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

441–450 of 863 posts

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

#441

Post by andthenwhat »

giobox wrote: post #388
eclipxe wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get your second bullet. The Vive is not the Index.

It demonstrates Valve have been at this longer than the ~5 years of the Index, and closer to a decade again (the point OP disputes and uses Index as evidence of).

not OP but it does seem like you're nitpicking details instead of engaging with what seems to be the intent of the response: AR/VR has come an incredible distance since DK1, the last 10 years have seen it go from a barely-discussed completely unavailable/fringe dev-kit-only technology to being an clearly viable spectrum of mass-market products.

edited: grammar. still feel like I've failed to produce readable english, but I'm giving up

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

#442

Post by manquer »

WWLink wrote: post #423
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…

TL;DR: Apple builds to a standard while everyone else builds to a price.

Apple can afford to build to standards, It is not like everyone else is dumb , they simply cannot pull it off the brand strength Apple has is without peer in the market.

If another brand launched first at same price points they simply will not get the traction Apple does.

Even with $3,500 price Apple likely needs sales hundreds of thousands of units to break even , no other manufacturers cannot pull it off

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

#443

Post by x0x0 »

int_19h wrote: post #431
epcoa wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Apple has it in a handful of places.

With Google, it's endemic to their products.

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

#444

Post by dmarcos »

noneeeed wrote: post #147
bradly wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple has a history to sticking with things like this. Watch and HomePod were both seen as over-priced and sold poorly the first iterations. Apple leadership had the confidence to see through those initial versions. This was part of the internal culture during my time at Apple.

Watch is my go-to comparison for the Vision Pro. That took several generations before people started to buy in large numbers.

Fitness trackers (Fitbit), traditional and sport watches (with GPS) were popular categories when Apple Watch launched.

Apple Vision Pro is a different beast because AR/VR don’t have product-market fit yet besides a few game genres that Apple doesn’t care about.

Apple is good at improving existing product categories less so at finding product-market fit that usually outsources to others.

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

#445

Post by Wowfunhappy »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #425
Nevermark wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (I hear FoV is pretty poor at the moment) I thought it was pretty good - but nowhere near ideal of course. But discovered I could dispense with both of Apple's "Light Seal Cushions" and simply line the light seal with some 1/8 adhesive foam. It took a little experimenting to avoid hard pressure points, and then make it comfortable. It is now very comfortable with the following benefits: 1. The field of view is noti…

Doesn’t wider FoV also decrease pixel density… Btw it’ll be a few years before they update the Vision Pro

The pixel density in the Vision Pro is high enough that I don't think this is a significant concern.

The displays are really, really good.

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

#446

Post by krrrh »

baby wrote: post #373
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…

^ agree with this take. If you're slow with tech, then this is amazing! And I think Apple has been great at making interfaces that are natural to use and easy to get into if you're not tech-savy. But for someone who's used to multi-task, or perform operations without looking at what I'm actually operating on, it sucks. I tried using keynote to create diagrams in Vision pro and the experience was so infuriating, I had…

Can’t you just use a mouse and keyboard as controllers? It’s hard to imagine any hardware peripheral that would improve on them for making a keynote or we’d already be using it on our desktops.

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

#448

Post by satvikpendem »

whimsicalism wrote: post #260
monocularvision wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as Apple keeps it locked down like an iPad, I don’t see much of a future for the device replacing general purpose computers in the workforce.

+1 if the iPad were less locked down it would already be cannibalizing laptop sales more significantly.

And that's why Apple doesn't do it. They want you to buy both a MacBook and an iPad.

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

#449

Post by chaostheory »

noneeeed wrote: post #160
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…

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…

> 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.

This is a good summary of Windows Mixed Reality headsets, or Kinect

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

#450

Post by sweetjuly »

chrisandchris wrote: post #397
atommclain wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Has Apple ever put out a "Pro" version of a product before the "normal" version? Yes they introduced the MacBook Pro before the MacBook.

They upgraded the MacBook (Pro) to the M3 chip while the Air had to wait (and skip the M2 at all).

I'm not sure what you mean. There's definitely an M2 Air and an M2 Pro.
Post reply on HN