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

541–550 of 863 posts

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

#541

Post by bushbaba »

didip wrote: post #502
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…

If what you said were true then this is a fatal strategic error on Meta's side. This entire time, they could have built a real OS, solidifying their first mover advantage.

Apple leveraged their existing OSX OS stack, for Meta this would mean either heavily forking android OR starting their own OS. Both would take 5+ years to get meaningful traction. Remember google fuchsia, the code-repo was public in 2016, intial release was 2021, and it's still not anywhere near where it'd need to be for a VR headset.

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

#542

Post by numpad0 »

crooked-v wrote: post #511
IshKebab wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

But VR only needed DK1 to take off.

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

#543

Post by samatman »

evan_ wrote: post #89
dghlsakjg wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think, crucially, Apple also invented a price anchor for VR computing. Previously, only the extreme high end of VR broke $1.5k. Now if apple puts out an Apple Vision SE or non-pro or whatever at $1,999 it will be seen as an absolute steal.

No it won’t. It will still be seen as 4x the price of the Quest 3.

People who want an Apple VR headset may not know, and certainly don't care, that Facebook also sells one.

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

#544

Post by crooked-v »

Nathanba wrote: post #538
crooked-v wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I'm not talking about blurryness on the Vision Pro, I mean blurryness in general. I found the Meta Quest 3 to be very blurry

That's the same root cause: display density.

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

#546

Post by thrdbndndn »

> Motion blur in passthrough mode ended up being one of the many reasons why I decided to return my Vision Pro, because it’s just uncomfortable

If I am in VR field, and wasn't very tight on the money (which I assume the author isn't), I probably will keep a Vision Pro with me even if it's a literal peace of junk just so I can play with it occasionally for my curiosity.

I wonder what's the difference between me and him.

To make it clear, this is not a loaded question but a genuine one. His decision is objectively more reasonable than mine (keeping unneeded junk around), but I just can't get it.

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

#547

Post by thot_experiment »

it wrote: post #545

Isn't one of the biggest problems with these VR headsets the nearness of the display to the eye? It seems like prolonged exposure to this would result in myopia that would worsen faster than it does when exposed to screens that are farther away.

No. Your eye is generally focusing on infinity in a VR display, that's why myopic people need to wear glasses in VR.

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

#548

Post by devit »

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…

To support copy&paste all you need is a common format for 3D objects, like HTML is for 2D documents; glTF might be a reasonable candidate.

The problem with the Apple approach is that there are no apps and games, and there probably won't be many given it's a 3500$ device with few users that Apple exerts its tyrannical grip over (or if there will be, they will be ports of Unity/Unreal, PC or Android VR apps, not using any of the special features that the Apple OS may have).

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

#549

Post by MBCook »

bushbaba wrote: post #541
didip wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If what you said were true then this is a fatal strategic error on Meta's side. This entire time, they could have built a real OS, solidifying their first mover advantage.

Apple leveraged their existing OSX OS stack, for Meta this would mean either heavily forking android OR starting their own OS. Both would take 5+ years to get meaningful traction. Remember google fuchsia, the code-repo was public in 2016, intial release was 2021, and it's still not anywhere near where it'd need to be for a VR headset.

I think that kind of under sells it. Yes Apple had all sorts of existing technology they could leverage. But they still built a completely new spatial UI paradigm for it.

And an entirely new interaction model that hasn’t been seen before. Using looking at something to replace a mouse isn’t new but taking that combined with using a pinch gesture to “click“ and some of the other things they’ve come up with is a unique combination that seems to work quite well. Thought there is certainly room for improvement.

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

#550

Post by jordanpg »

archagon wrote: post #480
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…

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 intrinsicall…

100% agree. Until this tech has the same form factor as a pair of glasses and no wires it will be stuck in the realms of gaming and porn. Not a small market, perhaps, but hardly a seismic shift in life on Earth.
Post reply on HN