fri, Mar 15, 2024, 3:59 PM UTC

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…

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

> I don’t buy this. So many people walking around absolutely glued to their smartphones.

I think it is right-ish, and just needs refinement:

Where people have to have human interactions when they're out in the world, the vast majority of them want them to be real in-person.

If I choose to interact with someone, or accept their attempt at interaction, I don't want a device between me and them. I often don't choose that, but this doesn't minimise my preference for non-tech-filtered integration if interaction does happen.

If I'm out on a trail run or trek I'm perfectly happy to exchange pleasantries with others out and about, I'm quite happy to give directions or similar assistance to a tourist while meandering locally (if asked politely, otherwise you will get sent well out of your way), but far less so if they are not looking me in the face.¹

> especially with strangers, service providers, “NPCs”, …

…, bloody survey people, charity muggers, those who think that because they believe [deity] loves me I'm somehow beholden to care, local press outside the station when I get off a train delayed by a significant incident, …

--

[1] caveat: I'm away that some people are very uncomfortable with direct eye contact, that is quite different from not entirely paying attention because of a bit of tech.

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

#205

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Mar 15, 2024, 4:00 PM UTC

SeanAnderson wrote: post #201

treflop wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sunglasses may detract but they actually serve one purpose -- it's too damned bright out. Having AR glasses on is totally different.

Maybe for this generation, but give it time. I think expectations will shift. Children used to be told "don't sit so close to the TV" and now we're strapping monitors to our heads.

[deleted]

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

#206

Post by whynotminot » Fri, Mar 15, 2024, 4:00 PM UTC

ilrwbwrkhv wrote: post #174

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.

Gotta have the kid kicking your seat from behind, and the dude a few rows up who's on his phone the whole time too. Just can't replicate that with AVP.

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

#207

Post by SeanAnderson » Fri, Mar 15, 2024, 4:01 PM UTC

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #192

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…

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

Can you clarify? I'm not sure I understand.

iOS and Android both have Focus Mode:

https://blog.google/products/android/android-focus-mode/

https://support.apple.com/guide/iphone/set-up-a-focus-iphd62...

I guess I don't use this feature when having a conversation with another person because it would require me to get out my phone and change modes when the conversation begins. That's too much of a barrier. In some settings, though, like when going to watch a movie in public, there's a dedicated window where people are expected to shift their phones to a socially acceptable mode. I do respond accordingly in those situations.

With AR, it would seem this process could be automated through facial recognition / voice detection. If there was a setting that said, "Don't notify me of text messages when the system detects I am conversing with another person. Do this automatically" then it seems quite practical to have that enabled. It also seems reasonable that it would be implemented because the concept of "disable notifications temporarily" already exists on phones.

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

#208

Post by BytesAndGears » Fri, Mar 15, 2024, 4:01 PM UTC

SeanAnderson wrote: post #156

baby_souffle wrote: post #122

Earlier 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…

Except what is the benefit that it’s providing, that people asked to have solved?

I feel like if you went up to someone and asked “how can we improve this social interaction?” Literally nobody would suggest strapping a screen to your face anywhere in the list of improvements.

Here’s some other technology improvements:

What would make your TV experience better?

* make it bigger * allow it to use the internet to watch infinite shows * make it cheaper * make the colors brighter

What would make your analog home-phone experience better? * make it portable * make it smaller * allow me to save contacts within it * allow me to take other notes * now that I have this little thing in my pocket anyways, make it do more stuff

Then when we think of the problems that lead to AR being the solution, it’s almost entirely related to business problems. Surgery, manufacturing, carpentry, construction… all would benefit from a HUD that tells you what to put where. Those are real benefits.

But anything that people would do in a social situation? Almost never will the answer to a human interaction problem to be “attach a screen to your face”. In that scenario, all of the solutions are really in search of a problem.

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

#209

Post by whynotminot » Fri, Mar 15, 2024, 4:03 PM UTC

rad_gruchalski wrote: post #133

adamors wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solo-movie watching seems like _a_ usecase, but I'd argue most people don't watch movies alone.

How difficult would it be to build an app where your friends could join remotely, watch the same movie, and appear right next to you? With good enough latency you could talk to each other like you were sitting right next to each other?

I think with Shareplay, Spatial Audio, and Personas Apple already has the core pieces to do something like this baked into the OS.

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

#210

Post by veidr » Fri, Mar 15, 2024, 4:04 PM UTC

treflop wrote: post #188

SeanAnderson wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sunglasses may detract but they actually serve one purpose -- it's too damned bright out. Having AR glasses on is totally different.

It's not totally different. It's very similar.

The main difference is that there might be any number of equally-or-more-valid reasons to have AR/MR glasses on than "it's too bright".

Like, "I'm on call for blahblah" or "I'm watching the baby monitor" or... whatever, a million possibilities.

So yes, AR glasses detract, but no, it's not different.

Also, lots of wearers consider that social interaction complexifier a feature, not a bug. Which is why you see a lot of cops wear sunglasses all the time, even with no sun. For a deep, heart-to-heart conversation with somebody important? Sure, take them off. For anything else...