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

551–560 of 863 posts

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

#551

Post by [deleted] »

voiceblue wrote: post #340
saurik wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you own prior VR headsets? If so, what is different about this one? I also have been telling people that VR is magical and that while both current hardware and the current software has issues it will get better and that this stuff is going to have a big impact on humanity... only, I've been telling people this for just shy of a decade now ;P. I don't see the Apple Vision Pro as either the product that made any of…

Other headsets are like a DC film and the Vision Pro is like a marvel film before endgame. The differences (that matter in GP’s context) are qualitative rather than quantitative, and a big distinction is the shift from VR gaming, which most incumbents and current VR fans won’t “get” nearly as fast as the public will (once things get going). Somewhat ironically, I have no interest in showing people my AVP, I use it fo…

[deleted]

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

#552

Post by MBCook »

barbacoa wrote: post #527
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.

Meta makes social media apps. Where as writing operating systems is Apple's core competency. Both companies are playing to their strengths.

The problem is that by doing that they’ve limited their device’s usefulness severely.

If some kind of killer AR app shows up on the Vision Pro, could it be put on the Quest? Let’s just assume it doesn’t need a level of processing power that the Quest can’t deliver. Would the software vendor just have to implement the entire interface from scratch or with Unity or something? Are there enough platform components on the Quest to be able to do the job?

I don’t know the answer. But I did see a number of developers mentioning online over the last year just how incredibly easy it was to get started with the Vision Pro compared to the quest. If you have a Mac you sign up for the Developer program for $99 and you get an IDE, compiler, simulator, performance monitoring, full UI library plus documentation. It’s early days for some of that stuff, but all the batteries are included. From what they said it was far far easier to get to “hello world” than on Meta’s platform.

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

#553

Post by MBCook »

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…

On top of what the others said, there are two other closely related issues:

If everything is designed for your controller, the eye interface may not work well due to lack of software optimization.

Which means it’s just an expensive battery hogging extra weight you don’t need.

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

#554

Post by MBCook »

diffeomorphism wrote: post #199
evan_ wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

In some ways that’s understandable and can be very helpful. Because if you’re a Mac person looking to buy a new Mac then that may be what you have. Newer Intel Macs don’t exist.

If you’re a PC user looking to switch to Mac, or you’re looking for a machine and don’t care about which operating system it has, then it’s less useful.

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

#555

Post by kllrnohj »

jmull wrote: post #310
partiallypro wrote: post #272

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. People prefer retina displays and will pay for multi-monitor setups, so we know people value this.

Except it isn't, because the density just isn't there. The PPD is incredibly low, which is why you have to make things "huge" to compensate. And while huge screens are great for watching movies, it's not great for a lot of other things. It's not comfortable to move your head back & forth just to read a line of text.

In a hypothetical future where these microled displays have 3-5x the density they do today then this starts becoming competitive with today's multi-monitor setups. Except those will also have had improvements to them as well. And even then, the number of people with multi-monitor setups is also pretty small. That's not a smartphone-level revolution or impact.

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

#556

Post by the-rc »

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…

Fresh off the (pre)press: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.02.23.581779v1

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

#557

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

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

#558

Post by MBCook »

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.

It’s the first one. Apple packed a ridiculous amount of ultra powerful stuff in it. As the article says they may find out that they don’t need some of that stuff. Also we know that everything gets cheaper overtime.

And Apple put an absolute ridiculous amount of money into designing and building that thing and they’re trying to recoup some of that. But by version two or three a lot more of it will have already been recouped and it won’t be as necessary to keep the prices high.

The first color televisions, cell phones, refrigerators, computers, and microwave ovens were not exactly cheap either.

The price will come down.

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

#559

Post by zer0zzz »

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…

I worked on an oculus team for close to a team that was charged with building a platform. The trouble at oculus was that there were multiple waring platform efforts.

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

#560

Post by riwsky »

int_19h wrote: post #508
rexf wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is shocking to read. I tried the in store demo and my main take away was that the display wasn’t as crisp or sharp as I expected for a $4k device.

That would be the case blurring or no blurring. Apple managed to cram 4K displays per eye there, which is very impressive when you compare it against Quest etc - but that's 4K shoved right against your eyeballs. That is, it is the rough equivalent of sitting so close next to a 4K TV that it covers your entire field of vision. If you've ever tried that, you know that it's not exactly retina, and you can still very muc…

Gp’s “4k” was referring to price, not pixels
Post reply on HN