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

711–720 of 863 posts

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

#711

Post by wkat4242 »

lynndotpy wrote: post #672
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…

For me personally, it's definitely the platform. Requiring a Meta / Facebook account for already-purchased Oculuses, retroactively bricking devices and deleting software which was bought before that requirement, has put Oculus firmly in the "hardware I will never consider in my life" camp. It's an incredible amount of goodwill to burn from a company with so little to spare, and I'm surprised it hasn't come up yet in…

> Requiring a Meta / Facebook account for already-purchased Oculuses, retroactively bricking devices and deleting software which was bought before that requirement

You always needed an Oculus account and they didn't brick anything. You did have to migrate from an Oculus to meta account but a Facebook account was never required on a quest 1 (or 3). Is a meta account really that different from an Oculus account?

The quest 1 has been deprecated yes but not bricked.

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

#712

Post by epcoa »

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?

I am still scratching my head what exactly you’re referring to as an “iTunes Store” subscription, you’ll have to explain this one better.

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

#713

Post by jandrese »

zarzavat wrote: post #705
GeekyBear wrote: post #646

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

I admit I don’t own one of these things but reviewers seem to be unanimous that the passthrough on the Vision Pro is both the best of any headset on the market, yet also very mediocre compared to seeing things through your own eyes, especially in low light. Given that it’s designed to be used indoors, poor low light performance is a big problem. There’s a latency/acuity tradeoff whereby the more post-processing Apple…

Seems like the best passthrough was a fairly easy goal to achieve since nobody else was even really trying. Heck, the Quest applies quality degrading filters to passthrough video (add noise, remove chroma) to discourage using it.

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

#714

Post by alsetmusic »

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.

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

iPhone 1.0 was incredible. There was nothing like it. iPad 1.0 (and following) has been lackluster. AVP is impressive, but lacking.

The iPhone changed the world of tech in an instant. There were aspects lacking (slow internet, no copy paste, no third-party apps), but saying it sucked is rewriting history. The things you take for granted about phones came from that.

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

#715

Post by jandrese »

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 funny thing is that the social media app for Oculus (Horizon Worlds) is total dogshit. The third party VRChat is far more successful.

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

#716

Post by ericmcer »

lynndotpy wrote: post #672
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…

For me personally, it's definitely the platform. Requiring a Meta / Facebook account for already-purchased Oculuses, retroactively bricking devices and deleting software which was bought before that requirement, has put Oculus firmly in the "hardware I will never consider in my life" camp. It's an incredible amount of goodwill to burn from a company with so little to spare, and I'm surprised it hasn't come up yet in…

That isn’t really what the parent is talking about at all…

If your issue is with the device requiring connection with an external account, Vision Pro requires an AppleID which will tie it to way more of your digital things than a Facebook login.

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

#717

Post by ericmcer »

alsetmusic wrote: post #710
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…

> Think about what has to exist, to say, intelligently copy and paste parts of a 3D object made by one application into a 3D object made by another, the same way you would copy a flat image from photoshop into a Word document. I own an AVP and this isn't something that can be done with it, to the best of my knowledge. Please explain how this is possible with the existing OS and apps.

I have seen people download 3d model file formats (stl) and position/scale them in front of them, and then walk around the 3d model. I am not sure if they added anything to the Vision Pro but it was pretty impressive. I would not be surprised if it can handle common 3d formats and render them straight to your AR environment out of the box.

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

#719

Post by jayd16 »

jdprgm wrote: post #486
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…

This has been my main complaint with Oculus all the way since the Rift days. At that point I assumed it was forthcoming within a few years yet here we are 8 years later and somehow it's not all that different. I don't understand how Oculus/Meta isn't drastically ahead at this point on software.

Well it's easy to understand why. How could they build an MR ecosystem when their latest device is just barely MR?

They can only just now move towards MR with the Quest 3 and really it'll need another generation to be MR native.

They have a good relationship with developers and focused on what their current hardware is capable of, which is running one VR app. They spent the last 8 years on that use case and I think that was the right choice given the hardware realities at the time.

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

#720

Post by jayd16 »

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 like that Apple is focusing on 3d widgets as an app primitive but is it really that hard to put that into Oculus/Android? Android actually does have widgets. What about the OS precludes it from what Apple has done?

There's some hard decisions around forcing everyone into their custom material that Apple made so that they can handle the rendering more deeply....but is that really a core OS thing? Seems like it doesn't need a new kernel for that.

Post reply on HN