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

741–750 of 863 posts

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

#741

Post by baby_souffle »

BytesAndGears wrote: post #208
SeanAnderson wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree it is unfortunate that you can't tell where someone's eyes are at when talking with sunglasses on and I also agree that it detracts from the socialization experience. I do not feel that this loss makes it rude to have an outside conversation wearing sunglasses in a sunny environment. So, I still think that AR will find its way in. I'm not saying it won't reduce the socialization experience further. It'll just…

Except what is the benefit that it’s providing, that people asked to have solved? I feel like if you went up to someone and asked “how can we improve this social interaction?” Literally nobody would suggest strapping a screen to your face anywhere in the list of improvements. Here’s some other technology improvements: What would make your TV experience better? * make it bigger * allow it to use the internet to watch…

> Then when we think of the problems that lead to AR being the solution, it’s almost entirely related to business problems. Surgery, manufacturing, carpentry, construction… all would benefit from a HUD that tells you what to put where. Those are real benefits.

I think you're on to something. Glass was an expensive flop from the word "go" but the second generation did live on in these specialized sectors.

I suspect that - at least for this decade - AR is still going to be the specialized/industry tech and that VR is going to be the consumer oriented tech.

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

#742

Post by baby_souffle »

SeanAnderson wrote: post #222
BytesAndGears wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except what is the benefit that it’s providing, that people asked to have solved? I feel like if you went up to someone and asked “how can we improve this social interaction?” Literally nobody would suggest strapping a screen to your face anywhere in the list of improvements. Here’s some other technology improvements: What would make your TV experience better? * make it bigger * allow it to use the internet to watch…

I think a convincing example is to show a heads-up display of what two people last talked about as to enrich the conversation. I already do this but more manually. For example, I don't try to remember everyone's birthday. Instead, I put their birthday's in my calendar, get a notification when it's close, and use this information to enrich our relationship. It seems reasonable to believe this could be extended much fu…

> I think a convincing example is to show a heads-up display of what two people last talked about as to enrich the conversation.

Perhaps. It might be a generation or two before the "that's ... creepy" vibes fade. Reminds me a bit of that scene in minority report after the eye swap and the protagonist passes by a billboard and the avatar asks him about how the pants he purchased worked out.

I do something similar to the calendar thing too. I reach out a few days ahead of time so it doesn't seem like I'm just doing it reflexively like an unfeeling robot because facebook prompted me to do so day of.

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

#743

Post by joyeuse6701 »

jsjohnst wrote: post #729
tracerbulletx wrote: post #725

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I’m one of the rare people who doesn’t have an issue with wearing vr headsets for great lengths, but I suspect that’s because I strengthen my neck for jiujitsu and that bleeds over into endurance with headsets.

Too much to ask for the average user, but the problem can be mitigated by the individual.

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

#744

Post by gcanyon »

dan-robertson wrote: post #690
gcanyon wrote: post #659

A very interesting video take: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQKMoT-6XSg tl;dw -- reviewers are understandably focusing on the technical specs, but ignoring the much more simple metric: conceptually, does the device fool the mind into accepting what it sees as "real"? And the answer for the Vision Pro is yes. It will get lighter, better, cheaper, but even now, it's important to realize that the AVP can transport yo…

I’m not sure that’s the link you intended? I see the iPhone keynote from 2007.

Ha, yup, silly youtube. I'll fix it in a second.

Edit: there's a time limit on edits? Okay, I'm replying to that comment with the correct URL, and adding it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krpbAMJlLTc

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

#745

Post by gcanyon »

gcanyon wrote: post #659

A very interesting video take: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQKMoT-6XSg tl;dw -- reviewers are understandably focusing on the technical specs, but ignoring the much more simple metric: conceptually, does the device fool the mind into accepting what it sees as "real"? And the answer for the Vision Pro is yes. It will get lighter, better, cheaper, but even now, it's important to realize that the AVP can transport yo…

The correct URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krpbAMJlLTc

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

#746

Post by int_19h »

riwsky wrote: post #560
int_19h wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be the case blurring or no blurring. Apple managed to cram 4K displays per eye there, which is very impressive when you compare it against Quest etc - but that's 4K shoved right against your eyeballs. That is, it is the rough equivalent of sitting so close next to a 4K TV that it covers your entire field of vision. If you've ever tried that, you know that it's not exactly retina, and you can still very muc…

Gp’s “4k” was referring to price, not pixels

I'm well aware, and that doesn't change anything. What Apple gave us in Vision Pro is what you get for the price tag given modern technology. High-res VR is insanely expensive for good reasons, both the extreme DPI required, and the powerful hardware needed to drive it all at speeds fast enough to avoid motion sickness.

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

#747

Post by tw04 »

ericmcer wrote: post #716
lynndotpy wrote: post #672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Apple’s business model isn’t selling your personal information. In fact they go out of their way to protect your personal info. Requiring an AppleID is significantly less concerning than requiring a Facebook account.

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

#748

Post by vikramkr »

parentheses wrote: post #733
lynndotpy wrote: post #672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You're comparing a $300 product from a company that profits on analyzing their customers to a $3500 product from a hardware company. This is not a fair comparison. They're motivated differently. Furthermore, the "anti-account" viewpoint is making a privacy issue out of a pinch or friction point. Accounts are required for both devices. If you bought a device which allowed you to buy apps, the experience would be horri…

Why isn't that a fair comparison? If that's an important factor in their purchase decision that's completely fair. You can compare whatever you want when you're evaluating subjective criteria for a purchase decision - and the socioeconomic rationale behind the motivations leading to the decisions the companies made is interesting but not relevant to the comparison at decision point.

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

#749

Post by [deleted] »

tw04 wrote: post #747
ericmcer wrote: post #716

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Apple’s business model isn’t selling your personal information. In fact they go out of their way to protect your personal info. Requiring an AppleID is significantly less concerning than requiring a Facebook account.

[deleted]

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

#750

Post by int_19h »

parasubvert wrote: post #677
int_19h wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Anyone who has been around longer than a minute in the ecosystem. The iTunes Store isn't a subscription service, it's an a la carte store. Done! More importantly: it's not confusing because no one really cares or needs to care. New folks use the Apple Music subscription, old folks that know the difference use either.

There is, in fact, an iTunes subscription called iTunes Match. That's the one that lets you upload your own tracks to the cloud, scans them to match against the catalog, and then gives you DRM-free high quality downloads of it.

On the other hand, with Apple Music, there's a different subscription that also lets you upload your music to the cloud and scans them for matches, but what you get back out of it is DRMed downloads. Which don't work outside of the Apple ecosystem, and stop working even on it if you cancel your Apple Music subscription.

On top of that, the way matching works is different for the two services. iTunes Match actually analyzes the raw data of the track to do the exact match, while Apple Music seems to prefer metadata. Which means that, with the latter, you'll often get a different variant of the song, in cases where multiple versions exist.

Post reply on HN