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

561–570 of 863 posts

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

#561

Post by LeoPanthera »

Aerroon wrote: post #528
Nevermark wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me it is not a novelty, it has completely stuck. Yes, on comfort for 10 hours. I have even worked 12 hours, then watched a long 3D movie (Blade Runner 2049, Dune I, etc.) without hesitation. I cannot imagine going back to only physical screens. I have a 98" monitor with two 55" monitors in portrait angled towards me on either side (heights all match), all wall mounted. Truly wonderful! But this has replaced that…

> • Never needing to put on or take off reading glasses to see far, or within inches. Can you expand on this? Does it basically have built in vision correction? This actually sounds like a 'killer' feature if you don't need to mess with glasses.

You can buy optional magnetic lenses if you upload your prescription when you buy it.

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

#562

Post by eigen »

jaxn wrote: post #419
Shawnj2 wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My problem with the vision pro is that it doesn’t do enough new, the iPhone and the MacBook Air let you use a computer in an area where you previously couldn’t and made it accessible to normal people. The vision pro isn’t that much better in terms of bringing the technology in a user friendly package to the masses than the quest. A good measure of an Apple product is if you can pitch a version of it to your grandma o…

The first iPhone was a toy. It wasn’t until the second version (iPhone 3G) + AppStore that is really caught on with existing smartphone users. I have a Quest and have used other VR systems, the Vision Pro felt like a huge leap forward compared to those. I walked away from the demo tempted. Not by what is available today, but by what I want to be available and what I want to create with it.

the first iPhone (2007) cost $499 and the second iPhone, iPhone 3g (2008), cost $199. while the 3g support and App Store helped, I think the much lower price led to volume increase from 1.39M to 11.63M YoY.

https://www.globaldata.com/data-insights/technology--media-a...

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

#563

Post by MBCook »

lostemptations5 wrote: post #400
noneeeed wrote: post #30

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…

Not sure what the nay sayers are about. Anyone remember the ORIGINAL MacBook Air? Hyper expensive, super underpowered, overheated alot. And yet -- as Steve demonstrated -- it fit in an envelope. THIS is Apple launching a new product line (and trust me I'm not a fan boi). And shortly after (2-3 years?) the MBAs were powerful cheap and barely powered up their fans. Mind you the MBA was maybe Steve's last obsession. Wha…

One of the things I remember about it was someone, maybe Jeff Atwood, spent a fortune on a maxed out model with an SSD.

Even though the SSD was much tinier than the hard drive and the processor in the machine was slow and under clocked to be able to manage heat, in combination with the SSD it was fast compiling code and ran smoother than a normal MacBook Pro.

The flipside is I think the hard drive was a 4200 RPM model and performed absolutely abysmally.

But if you didn’t need much computing power, say you’re a writer, it was extremely small and lightweight and easy to carry. It’s not surprising it changed the industry.

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

#564

Post by kevindamm »

devit wrote: post #548
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 scene description format would work (but please not obj or stl), it would be good to see a standard emerge for this, though. USD might be it.

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

#565

Post by MBCook »

eigen wrote: post #562
jaxn wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first iPhone was a toy. It wasn’t until the second version (iPhone 3G) + AppStore that is really caught on with existing smartphone users. I have a Quest and have used other VR systems, the Vision Pro felt like a huge leap forward compared to those. I walked away from the demo tempted. Not by what is available today, but by what I want to be available and what I want to create with it.

the first iPhone (2007) cost $499 and the second iPhone, iPhone 3g (2008), cost $199. while the 3g support and App Store helped, I think the much lower price led to volume increase from 1.39M to 11.63M YoY. https://www.globaldata.com/data-insights/technology--media-a...

They actually cost the same the behind the scenes the difference was the subsidy was available by the time the 3G came out when it wasn’t available at lunch.

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

#566

Post by MBCook »

sroussey wrote: post #428
noneeeed wrote: post #30

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 see the Vision Pro more like the Apple Lisa. The original Apple Lisa, which cost $9,995 in 1983, would cost approximately $27,905 in today's dollars, adjusting for inflation over the period up to 2023. So the VisionPro seems downright cheap.

The original Mac was $2500 in ‘84 which is over $7000 now.

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

#567

Post by elif »

I'm so glad he mentioned weight. I was worried that the competition would say 'okay, apple has this so we need this or better' when there is so much on this device that I really don't care for. I don't need curved glass, I don't need fake LED eyes draining my battery, I don't need a physical knob to slowly fade out reality.

I would really prefer a device that is lighter, cooler, with longer battery life, more CPU available to the displays that matter, and probably cheaper by having less stuff.

I don't think the fake eyes make any part of the experience less creepy in social interactions. Instead that energy could have been used to, for instance, illuminate 850hz IR light so the user would have superhuman night vision. Being in a dark place and not being able to read a menu is much more immersion breaking than having to tell someone "yes I see you" and in fact you have this conversation with everyone regardless of the fake eyes.

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

#568

Post by MBCook »

paul7986 wrote: post #490
noneeeed wrote: post #30

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 am happy and avid user of Meta's recent Ray Ban Smart Glasses as Im a sunglass wearer (think a huge part of the population are too) and use my phone to take pics a lot. Now do that reliably through Meta's glasses and Zuckerberg just showed the latest Meta glass beta which you can ask "what mountain am i looking at," at it audibly tells you. Im betting Apple will release similar smart glasses like Meta's in the next…

I hadn’t heard of those until yesterday but I saw a video someone took wearing them on a roller coaster in the front seat and it was very impressive.

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

#569

Post by MBCook »

bitwize wrote: post #371
noneeeed wrote: post #30

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 of the Vision Pro as the 1984 Mac of VR/AR. The original Mac was next to useless and, adjusted for inflation, cost twice what the Vision Pro does. But it changed the world. (Yes, it was near useless. The original Mac had 128k of RAM, which allowed for only the smallest of applications. It wasn't until the Mac 512k came out that people could do real work on these machines.) The next rev of Vision products from…

Also, much like the Apple Watch, they took their best guess at what it’s good for but don’t really know yet. So they’ve kind of tried to prepare for everything.

It’s going to be interesting to see what it really shines at as more developers make different kinds of apps.

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

#570

Post by jimbokun »

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…

Maybe they realized they needed it, but Apple actually pulled it off.

Apple has a stronger combination of hardware design, software implementation skills, and UX expertise, than any company in the world.

Post reply on HN