I like the suggestion to "Launch Android 2D tablet apps natively on Quest".
Imagine, that you can pin these apps somewhere fix in physical space or walk around with them with fix positioning while being in a high quality pass through...
Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right
451–460 of 863 posts
Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right
#452Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right
#453No matter how much I contemplate about it, there was still no “killer” app that affords me to buy a VR set. I’ve tried them, it’s nice. But it really has no place in my life. And how could this change? Even with better displays etc. the whole idea of disconnecting my main sense - the eyes - from my surroundings is so strange to me that it seems irreconcilable. Can anybody relate?
I made a pointless cube with a square in VRML a long time ago and VR is ultimately going to be the biggest tech disappointment of my life.
The killer app is what I have when I get lucid inside a dream. To only cover vision is missing so much. I can remember being in a war in a plane and getting shot down in a dream. The decent felt unbelievable. That is the killer app for me. That had nothing to do with vision.
Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right
#454Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I mean it is non-Retina for a reason, because the pixels are noticeable by eye so presumably less density would worsen that.
It is obscured though by the softened out of focus presentation, maybe that blurring makes the difference unnoticeable.
Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right
#455Earlier quoted context omitted.
The optical pathway is pretty much locked in. LEEP was invented in the 80s, and that's still the optical system used today. Compare the size to NASA's VR system from the early 90s. https://images.nasa.gov/details/ARC-1992-AC89-0437-6 It's been 30 years of massive improvements to all of the rest of computers, and VR has only shrunk a couple inches. There's not much else we can do to make it smaller.
I am looking at that picture and to me it definitely looks like way more than a couple of inches.
it's not much different in size than a vision pro or quest 3, it's just kinda un-wieldly.
the photo of it sitting in a display case gives a decent sense of scale, I think.
http://briteliteimmersive.com/blog/remembering-nasas-view-vr
Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right
#456Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re describing a situation where you’re physically co located and someone is giving you the only headset? I don’t get it. Why not just tell them? What do you do if someone hands you a controller for a tv game equivalent?
> What do you do if someone hands you a controller for a tv game equivalent? I'm not the GP, but as they said you have all your other body language for communication. In VR-world, you have your eye direction and hands - not even your full eyes, with all the muscles around them that may communicate more than anything else on your body. I suppose you could flip them off. :) It's an interesting point about how VR avatar…
If someone is showing you a tv show it seems extremely rude to me to not look at the show as a way of passively showing disinterest vs just saying it’s not for you; no?
Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right
#457Earlier quoted context omitted.
Genuine question, what are you doing for 10 hours a day in there? Can you comfortable code all day in that? If you don't mind my asking, is it purely novelty or is it genuinely better than coding on a 5k monitor?
It’s genuinely better than a 5k monitor. In the recent update it now lets you mouse off your Mac and onto vision apps just like iPad hands over. It made me switch my desk setup to have the desk attached to my chair so I can have 360 range of screens. The resolution is stupidly high. I’ve attempted a coding workflow in all of the quests and it just wasn’t possible. It’s awesome in vision
please take a picture of this setup
Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right
#458Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I mean it is non-Retina for a reason, because the pixels are noticeable by eye so presumably less density would worsen that. It is obscured though by the softened out of focus presentation, maybe that blurring makes the difference unnoticeable.
Let me put it this way, then: having used a Vision Pro for two weeks (I bought one and returned it) I would gladly take a greater field of view in exchange for a slightly lower pixel density, and it would be a very easy decision.
I had some major issues with the Vision Pro, but pixel density was not one of them.
Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right
#459Earlier 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?
I hate windows as much as the herd, but OS choice isn't always as clean as "better or worse".
I need to run Windows in some form for various industry specific needs that a VM or emulation simply cannot meet at the moment. I don't like it, but that isn't going to change the state of things.
It's a delight to be able to choose what and where you work with, but it's not the reality a lot of us have to deal with.
Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right
#460Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
I think there are a lot of smaller companies that can build to standards, and then they either exceed their original vision or things explode to the point where they feel they need to move faster.
I love my Apple Watch (on my second one now) and I didn't like wearing watches. Except the Pebble that I bought (I think that I got the first generation Pebble colour, but it's been a while). After that product, things went sideways for Pebble for a lot of reasons. But the initial products were great and the build quality was good (not great, but good). The same applies to the first few generations of the Palm Pilot (and to a lesser degree, the Treo), although I think that the best PalmOS device built was the Clié NX70.
With respect to Apple's break even…I suspect that the research they did is going to produce benefits across all of Apple's product lines for the better part of the next decade (part of it already has, with the Apple Watch Double Tap hand gesture, although that is movement detection not camera-based).