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

431–440 of 863 posts

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

#431

Post by int_19h »

epcoa wrote: post #418
alt227 wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you aware that Google Pay and Google Wallet are completely different products, and that Apple has exactly the same counterparts even named the same? https://www.apple.com/apple-pay https://www.apple.com/wallet/

It is not the same at all. Google Pay used to be called Wallet for starters. https://www.reddit.com/r/GooglePixel/comments/12979ja/google... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Wallet Apple does not have this level of product or branding confusion. So you don't like Apple, fine. But using Google as a poster child of consistent product marketing is a fool's hill to die on.

Apple does have similar level of branding confusion elsewhere. Look at Apple Music vs iTunes Store. How many people understand the difference between the two subscriptions?

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

#432

Post by int_19h »

mettamage wrote: post #75
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.

First Oculus headset versus Quest 3 right now? Quest 3 wins. There's progress. Perhaps not as fast as we'd want. There is progress though. I suspect that progress will continue.

Even Quest 1 vs Quest 3 has very visible improvements in terms of image quality, FOV, and overall comfort.

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

#433

Post by int_19h »

someguydave wrote: post #90
dvngnt_ wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

glasses won't take over your entire fov though so it suck for VR. maybe better for AR

Yeah but glasses are probably fine for the display replacement market

If all you want is display replacement, you don't even need VR with head tracking.

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

#434

Post by tr3ntg »

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…

> this is going to have as big of an impact on humanity as the computer or the internet did

I see statements like this about AI too. How can something be bigger than the technology it is built on? The AVP is a computer. AI is a computer accessed through the internet... any computing device that accesses another computing device is further extending the "impact of computers and the internet." I don't get it. Maybe I'm too caught up on the semantics.

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

#435

Post by int_19h »

esafak wrote: post #417
diffeomorphism wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at the number of articles which compare m3 macbooks against "intel" but mean "the intel macbook from years ago", I totally expect to read lots of articles which pretend non-apple devices don't exist.

Given that those Intel laptops run Windows, which today is worse than any old version of MacOS, can you blame them?

Worse for what, though?

If you do a lot of gaming, for example, macOS is in many ways worse than Linux even.

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

#436

Post by brookst »

kergonath wrote: post #367
ryandrake wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? It's not the money. They did it with the iMac when they were headed for the ground, and with the iPod when they were in a better position but still without infinite funding. Reality is actually quite simple: they spot technology advances, and integrate them into a neat, well-designed package that people actually want to buy. The first iPod was a fancy shell around an IBM 1.8'' h…

Agree. And in a world where most technical people assume differentiation means better specs, Apple repeatedly prioritizes better UX: easier and/or more fun to use.

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

#437

Post by elwell »

al_borland wrote: post #430
_heimdall wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google Glass was pretty slick honestly, ahead of its time. I had a friend that worked on the team for a couple years when it first started. The use case of a headsup display for directions while driving was a great experience.

I had a friend get Google Glass. I tried in on for a few minutes and was pretty disappointed. It was a tiny Android window stuck in the upper right of my FOV. Looking at the hardware, I guess it makes sense, but it’s not what the marketing seemed to be selling, and I expected a more custom UI that would get out of the way, rather than what looked like a tiny phone screen. It wasn’t mine, so maybe there was more to it…

I like your username.

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

#438

Post by int_19h »

tr3ntg wrote: post #434
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…

> this is going to have as big of an impact on humanity as the computer or the internet did I see statements like this about AI too. How can something be bigger than the technology it is built on? The AVP is a computer. AI is a computer accessed through the internet... any computing device that accesses another computing device is further extending the "impact of computers and the internet." I don't get it. Maybe I'm…

By this logic, a computer is just a bunch of transistors. And transistors are just fancy electric circuits.

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

#439

Post by dmarcos »

jaxn wrote: post #419
Shawnj2 wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My problem with the vision pro is that it doesn’t do enough new, the iPhone and the MacBook Air let you use a computer in an area where you previously couldn’t and made it accessible to normal people. The vision pro isn’t that much better in terms of bringing the technology in a user friendly package to the masses than the quest. A good measure of an Apple product is if you can pitch a version of it to your grandma o…

The first iPhone was a toy. It wasn’t until the second version (iPhone 3G) + AppStore that is really caught on with existing smartphone users. I have a Quest and have used other VR systems, the Vision Pro felt like a huge leap forward compared to those. I walked away from the demo tempted. Not by what is available today, but by what I want to be available and what I want to create with it.

iPhone 1 was limited but extremely useful at launch. People like me that bought on day 1 couldn’t get enough of it. Had an amazing unparalleled Web browser experience and email, an iPod replacement and Google Maps / Youtube in your pocket felt magical. Also got a Vision Pro on day one and used it just a handful of times. Use cases and value prop of AVP nebulous. Smartphones were a popular product category when iPhone launched in a way VR / AR headsets aren’t today.

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

#440

Post by baxtr »

rurp wrote: post #319
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…

VR is the most extreme case of a product that a subset of technophiles absolutely love and that the rest of the population is decidedly meh on. I think that you are vastly overestimating the amount of people who want to spend a large portion of their daily life with large googles strapped to their head isolating them from the people and things in their immediate environment. This isn't to say that VR won't improve an…

> I think that you are vastly overestimating the amount of people who want to spend a large portion of their daily life with large googles strapped to their head isolating them from the people and things in their immediate environment.

I wish you were right. But, man, look around. People are immersed in their mobile devices. No one gives a shit about their surroundings anymore.

Post reply on HN