Live data from Hacker News

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

hugo.blog

471–480 of 863 posts

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

#471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solo-movie watching seems like _a_ usecase, but I'd argue most people don't watch movies alone.

How difficult would it be to build an app where your friends could join remotely, watch the same movie, and appear right next to you? With good enough latency you could talk to each other like you were sitting right next to each other?

It's so easy there are probably a dozen apps that do it on Quest and other platforms. I sat in a theatre with 15 other people the other day and watched Jurassic Park in 3D the other day on my Quest 3. It was cool.

So why isn't it happening with Vision Pro? Because Apple hasn't shipped proper co-presence features. Vision Pro lacks a proper Avatar system like every other platform has, so they can't have apps like this, ergo they are left entirely with trying to convince people that solo experiences are a valid value proposition, all the while attempting to sell their headset as non-isolating.

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

#472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally used a HoloLens for a few minutes and it had severe problems with field of view and brightness of the display. AR works for enterprise or the military to train people or present information at least the US military for the HoloLens [1]. Google finally axed the Glass Enterprise project in 2023 which was much longer than the original version. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/13/23871859/us-army-microsof…

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 loved my Google Glass.

See, for example:

https://youtu.be/gAkfPhlvSn8?si=fSObULo52MAvcBoR

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

#473

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.

> If/when it gets to the weight/comfort of normal glasses then sure.

I'm not so sure about that.

Even after 36 years of wearing glasses (current ones weight barely 20 gram), they still bother me, and I fiddle with them constantly.

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

#474
post #203

The author of this article and quite a few people in this HN thread all seem to be mainly looking at Vision Pro through the lens of VR gaming. Why else would the author return his Vision Pro? What makes Vision Pro truly interesting to me is that we can replace our laptop screen with a view containing a larger display and multiple ancillary displays.

You seem to have missed the entire 30-50% of the article that systematically breaks down its use for productivity including as a virtual display.

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

#475
post #136

IMHO Meta's #1 mistake with VR thus far has been presentation. No good press has ever come with screenshots of silly cartoon avatars (with or without legs). The focus on games highlighted its lack of utility. AVP only highlighted utility, which draws instant connection to our daily lives.

Like so much else with VR, it's a real challenge of perception. Because nearly everyone who actually tries it finds that those cartoon avatars are actually surprisingly good in giving you a real sense of co-presence with someone else. Especially when linked with good eye and face tracking. You really quickly just forget it's not the real person you are with. But I totally agree, every time you see a screen shot or even video of it, it just looks totally silly.

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

#476

I think the description of the VisionPro as a dev kit is spot on. It's also a beta product in many way. Apple know full well that this is not a mass market product, they have made no attempt to make it even remotely affordable to most people. But they also know that every aspect of the hardware will improve over the next decade, and as it does they will have ironed out many of the problems with how we use AR/VR and w…

> I think the description of the VisionPro as a dev kit is spot on. A devkit prepared for lock down. It's the old formula: let devs make the platform great, then pull a Sherlock or increase the platform fees. Count me out.

What exactly are they going to Sherlock?

iOS non-game apps aren't exactly innovative. It's Gmail. It's YouTube. It's social media photo and video scrolls. It's been more than a decade, and the most innovative thing I can find on top downloads and top grossing, Duolingo, is also kind of a game, like if you remove the game part of it it's kind of not much, is it? All the innovations in Google Maps are kind of tied up in backend technologies that aren't specific to the phone at all, indeed predated it.

Once they figured out touchscreen keyboard and accelerated web browsing sort of everything else fell into place. Then the retina display was introduced, and software improved the camera. I don't know what roles 3rd party devs played in all of this, but those list of innovations happened years ago.

They don't Sherlock games.

Even then, is Apple going to approve a game with guns on the AVP? Time will tell. Beatsaber is an innovative game but it leaned on the basic premise of people doing something illegal, uploading non licensed maps and tracks.

Hacker News commenters don't know much about making games - even when they work for huge game studios! - and they don't know much about VR - even when they work at companies making VR headsets!

Hugo must certainly be aware of the Varjo XR3, which is actually the most comparable device to the AVP and even more expensive, but there were developers at Apple on the AVP team who never heard of it, and many more Oculus developers.

At the end of the day this is a love letter to halo product positioning coupled with relentless vendor lock-in applied to helpless consumers. I agree with you that the locked down nature of the product makes it as DoA for developers as the Apple Watch was. People forget that the first apps for iPhones were delivered via jailbreaks made by hackers, who had unlimited access, and that plus Steam ultimately teed up what limited things you can do in iOS apps today, not brilliant strategy.

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

#477
post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

[deleted]

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

#478

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…

Yeah the UX definitely wasn't immersive. I liked the idea of a heads up display and have never really wanted a full display experience, Glass would have fit really well for me.

These days I don't even want that, but that's almost certainly of a combination of getting older and over reacting to how pervasive tech and displays have become.

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

#479
post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this is going to have as big of an impact on humanity as the computer or the internet I don't see how anyone can say this with a straight face. VR/AR just isn't there and won't be there for a lot longer than people think. Everyone always acts like we're -so close- but then we just aren't. Hololens and Oculus are over a decade old, and honestly when I first demo'd both ages ago, they were incredible (especially Holo…

One way to look at VR headsets is that it's a better computer display -- as large and immersive as you want, without physical limitation. People prefer retina displays and will pay for multi-monitor setups, so we know people value this. We also know that people are perfectly willing to wear something on their face to be able to see better, and willing to carry something around in their pockets to be more connected --…

> One way to look at VR headsets is that it's a better computer display -- as large and immersive as you want, without physical limitation.

I just don't agree, because VR's input system is fundamentally flawed. The Verge actually did a good video on this, the input of VR is just wonky. It makes you want to rip your headset off and just use your laptop/tablet (and I'm aware they can act as companions, but at that point...why do you need the headset?). I just don't see how that's going to change anytime soon. There also -are- physical limitations, for one, it's exhausting to wear for extended periods. You have absolutely no peripheral vision, and how is that going to be solved? Even if you made it light, unless it's as light as a pair of glasses, it's not going to be something I want to put on for several -hours- a day. You can't walk away from it; you have to physically remove it.

The best move imo, for VR/AR is as a "background" tech, it can physically remove us from our devices and shouldn't be a new fully fledged computer I'm putting on my face. You also have to understand that generations after Millennials are steadily enjoying -less- "in your face" things, and I think that's the right. I think the future is going to look a lot more like "Her" and a lot less like "Ready Player One," at least on the mass market.

This can change in 30-50 years, but right now? It's just a gimmick and junk drawer tech. Unless there is some crazy jump in the tech in the near future (I doubt given Hololens and Oculus and now Apple have only marginally improved it over a full decade,) I don't see it as anything that is going to penetrate my life.

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

#480

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…

Having tried the VP out for a week, I categorically disagree that VR is going to have remotely this level of impact on humanity. Having to wear something on your head to compute is fatiguing and isolating. You can’t bring your existing peripherals and audio equipment unless they’re proprietary and wireless. Passthrough video is nauseating and blurry even at the highest refresh rates. The paradigm is also intrinsically inaccessible to the blind and disabled.

The immersiveness for entertainment is neat, but this seems like a relatively minor use case in the grand scheme of things. And with gesture based controls, gaming is pretty much a non-starter.

Do you really envision a future of families hanging out together on the couch, each member with their own VR goggles…? Halfway through my return period, I realized that I much preferred reality.

FWIW, I love my Quest for the occasional gaming romp, but little else.

Post reply on HN