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

641–650 of 863 posts

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

#641

Post by TylerE »

richardw wrote: post #640
polyomino wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok now, I have a few separate colored lights pointing at the lamp. What color is the lamp? How about when it’s on?

Interesting. I assume you’d copy the object not the lighting. If you move a real object into a different room or outside you don’t expect the colour to stay the same. But if I’m pasting it into a word doc, I guess intuitively I might want it to look the same as source, but that breaks down unless I copy the whole virtual universe. A mirrored globe inside a room of mirrors is not going to look the same unless I copy t…

That’s the entire crux. What exactly the hell is “the object”, and how does your target program DO anything to it, to include manipulating it, or getting it out to a GPU for rendering in some even vaguely terrible way - and you’re probably trying to render it 120 times (or more) a second with a decent level of resolution.

3D is not like tabular data. There isn’t some default resting state it naturally wants to exist in. It’s all edge cases and special logic. Also, it’s mind bogglingly vast amounts of raw data. Even a simple scene can contains hundreds of thousands of surfaces/polygons/spline patches/voxels/whatever representation.

A VR environment is essentially running a high end 3d game engine at all times.

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

#643

Post by averageRoyalty »

IshKebab wrote: post #639
averageRoyalty wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are drastically ahead in the VR gaming space. But the potential VR/AR market is hundreds fold bigger than that.

The potential market in 10 years . Apple has jumped the gun here. This is their Apple Newton moment for AR.

That's probably a fair argument at the pace of innovation pre-AVP. Depending on how quickly they iterate in this (and as the article says, push developers), they may be a self-fulfilling prophecy to significantly reduce the time until this market exists.

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

#645

Post by GeekyBear »

jjfoooo4 wrote: post #635
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 me the interesting bit is that an even a VR executive a decade plus into working in the field doesn’t find this device compelling enough to own it. I get that the thesis is that this version is the devkit etc, but viable consumer product status (read: enough adoption for the device to be profitable) seems very far away

> viable consumer product status (read: enough adoption for the device to be profitable) seems very far away

He mentions a few short term use cases for the current hardware.

For example: Productivity on the go (A laptop with the headset for multiple virtual displays) and Live Sports.

> Apple Immersive on Vision Pro is a transformative experience in terms of video quality and its ability to deliver a real sense of presence. Watching a game in high-resolution VR has the potential to be legitimately better than a regular 4K TV broadcast by enabling hardcore fans to feel much closer to the action

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

#646

Post by GeekyBear »

zarzavat wrote: post #621
crooked-v wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

It’s not chicken and egg, it’s simply the reality about the hardware. Even Apple, with all their resources and a $3500 price tag, could only make a mediocre passthrough on a very heavy headset. The hardware isn’t ready for AR yet. Games are where it’s at for the foreseeable future. Games don’t need passthrough and they don’t need especially high resolution. Look at how much of the vision pro is about giving people a…

> Even Apple, with all their resources and a $3500 price tag, could only make a mediocre passthrough on a very heavy headset. The hardware isn’t ready for AR yet.

Hugo disagrees:

> thanks to a high-fidelity passthrough (“mixed reality”) experience with very low latency, excellent distortion correction (much better than Quest 3), and sufficiently high resolution that allows you to even see your phone/computer screen through the passthrough cameras (i.e. without taking your headset off).

Even though there are major gaps left to be filled in future versions of the Vision Pro hardware (which I’ll get into later), this level of connection with the real world — or “presence” as VR folks like to call it — is something that no other VR headset has ever come even close to delivering and so far was only remotely possible with AR headsets (ex: HoloLens and Magic Leap) which feature physically transparent displays but have their own significant limitations in many other areas.

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

#647

Post by DonHopkins »

dagmx wrote: post #345
ryandrake wrote: post #121

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…

my generalized thoughts (and there are exceptions so don’t bother replying with “what about XYZ” because its a generalization): 1. Apple focus on customer story for every product. They may get it wrong sometimes but every product is sold with “this is how it will impact your life for the better”. 2. Apple understand brand and fashion. Unlike other companies, they don’t typically rush out the gate with a million varia…

>They try and not focus on just specs.

If I could focus on specs, I wouldn't need spectacles!

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

#648

Post by kilroy123 »

jjfoooo4 wrote: post #635
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 me the interesting bit is that an even a VR executive a decade plus into working in the field doesn’t find this device compelling enough to own it. I get that the thesis is that this version is the devkit etc, but viable consumer product status (read: enough adoption for the device to be profitable) seems very far away

It's the crappy version 1. Just like iphone and ipad v1. They sucked.

It's very obviously better to wait a little longer for a future version.

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

#649

Post by Invictus0 »

kilroy123 wrote: post #648
jjfoooo4 wrote: post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me the interesting bit is that an even a VR executive a decade plus into working in the field doesn’t find this device compelling enough to own it. I get that the thesis is that this version is the devkit etc, but viable consumer product status (read: enough adoption for the device to be profitable) seems very far away

It's the crappy version 1. Just like iphone and ipad v1. They sucked. It's very obviously better to wait a little longer for a future version.

iPhone 1 was way more successful than Vision Pro, and it didn't suck relative to what was on the market at the time. At launch, Steve Jobs famously said it was 5 years ahead of the competition, and contemporary commentators generally agreed.

In its first week, Apple had sold 270,000 iPhones domestically.[47] Apple sold the one millionth iPhone 74 days after the release.[48] Apple reported in January 2008 that four million were sold.

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

#650

Post by tr3ntg »

int_19h wrote: post #438
tr3ntg wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this is going to have as big of an impact on humanity as the computer or the internet did I see statements like this about AI too. How can something be bigger than the technology it is built on? The AVP is a computer. AI is a computer accessed through the internet... any computing device that accesses another computing device is further extending the "impact of computers and the internet." I don't get it. Maybe I'm…

By this logic, a computer is just a bunch of transistors. And transistors are just fancy electric circuits.

yes, you’re making my point. The companies that excel at this technology are the same ones that are dominating the general computing space.

Edit: but point taken, we could go down the rabbit hole forever. Definitely not as cut and dry as I was making it out to be

Post reply on HN