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

791–800 of 863 posts

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

#791

Post by gfosco »

thrdbndndn wrote: post #546

> Motion blur in passthrough mode ended up being one of the many reasons why I decided to return my Vision Pro, because it’s just uncomfortable If I am in VR field, and wasn't very tight on the money (which I assume the author isn't), I probably will keep a Vision Pro with me even if it's a literal peace of junk just so I can play with it occasionally for my curiosity. I wonder what's the difference between me and hi…

At the end of the article, that's my takeaway too. I can't imagine going to this level of effort on the Vision Pro and not keeping it to see how the software develops.

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

#792

Post by jasonjmcghee »

iamtheworstdev wrote: post #657
kossTKR wrote: post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. Macrumors reports 200.000 sold vision pro's a few month's ago. So maybe 300.000 today? It's a type of gadget that hasn't become widely adopted yet and the usecases and killer features are almost non existent compared to the iPhones phonecalls + web browsing, music, videos, notes and many others. Really hard to gauge what success means here, but if we say that in a year it will sell 500.000 units, that's…

there is no killer feature where it sees mass adoption.. 99.9% of the population cant afford to drop $3,500 on a computer screen for their computer.

> computer screen for their computer

You're making a plenty convincing argument- why misclassify the device? It's a full computer.

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

#793

Post by wolverine876 »

bradly wrote: post #771
wolverine876 wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This was part of the internal culture during my time at Apple. From a management perspective, how do they handle the people side of that - keeping good people on the team and keeping them motivated to do something extraordinary? People don't like spending time on unsuccessful projects and don't want their names associated with them, and don't want to work extra hard on something that won't come to fruition. Maybe A…

You don't know if Apple sees them as failures. We weren't building to v1. We were building a long lived product. We knew that. We understood our vision and that it might take years to see that through. I don't think anyone would be ashamed to have Apple Watch or HomePod on their resume.

Clearly you are right and they were right, but that's hindsight.

Getting people to see that in forseight when they aren't seeing results, they won't for years, and it's all uncertain that it all won't be a waste of time, and it's frustrating and they have other, more certain offers - that's difficult leadership and management, and I wonder how Apple does it.

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

#794

Post by GeekyBear »

twic wrote: post #778
GeekyBear wrote: post #732

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure I buy it. "legitimately better than a regular 4K TV broadcast by enabling hardcore fans to feel much closer to the action" sounds like it offers something new. People who are sports enthusiasts have a proven willingness to drop thousands of dollars on large screen televisions, streaming services like NFL Red Zone, or thousand dollar Superbowl tickets, so the potential for sales is there.

I think the question is, how many people watch sports to be close to the action, and how many watch sports to be close to their friends?

Are you saying that there is no such thing as people who watch sports at home by themselves?

Because that's not remotely true.

In addition, Apple already has it's shareplay tech that allows networked users to watch shared video, listen to shared audio, or video game together.

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

#795

Post by PJDK »

GeekyBear wrote: post #794
twic wrote: post #778

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the question is, how many people watch sports to be close to the action, and how many watch sports to be close to their friends?

Are you saying that there is no such thing as people who watch sports at home by themselves? Because that's not remotely true. In addition, Apple already has it's shareplay tech that allows networked users to watch shared video, listen to shared audio, or video game together.

My argument is that the experience of seeing sport from a specific seat is inferior to watching it multi camera with huge zoom lenses. The thing that draws you to the stadium is the sense of being in a crowds.

The technology to do this has been around for a while to has anyone tries. I'd certainly be curious to give it a go. I imagine there are some technical problems too, like if your team scores and you jump in the air and your view point stays still.

This did get me thinking if any sport might be better viewed in VR, and maybe games like pool, snooker, chess. Where you see the whole thing from one vantage point, and the scale is such that the 3d of it all would be meaningful.

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

#796

Post by uxcolumbo »

TylerE wrote: post #641
richardw wrote: post #640

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Isn't this already a solved problem? See 3D apps, i.e. Blender, Unity, Unreal etc. You can copy objects easily.

I don't think the intention is to copy an object with the baked in lighting at the time of making a copy. I can imagine you just want to copy the object and the behavior how it reacts to whatever environment it's placed in.

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

#797

Post by qnleigh »

Does anyone else find it implausible that Apple will offload things like the CPU to the external battery pack like claimed here? The R1 chip surely has to stay on the headset to keep their 12 ms latency, and wouldn't there be a similar issue with moving the CPU away and having to serialize a bunch of data back and forth? Presumably for many AR applications, it's important to have similarly low latency to the CPU. I'm really curious if people with this.

More likely they will reduce the weight by release a non-pro version without features that most people don't really need (like the external screen).

On the other hand, I think the author is overly pessimistic in thinking that no VR headset will be able to replace his dual 6k monitors. In the long term, aren't we headed for VR with the equivalent of a retina display?

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

#798

Post by goosedragons »

jsjohnst wrote: post #731
hattmall wrote: post #709

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah if the first version doesn't take off that's generally not a good sign. 1st Iphone did extremely well.

> 1st Iphone did extremely well Citation needed. The 1st gen iPhone sold 6 million units over two years. The Nokia N95 (not a super mainstream device, but in a similarish price category) sold 10M. Other Nokia phones of the time period sold 100+ million devices. BlackBerry, LG, and Sony/Ericcson was in the tens of millions per device model. Let’s not forget: 1. The iPhone didn’t support 3G, which essentially all other…

How many countries was the Nokia N95 available in VS. the 2G iPhone? I don't think it launched in Asia or most of Europe.

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

#799

Post by lynndotpy »

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.

The Oculus was bought by Facebook from a startup and the Facebook/Meta account requirement was imposed later. This history is a reason I would not buy an Oculus.

The AVP does not have this history, and as far as I know, Apple hasn't retroactively required an Apple account on hardware sold without the requirement. (I could be wrong here, and Apple certainly is not a blameless tech company.)

Like the parent comment, I agree that this blog post completely skirts the issues most important to me. Like the parent comment, I agree that the platform is the distinction, but for different reasons. If I owned an Oculus, I would consider it to have been bricked.

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

#800

Post by vagrantJin »

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.

how exactly do you know this and why come on here and state it as a fact?

its a dubious claim at best, and if it were true would require asking the elephant sized question in the room - why collect my data if you arent going to use/sell it anyway? is collecting ny data just a fun internal project at Apple?

Post reply on HN