Live data from Hacker News

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

hugo.blog

281–290 of 863 posts

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

#281
post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The dual loop makes a world of difference to me. Interestingly, lying in bed makes it more uncomfortable, not less, since more of the weight is on the face.

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

#282
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.

That's true. But as far as business and popularity go, TV and smartphones were a huge success. In the end what makes money will be sold without regard for social consequences.

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

#283

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…

Because they have spent decades building a brand which most people see as premium and desirable. Doesnt matter what the product is now, if it has an apple logo on it the majority of people will want one.

Other companies trying to compete with Apple in any space will automatically have this disadvantage that they are seen as the inferior choice because Apple have repeatedly positioned themselves as the most premium player in the market, and so thats just what people expect now.

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

#284

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 confused by comments like this one. Apple very specifically designed Vision Pro to address this problem, going to great lengths to make the outside world visible to the user and the user's eyes visible to others, and marketing that they don't want to create isolation. It is also described in the article (where the author thinks they went too far). What do you think of how the Vision Pro addresses this problem?

The "user's eyes visible to others" part has been widely panned, even by the most enthusiastic reviews. There are two major problems with it.

One, it's not the actual user's eyes, it's just a bad rendition of some eyes - without any of the extremely subtle facial expressions that happen with the skin around the eyes, and without any amount of certainty from the other that they are correctly reflecting exactly what you're looking at. We are extremely good at noticing exactly which direction another human is looking in, and when theire gaze shifts, so even minor inaccuracies or lag are jarring.

Much worse, the screen they used is so bad that the eyes are barely visible in almost any amount of lighting.

Either way, even if this "solution" actually worked, the visor still covers far too much of the face to be able to get a normal expression.

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

#285

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…

Apple aggressively focus on low-volume high-margin opportunities, have been doing so for some decades, and have a giant war chest to make bets with. In many ways, they work like the very very large version of a successfully bootstrapped business.

Most of their peers pursue maximum volume in an attempt to dominate a market and drown all competition, inebitably at much lower margins. It's the continuation of the VC launch-or-bust rocketship model most of them were born from.

The difference then means that Apple can try making something really unique and compelling and call it a profitable success based on much much smaller sales volume. And if it does happen to launch like a rocketship (as the iPod, iPhone, and iPad each did) all the better.

But their peers set a much higher mark for sales volume when thinking about what's a success or failure. If a product is only lightly taken up, even if nominally profitable at their margins, it's more like a distraction or clue rather than a success in itself. So they scavenge the project and move on to an alternative market or a parallel product idea.

This all sets Apple up to make slow, well-considered bets on quality and design coherency instead of strictly trying to race to market and outmaneuver everyone for volume.

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

#286

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…

Ok but compare it with a phone call. That's much worse than sunglasses.

Whereas VR equivalent of a phone call with eye and face tracking and eventually full body tracking is much closer to an in-person interaction.

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

#287

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.

> This is why linux perpetually has No. That's a gross generalization. You have all sorts of people using Linux, including leading UX experts.

What you don't have is a single governing body pulling everyone in the same direction, so efforts get diluted(even when prioritized).

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

#289
post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except most reviews find the fov and resolution inadequate for desktop work, and eschewing gamers cuts out the majority of existing VR enthusiasts.

> Except most reviews find the fov and resolution inadequate for desktop work I have not heard any such complaints. Sure, I heard some complaining that the FOV should be wider, but not being able to work because of it? Not a peep. The resolution is incredible, you can't see any pixels at all. There's zero screen door effect. If the concern is with the Mac Virtual Display, then it's understandable. There seems to be s…

The article explains that you can’t see the pixels because the AVP is purposely blurring them. The effective resolution of a mirrored Mac screen is below that of a physical 4K screen.

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

#290

I got mine on day 1 (February 2) and have spent many hours using it and experimenting, trying to make the device as unobtrusive as possible so I can use it for hours watching movies/surfing the web/etc., activities which become enjoyable if you're not constantly adjusting your position/VP's position on your head and face. Here are my takeaways FWIW: 1. The only body position I find comfortable and compatible with pro…

Doesn't laying down in a fixed position render much of the purpose of the device obsolete?
Post reply on HN