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

#241

Post by iknowstuff » Fri, Mar 15, 2024, 4:27 PM UTC

Workaccount2 wrote: post #166

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…

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.

Gnome is the outlier with beautiful design and they get soo much shit from Linux neckbeards for it haha

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

#242

Post by aaarrm » Fri, Mar 15, 2024, 4:27 PM UTC

dghlsakjg wrote: post #74

noneeeed wrote: post #30

I think the description of the VisionPro as a dev kit is spot on. It's also a beta product in many way. Apple know full well that this is not a mass market product, they have made no attempt to make it even remotely affordable to most people. But they also know that every aspect of the hardware will improve over the next decade, and as it does they will have ironed out many of the problems with how we use AR/VR and w…

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.

There are many headsets much more expensive than that. They aren't as mainstream but for the hobbyist who is willing to pay more for better, they are definitely out there.

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

#243

Post by liendolucas » Fri, Mar 15, 2024, 4:27 PM UTC

One of the things that I will never understand of the Vision Pro is why on earth they went to design and build the front of the headset to have that colorful alive gradient or a truly bad rendering of the user's face. That screams bad overengineering with undesired added weight and extra power consumption. Also it seems that the front glass from some batches crack exactly the same way. Again, why go with that at all? Why not use some better material? Carbon fiber seems like a good choice when it comes to weight though I do not know if it has downsides besides cost.

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

#244

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Mar 15, 2024, 4:28 PM UTC

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

#245

Post by lefstathiou » Fri, Mar 15, 2024, 4:28 PM UTC

My two cents (as an owner of a Vision Pro): 1) This is a beta product and I wouldnt recommend it to anyone that is not a developer or in a position to create apps for it, 2) this is going to have as big of an impact on humanity as the computer or the internet did and every engineer or aspiring entrepreneur should pay it attention.

This device is magical. Yes it's too heavy, yes there are not enough apps, yes sharing it with other people is a hassle. Every one of those issues will be solved in the next 2 generations.

When the screen is 50% better and it weighs 50% less, 20% of knowledge workers will be tuned in daily. Technology isnt a zero sum game, but I genuinely believe the impact will be bigger than AI. AI changes the way you work, Apple Vision will change the way you live, which will change the things you consume, which will impact the work that needs to be done to serve you. Empires will rise and fall. Travel to beaches will go up, travel to tier 3 towns and cities with minor attractions could get obliterated. Most TVs will disappear. My grand children will be able to experience memories with me long after I'm dead. After this, looking at my smartphone seems so analog. Anyway, I could go on for hours

Lastly, on the topic of pricing, there is a great book titled Positioning by Al Reiss that highlights the rational behind Apple's strategy on pricing. They are a second mover in this space, they needed to come out of the gate as the absolute gold standard of this technology and position it as the best money can buy. They delivered on both the tech and pricing. Long after the price comes down, they'll still own that position of being the best money can buy. When you own the position, it takes a lot to lose it. It will be almost impossible for Meta to take that from them now. Big mistake on Meta's part.

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

#246

Post by _heimdall » Fri, Mar 15, 2024, 4:29 PM UTC

gpm wrote: post #81

fouronnes3 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hopefully you're right, but the cynic in me thinks we've been saying the same thing about every VR headset that has come out in the last ten years.

The cynic in you is overly cynical. Ten years ago was pre oculus rift. We weren't saying anything about VR headsets. Five years ago was pre valve index. We didn't have CPUs in a headset. Nor a battery. Cameras were only used for tracking. The things we were saying would improve is "screen door effect" and "tracking", both of which have.

Didn't Microsoft's hololens first launch around 10 years ago? It was AR rather than VR, but it was absolutely pitched as an early product meant for very specific use cases to act as a proof of concept before consumer versions.

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

#247

Post by lotsofpulp » Fri, Mar 15, 2024, 4:29 PM UTC

_heimdall wrote: post #239

swores wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure how we could possibly quantify and compare better, happier lives before and after TVs or smartphones, but it would be impossible to narrow down the metrics to peg the change over such a long period of time on just those technologies. The scale is just too big and the timeline to long to possibly know why happiness may have increased, if it did at all. > quite clearly huge numbers of people DO want TVs an…

Pretty sure meth addicts really want meth, based on the chemical reactions involved between the brain and meth.

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

#248

Post by ausbah » Fri, Mar 15, 2024, 4:30 PM UTC

mliker wrote: post #185

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 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.

i think the key difference is “out in public”

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

#249

Post by lotsofpulp » Fri, Mar 15, 2024, 4:31 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…

> Is it just the vast amount of money?

No, it is the vast amount of risk they are willing to take. Microsoft/alphabet have vast amounts of money too, but no appetite for risk.

Apple is willing to dump tens of billions and years into R&D for physical products, fail, and then try again. Microsoft half asses it, and then pulls back instead of plowing through (see them shutting down Microsoft retail stores and windows phone). But they have that Excel and Windows B2B gravy train they can ride for the foreseeable future.

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

#250

Post by moolcool » Fri, Mar 15, 2024, 4:32 PM UTC

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…

> you could make the exact same argument about almost any tech device, like the iPhone itself

I don't think this is true. There was a massive appetite for the iPhone for decades leading up to its release, and there was no question that mobile was going to have a giant role in the future of computing. If you look back, most nay-sayers didn't doubt the value or utility of pocket-computers, but rather just that Apple specifically would be out-competed by established vendors.