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

#351

Post by ugh123 » Fri, Mar 15, 2024, 5:49 PM UTC

smoldesu wrote: post #298

ugh123 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meta severely underplays those capabilities. I've always known they're "there", but it's not their preferred presentation of the device. It also takes a bit of "power user" to be comfortable doing much of what you're describing. I'm not even sure if AVP can side load apps or watch movies over SFTP, but I don't think it matters at this point: the global mindshare is sold on Apple being the leader now, and personally I…

They definitely underplay it - Meta is big on services, selling people a quest for sideloading or Blu-Ray streaming probably threatens their bottom line. Hard to blame them when the hardware costs the same as a Switch though. At the price Apple is asking (and the hardware margins they enjoy), I'd expect more capabilities than just spatialized iOS. I'm not sure the Apple customers in my life would buy a Vision Pro eve…

It's possible Apple isn't truly interested in typical VR/AR gameplay, or at least the way we (and Meta) have been thinking about it. The high price (as of now) and focus on utility leads me to think their long term game here is as a complement to macbooks, and AVP is a Display replacement, rather than a standalone unit. I can see them pushing this on Enterprise customers a lot.

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

#352

Post by bashinator » Fri, Mar 15, 2024, 5:50 PM UTC

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 replaced my iPhone X this year, with a 15 that I anticipate owning at least another 5-6 years.

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

#353

Post by kimbernator » Fri, Mar 15, 2024, 5:50 PM UTC

saurik wrote: post #335

lefstathiou wrote: post #245

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…

Did you own prior VR headsets? If so, what is different about this one? I also have been telling people that VR is magical and that while both current hardware and the current software has issues it will get better and that this stuff is going to have a big impact on humanity... only, I've been telling people this for just shy of a decade now ;P. I don't see the Apple Vision Pro as either the product that made any of…

I bought an HTC vive 7+ years ago and have middling opinions on its viability long-term as a major game platform. VR is fun and novel, but once the novelty wears off it can be tedious.

It's worth doing a vision pro demo in an Apple store if you can. I'm not planning to buy one in its current state, but it was immediately obvious that this was entirely new territory. It moved a piece of technology from fiction to reality in my mind. The eye tracking is hard to believe without having experienced it.

I'm not ready to say that this device will be responsible for such a large technology shift as the previous person, but I think it will play an large, perhaps pivotal role on our way to the next thing.

Disclaimer: I know a lot of people compare this to a device that I can surmise was meant to do a lot of similar things made by Meta; I have not tried this and may be attributing first-mover credit to Apple for things that Meta may have done similarly well. My comment is made from the perspective of somebody who has never experienced eye tracking in any capacity before.

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

#354

Post by ryandrake » Fri, Mar 15, 2024, 5:51 PM UTC

fouc wrote: post #189

noneeeed wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They seem prepared to go in at higher price points. Most other manufacturers seem to take the approach of getting as many features on the side of the box and then compete on price. They cost engineer the crap out of everything and it ends up being somewhat disappointing. I often maintain that so much technology is 80% of the way to being amazing, but is stymied by commercial concerns that cause companies to cut corne…

Yes, "stymied by commercial concerns" is a great way to put it. I get the feeling that many companies/managers don't have enough courage to make a different set of tradeoffs.

A lot of the replies are pretty vague, like they’re just “good at product” or they just “understand this or that” as if it’s some kind of mysticism. But why, and how? What is the formula? I think this reply chain starts to get at why.

I’m imagining a typical business school 2-axis chart where one axis is “willingness to take and commit to risks vs unwillingness/noncommittal” and the other axis is “acts independently vs. reacts to commercial/competitive pressures”. I guess what I want to understand is why is Apple kind of all alone on that plot, where the rest of the industry are clustered together far away from them? What are the business processes that lead to their position? Can a company follow a playbook and change their culture and have similar results? Are there other examples?

A lot of our industry are so extremely risk averse, have tunnel vision trying to copy each others’ feature checkboxes, rush things to market to try to make money before they are fully baked, and then give up when they aren’t instant successes. Everyone seems to follow this playbook.

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

#355

Post by IshKebab » Fri, Mar 15, 2024, 5:51 PM UTC

lefstathiou wrote: post #245

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…

> When the screen is 50% better and it weighs 50% less, 20% of knowledge workers will be tuned in daily.

I don't believe that for a second. Even 50% lighter and it's still going to be more uncomfortable than not wearing one. All so you can have a blurrier screen?

If/when it gets to the weight/comfort of normal glasses then sure. But that's at least a decade away. Probably more.

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

#356

Post by johnwbyrd » Fri, Mar 15, 2024, 5:51 PM UTC

What I want is a dollar for every evangelist and every early adopter that has told me that the ?R explosion is right around the corner. I have worked in the game industry for 30 years and would be well retired by now, had I made my money by listening to people tell me how ?R would be mainstream in Just A Few Years Now. The tech industry NEVER tires of telling that story and hearing it. Yet it never, ever, EVER happens as a mainstream product.

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

#357

Post by kazinator » Fri, Mar 15, 2024, 5:54 PM UTC

johnwbyrd wrote: post #356

What I want is a dollar for every evangelist and every early adopter that has told me that the ?R explosion is right around the corner. I have worked in the game industry for 30 years and would be well retired by now, had I made my money by listening to people tell me how ?R would be mainstream in Just A Few Years Now. The tech industry NEVER tires of telling that story and hearing it. Yet it never, ever, EVER happen…

Maybe the problem is that actual reality is very three dimensional, and incredibly detailed and immersive.

The people who can afford thousands of dollars on VR gear that will be obsolete in three years generally spend their days in nice environments.

If you want VR to catch on, make it dirt cheap, so that people in crummy circumstances can use it to escape from reality.

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

#358

Post by mcphage » Fri, Mar 15, 2024, 5:57 PM UTC

alt227 wrote: post #334

swatcoder wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That interpretation seems pretty out of sync with their financial history across divisions, their operating margin across divisions, their customer loyalty across divisions, and pretty much everyone's experience of the world, but maybe you're right. You may not like their products, and you may think their customers are idiots hypnotized by villianous marketers or something, but that's kind of the point of it all: by…

>You may not like their products, and you may think their customers are idiots hypnotized by villianous marketers or something. Thats quite a stretch to assume that opinion from my comment? I actually love Macbook Pros. IMO they are the best Laptop ever built. However in the global market of laptops they are not patrticularly successful. The entiety of the MacOS ecosystem (of which Macbook Pros are a small percentage…

> The entiety of the MacOS ecosystem (of which Macbook Pros are a small percentage) barely breaks 20% of the market share.

Market share is the goal, making money is the goal. Market share helps, but it isn't the same thing. MacBooks do pretty well.

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

#359

Post by lobster_roll » Fri, Mar 15, 2024, 5:59 PM UTC

jayd16 wrote: post #178

I'm going to die on the hill that gaze sucks. I really hate focus follows gaze and not having a workable keyboard or buttons makes it hard to actually use this for productivity. It's fine for an alt mode type thing but as the main form of input I kind of hate it. That said, forcing your hands to be full of controllers also sucks but at least you can play a game. I don't have a solution but it needs to get solved for…

imo for AR purposes the gaze is a huge improvement than just pinching (a-la HoloLens). I agree though that for productivity, a more tactile device is needed. In practice I end up connecting my keyboard via Bluetooth, or just end up mirroring my MacBook, when I need to do real work

For work purposes, the privacy factor is a huge benefit -- nobody in the room can peek at your "screen"

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

#360

Post by jjulius » Fri, Mar 15, 2024, 6:00 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.

>Ten years ago was pre oculus rift.

The Rift DK1 is almost exactly 11 years old, released 3/29/13.