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

721–730 of 863 posts

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

#721

Post by brookst »

jayd16 wrote: post #720
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…

It’s not so much difficulty as system architecture. Oculus just doesn’t have an OS layer, at least not in the sense of a platform that helps applications share resources and interact with each other.

The Oclulus platform is more like a classic video game console; there are system APIs, but they are designed to be used by single-tasking applications.

And for the user, the Oculus system UI is really an app launcher /task switcher.

It’s not better or worse, just a very different design philosophy.

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

#722

Post by jayd16 »

zmmmmm wrote: post #519
makeitdouble wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple has made a fully realized spatial operating system I'm not sure what you mean precisely. Apple doesn't seem to have done more than windows with persistent positions. This isn't nothing, but it's also not something that has tremendous value for a headset that you only wear 30 or 45 minutes at a time. And they have little to no management of these floating windows. I'm really not holding my breath for Apple to…

It's kind of fascinating, because as you say, many of the capabilities are barely surfaced in the user layer yet. But the fundamentals are there. Take a look at this Reddit post for example: https://www.reddit.com/r/VisionPro/comments/1ba5hbd/the_most... The user is pointing out that that the real fridge behind them is reflected by the surface of the virtual object in front of them. And consider on top of that, the f…

Its just a skybox with the cubemap of the room, no? The Quest 3 does a full room scan and can you get a 3d mesh of the room as well. They could provide a cubemap as well.

Meta doesn't want to pass any of the camera feed to an app for privacy reasons so they don't make it available but its a legal issue not a technical one. They can (and should) do this for the browser model viewer.

Apple enforces a single material model so they can inject the lighting data in a uniform way. Its a bit of a nuclear option to have a fixed shader pipeline. But I digress...

Anyway, its not as out of reach as you claim.

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

#723

Post by FireBeyond »

GeekyBear wrote: post #645
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

> 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 pre…

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

Except almost universally, people talk about the screen display being “not great” for extended use as a screen replacement with dramatically lower effective resolution and blurring…

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

#724

Post by candrewlee14 »

lefstathiou wrote: post #245

My two cents (as an owner of a Vision Pro): 1) This is a beta product and I wouldnt recommend it to anyone that is not a developer or in a position to create apps for it, 2) this is going to have as big of an impact on humanity as the computer or the internet did and every engineer or aspiring entrepreneur should pay it attention. This device is magical. Yes it's too heavy, yes there are not enough apps, yes sharing…

I experienced AR for the first time with the Vision Pro, and I came away with the same impressions; it’s not quite ready for mainstream but “magical” really is apt. I was a big skeptic on AR/VR in general before, but the demo for Vision Pro convinced me. I wrote about it here.[1]

[1] https://candrewlee14.github.io/blog/2024-03-07_apple-vision-...

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

#725

Post by tracerbulletx »

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

I think there are more than enough higher income people who would pay 5k just for a thing to watch a movie in private, with much better immersion than any alternative, on a plane.

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

#726

Post by araes »

TylerE wrote: post #597
devit wrote: post #548

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…

People have been trying to solve this problem since the VRML days in the '90s. I suspect you are underestimating the complexity of 3D data by a pretty huge extent. 3D is much, much, much more complicated than 2D, especially if you're trying to interchange between arbitrary applications that may have divergent needs. Start with this little thought experiment. What do you mean by 3d object? Do you mean a set of polygon…

The basic math is also dramatically worse, and much more challenging for entry level participants to grasp. The basic idea of matrix math grows dramatically more complex just in terms of sheer number operations. You might be able to get away with your entire app only needing a couple mults or adds for most interaction in 2D. Basic 3D, closer to 150 mults (usually 3 [4x4] mults at 49 mults per [4x4] pair) for the default.

In 2D apps and games, you can often get away with incredibly simplistic calculations. Rarely much other than a translation. Many times 1D with naively obvious solutions. With 3D, you rapidly need to move to 4D matrices than can handle arbitrary scale, translate, rotate, perspective, clip volumes.

Nearly every 3D app anywhere has to handle the model, to world, to camera, to clip space path, which involves a lot of complex math well beyond most 2D apps. Usually, 3 different matrix mults with 4x4 matrices.

  v_world     = M⋅v_model
  v_camera  = V⋅M⋅v_model 
  v_clip    = P⋅V⋅M⋅v_model  

  v_clip   = [[P00,...,P30],[...],[...],[P30,...,P33]] ⋅ [V00...V33] ⋅
             [M00...M33] ⋅ [m00...m33]
It's one of the main reasons voxels have been the only real 3D implementation with large scale use. The amount of work necessary to develop, ... really anything that works with 3D is a large step upward in difficulty unless its totally regular and square. Otherwise, huge numbers of optimizations are no longer available. Plus, the compression cliff for normal users of effectively arbitrary 3D shape design and movement is really steep. Most first time users of an industry 3D CAD package (ProE, Solidworks, AutoCAD, Maya, 3DSMax, Blender, ect...) or similar have the "wall of difficulty" moment.

Edited: dumb math error

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

#727

Post by PJDK »

GeekyBear wrote: post #645
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

> 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 pre…

I've heard the sport idea thrown around a few times, but I'm not sure I buy it.

If you go to a sports event you are mostly buying the experience of being there, the energy of the crowd, the cheering all that stuff. The actual experience of seeing what's happening is not really better is it? That's why the stadiums have screens in them.

Replicating that experience at home is more like getting people around to watch a game together.

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

#728

Post by dagmx »

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.

Possible with the existing OS? Definitely. It’s just clipboard data

Possible with the current apps? None of them support a standard partial copy of 3D objects but they do allow copy pasting full objects between apps afaik. E.g I can drag a USDZ file from a message into keynote

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

#729

Post by jsjohnst »

tracerbulletx wrote: post #725
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

I think there are more than enough higher income people who would pay 5k just for a thing to watch a movie in private, with much better immersion than any alternative, on a plane.

> watch a movie in private, with much better immersion than any alternative, on a plane.

As someone who’s worn mine to watch movies on multiple flights, the problem is two fold.

1. The device is ridiculously hard to get into “travel mode” on a plane. Especially if the device was powered off previously and you have to enter a passcode. Each time the “tracking was lost” notification is shown it forces you to start over with your passcode from the beginning. Those who believe in better security than a four digit passcode are brutalized. Then just getting control center open and selecting travel mode (needing like five pinch operations) can be insult to injury. I can’t imagine going through that in economy in tightly packed seats. After going through that experience twice, I now insure it’s ready to go on the ground before boarding, but that’s also a hassle.

2. Wearing the device for the length of a movie is still a struggle. I have a ton of time on other VR headsets (which I also can’t wear comfortably for 2hrs), so this isn’t just a “getting used to it” thing. Unlike the previous problem, this one isn’t really solvable without different hardware.

That said, once the movie starts, it’s the best movie experience on a plane ever for the first 20-30min.

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

#730

Post by GeekyBear »

FireBeyond wrote: post #723
GeekyBear wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 pre…

> For example: Productivity on the go (A laptop with the headset for multiple virtual displays) and Live Sports. Except almost universally, people talk about the screen display being “not great” for extended use as a screen replacement with dramatically lower effective resolution and blurring…

> people talk about the screen display being “not great”

That's not what the reviews I have read had to say.

> The Vision Pro can produce a virtual external display for any modern Mac... The virtual display feels responsive and works with connected keyboard or mouse peripherals. The text is highly readable.

I don’t have any complaints about how the virtual display itself works—it’s great.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/03/i-worked-exclusively...

Post reply on HN