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

221–230 of 863 posts

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

#221

Post by Retric »

Kwpolska wrote: post #170
Retric wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most people think it's rude to talk to each other indoors with sunglasses on. Nobody finds it rude to talk to each other with actual glasses on. If AR had similar utility and minimal impact on seeing each others eyes, then the same would be true. Sunglasses prevent people from tracking where people are looking which is why they come off as rude. > That's the slimmest form factor you're going to get, and it still st…

Prescription glasses are a necessity. Sunglasses or AR glasses are not.

Reading glasses aren't.

You may not have realized it, but the glasses on tip of nose thing where people lean forward to look at you is because reading glasses make things blurry at conversation distance. Basically this: https://levinsoneyeclinic.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/shu...

However, sometimes people don't bother and they really can't see you very clearly. But, you can still track the body language from where they eyes are looking so it's fine, that's the difference clear lenses make.

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

#222

Post by SeanAnderson »

BytesAndGears wrote: post #208
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…

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…

I think a convincing example is to show a heads-up display of what two people last talked about as to enrich the conversation.

I already do this but more manually. For example, I don't try to remember everyone's birthday. Instead, I put their birthday's in my calendar, get a notification when it's close, and use this information to enrich our relationship.

It seems reasonable to believe this could be extended much further if the barrier to recording and recalling the information was reduced.

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

#223

Post by echelon »

joshstrange wrote: post #218
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 think you could make the exact same argument about almost any tech device, like the iPhone itself which is wildly popular along with the spinoffs. Also VR isn’t what companies, Apple at least, care about. It’s a stepping stone to AR which is why the AVP does a “fake AR” of sorts as its primary mode of operation. You have to walk before you run which is also why Apple pushed VR/ARKit so hard even before they had a d…

> Also VR isn’t what companies, Apple at least, care about. It’s a stepping stone to AR

I couldn't care less about AR. I want VR and only VR.

I don't want digital overlays of the world around me at all. That's completely useless and will be filled with ads and noise. I want to live and breathe in imaginative fantasy worlds and escape the real world completely.

I want to be a character in interactive movies. Have realistic D&D sessions with friends where the real world disappears completely. To create entire planets and universes and populate them with stories and adventures.

I don't want labels on cooking ingredients, advertisements for Taco Bell while I walk around, or email notifications popping up during conversations. AR might have industrial use cases, but the real world implications are annoying.

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

#224

Post by aeturnum »

fouc wrote: post #203

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.

I don't think you are accurately reflecting the article - the author is pointing out that Vision Pro is surprisingly weak in the area of "VR Gaming," which is the most successful experience category for headsets so far. He's not suggesting that's the only use - in fact he spends most of the article talking about other uses. He also goes into detail about his thoughts around displays and says that the Vision Pro will be a compelling alternative as a travel display in the near future - but that he does not see it replacing high quality physical displays.

My sense is that the Vision Pro is certainly, at least, the best "travel monitor" ever built - and it's at a price point and comfort point where that is very hard to use to justify a purchase. That said, future work can improve both substantially.

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

#225

Post by swores »

coldtea wrote: post #213
mliker wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would encourage you to try out both the Quest 3 and the Apple Vision Pro for an extended period of time. If you had asked people during the advent of the television, they would have expressed the same opinion about people wanting social connection instead of sitting in front of a box.

And they would be right. Television did fuck social connection. And the smartphone did it much worse.

No they clearly wouldn't be right. Even if we accept as fact the idea that both those things have had negative effects on society and on us, quite clearly huge numbers of people DO want TVs and smartphones, even if those things aren't leading to better, happier lives.

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

#226

Post by anentropic »

bunnie wrote: post #128

Maybe I'm old fashioned but one of the biggest barriers for me adopting VR/AR is there isn't a socially acceptable way to "duck out" of a VR experience you're just not into. I've been given a couple of demos of headsets by friends and more often than not by the end I feel trapped -- you're strapped into a thing that fully occupies your visual field, yet it's obvious and socially awkward when you take it off. And your…

> The eye tracking thing also kind of weirds me out from a privacy standpoint.

I vaguely remember there being some stuff from Apple about this when it launched - the apps don't have a lot of access to that raw tracking data

Had a quick google... the doc here has more details https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/Apple_Vision_Pro_Privacy_...

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

#227

Post by anentropic »

adamors wrote: post #105
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.

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

au contraire

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

#228

Post by m463 »

germinalphrase wrote: post #211
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 in my late 30’s, and I was a high school educator for about a decade. Teenagers have become quite comfortable holding an entire conversation while wearing earbuds. As an ancient and outdated old person, my initial gut reaction was that it was… a bit rude(?); however, these teenagers just internalized that audio pass-through was a thing, and wearing earbuds didn’t indicate a lack of attention to the conversant. My…

Maybe at some point society will interact with goggles like people chatting at a masquerade ball.

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

#229

Post by aeturnum »

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 do think these kinds of "virtual presence" apps are possible and exciting - and also I think there are huge new challenges that come with the Vision Pro's better spatial computing. If you are in a video game (like fortnight) you easily forgive a lot of jank - your brain isn't expecting it. On the flip side, people will not like someone jumping around "in space" right next to them. Same goes for reproducing movements in avatars.

You can always choose a lower fidelity co-presence, but again if you are doing that why are you wearing the heavy goggles? Just get a discord server and watch on there. I think there are very real technical challenges to combining all of the important aspects, but it is also the category of experience I am most excited by.

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

#230

Post by lm28469 »

germinalphrase wrote: post #211
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 in my late 30’s, and I was a high school educator for about a decade. Teenagers have become quite comfortable holding an entire conversation while wearing earbuds. As an ancient and outdated old person, my initial gut reaction was that it was… a bit rude(?); however, these teenagers just internalized that audio pass-through was a thing, and wearing earbuds didn’t indicate a lack of attention to the conversant. My…

But that doesn't mean it isn't a bad thing. Being a crackhead in a crack house feels like being a fish in water...
Post reply on HN