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

511–520 of 863 posts

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

#511

Post by crooked-v »

IshKebab wrote: post #499
jdprgm wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has been my main complaint with Oculus all the way since the Rift days. At that point I assumed it was forthcoming within a few years yet here we are 8 years later and somehow it's not all that different. I don't understand how Oculus/Meta isn't drastically ahead at this point on software.

They are drastically ahead. They have VR games, which are the only real reason to own a VR headset at the moment (and for at least 5 years).

There's a real chicken-and-egg recursion there: VR headsets are only good for VR games because the only thing made for VR headsets is VR games because VR headsets are only good for VR games because...

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

#512

Post by makeitdouble »

zmmmmm wrote: post #481

Coming from a senior Oculus lead, the most interesting thing about this write up for me, is what it lacks: it says almost nothing about the software stack / operating system. Still 100% talking about hardware at the bottom and end user applications at the other end. But there is no discussion of the platform which to me is actually the highest value proposition Apple is bringing here. In short: Apple has made a fully…

> Apple has made a fully realized spatial operating system

I'm not sure what you mean precisely. Apple doesn't seem to have done more than windows with persistent positions. This isn't nothing, but it's also not something that has tremendous value for a headset that you only wear 30 or 45 minutes at a time.

And they have little to no management of these floating windows. I'm really not holding my breath for Apple to come up with breakthrough windows management given what they've done for the past decade.

If you don't think in term of potential and promises, but of actual value to the user right now, I'd understand why Meta hasn't the gimmick.

Is this a big lead for Apple ? Perhaps, the world mapping could be something difficult to reproduce. Or Meta could be at roughly the same point but decided it not to go there.

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

#513

Post by crooked-v »

ForHackernews wrote: post #498
zmmmmm wrote: post #481

Coming from a senior Oculus lead, the most interesting thing about this write up for me, is what it lacks: it says almost nothing about the software stack / operating system. Still 100% talking about hardware at the bottom and end user applications at the other end. But there is no discussion of the platform which to me is actually the highest value proposition Apple is bringing here. In short: Apple has made a fully…

He talks about how "Gaze & pinch is an incredible UI superpower and major industry ah-ha moment" but... if that's really the case, then it's quite an indictment of the VR industry: > The hardware needed to track eyes and hands in VR has been around for over a decade, and it’s Apple unique ability to bring everything together in a magical way that makes this UI superpower the most important achievement of the entire V…

It's almost exactly the same kind of conceptual transition that Apple made happen with keyboardless smartphones, too, which adds an extra sort of funny element to it.

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

#514

Post by crooked-v »

Nathanba wrote: post #497
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…

If they can't fix the ever so slight blurryness for everyone it will continue to be a niche product simply because only a small niche wants to accept such a thing. Or only a small niche of people has eyes that can deal with it. Btw I consider my Meta Quest 3 to be a terrible product in almost every way, from hardware to software, from blurryness, from weight, from app availability, from PC compatability, from having…

> the ever so slight blurryness for everyone

As the article mentions, this is an intentional thing they've done to cover up the remaining vestiges of the screen door effect. The better the screens get, the less and less they'll have any reason to do it.

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

#515

Post by georgespencer »

zmmmmm wrote: post #481

Coming from a senior Oculus lead, the most interesting thing about this write up for me, is what it lacks: it says almost nothing about the software stack / operating system. Still 100% talking about hardware at the bottom and end user applications at the other end. But there is no discussion of the platform which to me is actually the highest value proposition Apple is bringing here. In short: Apple has made a fully…

This is a keen insight I had not until now appreciated. Thank you.

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

#516

Post by zmmmmm »

IshKebab wrote: post #499
jdprgm wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has been my main complaint with Oculus all the way since the Rift days. At that point I assumed it was forthcoming within a few years yet here we are 8 years later and somehow it's not all that different. I don't understand how Oculus/Meta isn't drastically ahead at this point on software.

They are drastically ahead. They have VR games, which are the only real reason to own a VR headset at the moment (and for at least 5 years).

effectively though, they've created their own mini-innovator's dilemma. They can't do anything to alienate those users but they might have to if they want to stay competitive in the long run.

Innovator's dilemma is a great problem to have if you are dominating a profitable industry already. But it's a terrible problem to have if you are barely hitting break even or even losing money. Then you really can't afford to go backwards first to go forwards later.

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

#517

Post by TheLoafOfBread »

brookst wrote: post #436
kergonath wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Except when you will try to use Finder on MacOS. That whole thing is just a massive UX failure

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

#518

Post by makeitdouble »

BowBun wrote: post #259
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.

Businesses are not their target market, never has been. They dominated the mobile phone market with their iPhone, and the iPad is still a gold standard product for tablets compared to the dozens of shoddy Android versions out there (coming from someone who leans more Android than Apple with their tech). I can see GP's point regardless of the rollout. Before the VR app stores become such critical masses, Apple will ha…

> the iPad is still a gold standard product for tablets compared to the dozens of shoddy Android versions out there

iPad are the best versions of "tablets", if we see tablets as a frozen in time "large iphone" version of the concept. Android tablets perfectly fit the category and Samsung is the only distant competion (yet Samsung has Dex, which is increasingly showing its teeth)

But they're way behind in term of tablets as touch enabled computers. Chromebooks have seen more adoption as schools and orgs couldn't justify iPad's price, the top of the line is above what the iPad has to offer, and the Surface Pro took the spot of the North Star of the category, to use the article's metaphor.

So yes, I'd agree with parent, Apple could have made the "what is a computer?" marketing campaign a reality, but didn't have the courage to canibalize their mac line.

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

#519

Post by zmmmmm »

makeitdouble wrote: post #512
zmmmmm wrote: post #481

Coming from a senior Oculus lead, the most interesting thing about this write up for me, is what it lacks: it says almost nothing about the software stack / operating system. Still 100% talking about hardware at the bottom and end user applications at the other end. But there is no discussion of the platform which to me is actually the highest value proposition Apple is bringing here. In short: Apple has made a fully…

> Apple has made a fully realized spatial operating system I'm not sure what you mean precisely. Apple doesn't seem to have done more than windows with persistent positions. This isn't nothing, but it's also not something that has tremendous value for a headset that you only wear 30 or 45 minutes at a time. And they have little to no management of these floating windows. I'm really not holding my breath for Apple to…

It's kind of fascinating, because as you say, many of the capabilities are barely surfaced in the user layer yet. But the fundamentals are there.

Take a look at this Reddit post for example:

https://www.reddit.com/r/VisionPro/comments/1ba5hbd/the_most...

The user is pointing out that that the real fridge behind them is reflected by the surface of the virtual object in front of them. And consider on top of that, the fridge is not visible to the headset at that moment. It is captured in the 3d spatial model that was created of the room. None of this is a pre-rendered or rigged or specifically engineered scenario. It's just what the operating system does by default. So one app that is totally unknown to another app can introduce reflections into the objects it displays. This is just so far beyond what can happen in the Quest platform by any means at all. And it can only happen because the 3d spatial modeling is integrated deeply into the native rendering stack - not just layered on the surface of each app.

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

#520

Post by chaostheory »

treyd wrote: post #235
falcor84 wrote: post #150

> Launch high-definition room scanning and unlock teleportation using technology that has existed within Oculus Research for several years now; it is time for Meta to make this future a reality where people can be remote but feel truly present by visiting each other’s home, office or favorite place. This teleportation/telepresence is the thing that struck me the most. I'd love to pop into a friend's living room for a…

> I'd love to pop into a friend's living room for a beer without worrying about them living in another country. The way a large number of young people do this is just by seeing their friends in voice chat on discord and then joining on their phone.

It’s not the same. Seeing your friend or family member trapped in a small box is very different from having out with a low fidelity version of them playing mini golf or ping pong. Immersion and presence are things that you won’t understand if you refuse to try VR for longer than 5 minutes.
Post reply on HN