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

761–770 of 863 posts

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

#761

Post by rspoerri »

Aerroon wrote: post #528
Nevermark wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me it is not a novelty, it has completely stuck. Yes, on comfort for 10 hours. I have even worked 12 hours, then watched a long 3D movie (Blade Runner 2049, Dune I, etc.) without hesitation. I cannot imagine going back to only physical screens. I have a 98" monitor with two 55" monitors in portrait angled towards me on either side (heights all match), all wall mounted. Truly wonderful! But this has replaced that…

> • Never needing to put on or take off reading glasses to see far, or within inches. Can you expand on this? Does it basically have built in vision correction? This actually sounds like a 'killer' feature if you don't need to mess with glasses.

just for your information. there is only little knowledge about the influence of vr glasses on the vision. there have been reports of developers that worked in vr for a long time that had issues with theyr sight afterwards.

problems can come from increased heat within the vr device, but also because every lighty our eye receives comes in at the same angle, and thus the eye never needs to adjust to different distances, as it would have to do in a real environment. while it appears / looks the same as in reality it really isnt. thats also the reason you only need one correction.

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

#762

Post by tw04 »

timschmidt wrote: post #759
tw04 wrote: post #747

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

https://digiday.com/media-buying/apples-expanding-ad-ambitio...

>In the meantime, Apple continues to work with ad tech vendors it trusts — or rather, those with stated policies it approves of — particularly when it comes to a cornerstone of the iPhone maker’s brand: user privacy.

>However, a key question remains: how will Apple ensure user privacy as its ad ambitions expose the iOS ecosystem to a sector of the media landscape with a chequered record when it comes to a cornerstone of its brand promise?

>Earlier this year, it unveiled a tool it will use to police user privacy in the guise of Privacy Manifests (see video above), a measure that many interpreted as Apple’s attempt to (finally) stamp out illicit user-tracking, a.k.a. fingerprinting.

Apple has a vested interest in user privacy and talks about it constantly. Facebook has an interest in selling every piece of information they have about you to the highest bidder and has talked about how stupid users are to give them personal information.

They are not the same.

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

#763

Post by timschmidt »

tw04 wrote: post #762
timschmidt wrote: post #759

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://digiday.com/media-buying/apples-expanding-ad-ambitio...

>In the meantime, Apple continues to work with ad tech vendors it trusts — or rather, those with stated policies it approves of — particularly when it comes to a cornerstone of the iPhone maker’s brand: user privacy. >However, a key question remains: how will Apple ensure user privacy as its ad ambitions expose the iOS ecosystem to a sector of the media landscape with a chequered record when it comes to a cornerstone…

> Apple has a vested interest in

Shareholder profit.

> and talks about it constantly.

Must be true then. Definitely not marketing.

> Facebook has an interest in selling every piece of information they have about you to the highest bidder

Nothing you've said suggests any different of Apple.

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

#764

Post by chaostheory »

treyd wrote: post #703
chaostheory wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not the same. Seeing your friend or family member trapped in a small box is very different from having out with a low fidelity version of them playing mini golf or ping pong. Immersion and presence are things that you won’t understand if you refuse to try VR for longer than 5 minutes.

I own a Vive and used to use it regularly.

Barely anyone uses PCVR. If you want to use VR socially, it’s all on Quest.

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

#765

Post by backtoyoujim »

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…

Isn't this website run by people that school people to do just that ?

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

#766

Post by tw04 »

timschmidt wrote: post #763
tw04 wrote: post #762

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In the meantime, Apple continues to work with ad tech vendors it trusts — or rather, those with stated policies it approves of — particularly when it comes to a cornerstone of the iPhone maker’s brand: user privacy. >However, a key question remains: how will Apple ensure user privacy as its ad ambitions expose the iOS ecosystem to a sector of the media landscape with a chequered record when it comes to a cornerstone…

> Apple has a vested interest in Shareholder profit. > and talks about it constantly. Must be true then. Definitely not marketing. > Facebook has an interest in selling every piece of information they have about you to the highest bidder Nothing you've said suggests any different of Apple.

>Shareholder profit.

This is a tired trope. They have a clear interest in user privacy, as evidenced by their actions. You're either just trolling or being intentionally ignorant to the state of the market if you're claiming their only focus is "shareholder profit". Apple isn't Boeing.

>Must be true then. Definitely not marketing.

I mean, there are countless examples. From the default encryption in messages, to the ability to double encrypt icloud backups, to a literal lockdown mode in IOS to protect against nation state actors.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/105120

>Nothing you've said suggests any different of Apple.

You've provided absolutely nothing of substance beyond a link where Apple literally states they have hard requirements around user privacy for any advertising partners.

I'm done engaging in the conversation unless you've got something of substance to provide. The low effort one liners don't really have a place on HN.

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

#767

Post by schrodinger »

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?

Apple fan, but also Apple TV (the hardware device) and Apple TV+ (the streaming service).

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

#768

Post by timschmidt »

tw04 wrote: post #766
timschmidt wrote: post #763

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple has a vested interest in Shareholder profit. > and talks about it constantly. Must be true then. Definitely not marketing. > Facebook has an interest in selling every piece of information they have about you to the highest bidder Nothing you've said suggests any different of Apple.

>Shareholder profit. This is a tired trope. They have a clear interest in user privacy, as evidenced by their actions. You're either just trolling or being intentionally ignorant to the state of the market if you're claiming their only focus is "shareholder profit". Apple isn't Boeing. >Must be true then. Definitely not marketing. I mean, there are countless examples. From the default encryption in messages, to the a…

If you pay attention to the marketing, Google, and Samsung, and Qualcomm, and Sony, and Microsoft make most if not all the same claims. I haven't seen one that operates in a way that can prove it. All have some level of custom silicon involved. All could provide hardware documentation, source code, and installable or transparent keying. Barring the legal agreements between them, of course. I commend Apple for their amazing effort to uniquely ID each individual sensor and storage device in the world and tie it permanently to phone's unique ID, but again, it would be nice if the details of how that worked were published such that folks like Louis Rossmann could repair folks broken phones and laptops.

> The low effort one liners don't really have a place on HN.

Maybe you just didn't think about them long enough.

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

#769

Post by dTal »

jandrese wrote: post #713
zarzavat wrote: post #705

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Filters to discourage use? Do you have a source for this? Surely they are just low-res, infrared cameras.

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

#770

Post by zmmmmm »

in3d wrote: post #619
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…

None of this matters compared to the number of apps available. Given the high price of the Vision Pro and the resulting low sales, it would make little business sense for app developers to invest in creating apps for it instead of for the Quest 3.

This is a really interesting point and plenty of products have died on the hill of not realising that "content is king".

What makes it particularly interesting is that the VisionOS app store so far seems to have had quite an anemic reception from developers. Barely any novel non-toy apps have been released for it, with 8 months since devs got access last year and 2 months in the open dev ecosystem. It's possible the tsunami is just around the corner but it would have to be said that this seems to be diverging heavily at this point from the launch of the original iPhone app store. It was always going to be a question since the user base is miniscule compared to every other headset and iOS devs mostly have negligible experience in developing full scale VR / AR applications which is actually a very steep learning curve. So the barriers are high and the incentive relatively small.

If Apple fails to attract devs to its store it will create a huge problem for them that they are pretty unused to having. I wonder how they will approach a situation like that, since their culture is not used to dealing with that as a problem these days.

Post reply on HN