581–590 of 863 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And that's why Apple doesn't do it. They want you to buy both a MacBook and an iPad.
For each family memeber too! There's something incredibly sinister about how Apple operates that people just accept. All those dark patterns and control is just so icky I don't understand how anyone aware of this can submit to this. Just from sheer self-respect.
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 can't remember if it was here or somewhere else I saw the point made that the current Vision Pro is the worst one Apple will ever make. All future Vision* products will likely be technically improved from the current model. So if the Vision Pro is good right now it really can only be refined and get better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My question is why does it seem like only Apple can do this, over and over? Why are they the only ones who seem to be able to knock a product category out of the park and legitimize it? Is it just the vast amount of money? Are they the only ones who can create products? Is everyone else that bad? Competitors work for ages and ages fighting each other, refining v1, v2, v2.1, v2.2, v2.25, and then suddenly Apple comes…
> 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…
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.
https://www.engadget.com/meta-dissolves-ar-vr-os-team-204708...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple can afford to build to standards, It is not like everyone else is dumb , they simply cannot pull it off the brand strength Apple has is without peer in the market. If another brand launched first at same price points they simply will not get the traction Apple does. Even with $3,500 price Apple likely needs sales hundreds of thousands of units to break even , no other manufacturers cannot pull it off
I think there are a lot of smaller companies that can build to standards, and then they either exceed their original vision or things explode to the point where they feel they need to move faster. I love my Apple Watch (on my second one now) and I didn't like wearing watches. Except the Pebble that I bought (I think that I got the first generation Pebble colour, but it's been a while). After that product, things went…
When the tech advanced, and use cases evolved, and users had become accustomed to the limitations of the apple watch style of smartwatch - which regarding battery life STILL HOLD TRUE... once all that was the case, Pebble had to deal with the "and now what?" and they couldn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To support copy&paste all you need is a common format for 3D objects, like HTML is for 2D documents; glTF might be a reasonable candidate. The problem with the Apple approach is that there are no apps and games, and there probably won't be many given it's a 3500$ 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.
The codebase is dense, hard to compile, using outdated dependencies, and doesn't play nice with anything else. Documentation is sparse, often incorrect, and severely lacking in anything like a new user guide. Everything assumes you work for Pixar already and know the ins and outs of their pipeline.
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…
That is what always bugged me about the pivot to “meta”. They never had to find product market fit to succeed. They were never hungry. They could just throw money until something clicked… but money alone doesn’t make a revolutionary product. You need somebody hungry enough to see the world in a different way and then execute the fuck out of it.
Dunno how this relates to apple though. They have equal amounts of cash to throw at problems until they are “solved”. Perhaps the “operating system” is a solved problem already to some extent and maybe there isn’t anything truly new?
No matter how much I contemplate about it, there was still no “killer” app that affords me to buy a VR set. I’ve tried them, it’s nice. But it really has no place in my life. And how could this change? Even with better displays etc. the whole idea of disconnecting my main sense - the eyes - from my surroundings is so strange to me that it seems irreconcilable. Can anybody relate?
Racing sims are the killer app, because depth perception really helps with sense of speed, and tight corners on a monitor are often outside the field of view and you can't just turn your head to look at them. Even then, it's not something I can do indefinitely. I've played GT7 on a friend's PSVR2, and sometimes elevation changes in particular tend to mess up the brain for a moment. It's somewhat disconcerting. Also,…
For me the only apps that kept any of my interest are rhythm games like Beat Saber or Pistol Whip.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Didn't oculus have pinch to click before Vision Pro came out?