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

851–860 of 863 posts

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

#851

Post by theshrike79 »

xibbie wrote: post #842
esskay wrote: post #803

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What data are they collecting about you, and who is it being sold to? With Facebook its an easy answer - hobbies, intererests and habbits to use for targeted advertising. That logic doesn't quite work for Apple given they arent showing ads on your OS, only in the app store. It's pretty obvious Apple's revenue focus is on hardware and services, not on ads.

This is neither obvious nor accurate. Apple's advertising business is estimated to be closing in on $10Bn yearly, while their browser pre-load deal with Google brings them in even more than that, and data-sharing agreements are assumed to be part of the deal. The fallacy that Apple can be trusted with your data because it makes more money elsewhere is incredibly naive and unilateral.

Just to put this in perspective, Apple's yearly revenue is closing around 400B. 10B is in the "other" category in the revenue chart.

The ads are still only in the App store, where you need to specifically go and look for... apps. And you'll get ads for... apps.

You're not getting personalised ads for incontinence products because Apple doesn't know nor care that you have frequently visited a doctor specialising in said issues. Your phone does and Siri will suggest you the exact place as a destination if you start up maps in your CarPlay view.

Google and FB _will_ serve you said ads and with eery accuracy and speed. (I've visited a niche product store on my desktop browser, opened Instagram 5 minutes later and received ads for that exact niche)

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

#852

Post by thefz »

dilyevsky wrote: post #848
thefz wrote: post #847

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't believe their lies. They let agencies directly into their supply line. Nobody is above the law and they must comply like any other. The Bernardino case was a stunt to get people believing this lie. All the other cases in which Apple complies are not made publi, though. Corporations are not your friend.

Right and you know this because…?

Snowden.

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

#853

Post by mliker »

wolverine876 wrote: post #85
mliker wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, I've had my Vision Pro for a month, and I still use it to watch shows/movies and as my portable external display. It has its daily and weekly use cases

The OP says it's too uncomfortable (including too heavy) to wear for that long. What is your experience with that? > It has its daily and weekly use cases What do you do with it?

I wear it about 30 min at a time, 2 min breaks in between, 2-3 hours total daily.

Daily use case: portable Macbook monitor weekly use case: watching shows or a movie. I have to pause due to dry eyes, not due to the heaviness. After the first 2 days of using it, it's not actually that heavy afterward, but it is noticeable if you pay attention.

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

#854

Post by int_19h »

parasubvert wrote: post #846
int_19h wrote: post #750

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dow…

I'm aware of iTunes Match vs Apple Music Sync Library. Incorporating legacy services into new ones is always a product management tap dance of tradeoffs. My point is that bring your own library of pre-ripped music into a subscription service for syncing is rare these days unless you're over a certain age or are an audiophile (at which point there are better alternatives like Roon). If you're going to do rare things,…

It's not rare for anyone who already has a collection of music, e.g. because they are coming from a different service. It doesn't have to be ripped - it may well have been purchased via numerous existing services that sell downloadable files, from Amazon to Apple itself.

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

#855

Post by esskay »

xibbie wrote: post #842
esskay wrote: post #803

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What data are they collecting about you, and who is it being sold to? With Facebook its an easy answer - hobbies, intererests and habbits to use for targeted advertising. That logic doesn't quite work for Apple given they arent showing ads on your OS, only in the app store. It's pretty obvious Apple's revenue focus is on hardware and services, not on ads.

This is neither obvious nor accurate. Apple's advertising business is estimated to be closing in on $10Bn yearly, while their browser pre-load deal with Google brings them in even more than that, and data-sharing agreements are assumed to be part of the deal. The fallacy that Apple can be trusted with your data because it makes more money elsewhere is incredibly naive and unilateral.

> data-sharing agreements are assumed to be part of the deal

You're making a massive assumption there. Unless you can back that up it is what it is - fud.

You'll be fully aware that as part of Google's anti-trust case Apple was only willing to enter into data sharing with Google if they provided data to Apple, which they refused to do.

So again, we're still in a position of the only place Apple is focused on ads is the app store, so I'll ask again. What data are they collecting about you, and who is it being sold to?

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

#856

Post by jsjohnst »

dnissley wrote: post #850
jsjohnst wrote: post #837

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure do. But it’s also a quite a bit more expensive phone too, which helps level the playing field some. Either way, there will never be a perfect apples to apples comparison. That said, there is sufficient evidence to support my claim made in my original post.

Is the claim that sales numbers are the only way to measure success? And since the 2g iphone didn't measure up in that department it doesn't qualify as a success?

If you have a counter claim, especially one you can back up with as much facts as I did, please do so. Otherwise, please either stop straw manning or find some other place to do so.

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

#857

Post by phatskat »

IshKebab wrote: post #639
averageRoyalty wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are drastically ahead in the VR gaming space. But the potential VR/AR market is hundreds fold bigger than that.

The potential market in 10 years . Apple has jumped the gun here. This is their Apple Newton moment for AR.

I hope that seeing where the Newton could’ve gone gives them the confidence to continue with the AVP. A few iterations could really show a great product both in terms of quality and practicality.

I had a Newton and loved it, and eventually tried a few Palm devices but nothing ever quite hit like the Newton for me, a real shame they dropped it imo.

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

#858

Post by phatskat »

freedomben wrote: post #779
parasubvert wrote: post #667

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Through Safari, or forthcoming VR video player apps (Apple doesn't censor generic utilities).

I'm not saying they should (in fact I think the Valve approach is better), but Apple does seem to be strongly against porn. Why wouldn't or shouldn't they censor generic utilities? If it's keeping users safe in apps, wouldn't it be keeping users even safer in a browser or other content browsing app?

You’re suggesting Apple would block porn all together on their platform. You can go to any XXX site right now, find VR videos, and play them in your mobile browser. Through on a Cardboard or even a crappy Polaroid “VR” phone case and you’re set. There’s no way Apple would say “well, on the Vision Pro, we will actively block adult websites”.

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

#860

Post by alt227 »

parasubvert wrote: post #675
alt227 wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please feel free to share what these amazing risk taking products are which Apple R&D have come up with. As far as I can see its all the same thin, flat device with a screen, just different sizes.

The M series of chips? That was a major risk. AirPods/pro/max? They've taken major presence a space owned by Sony, Samsung and Bose. Apple Watch Ultra? Though it's thin and flat, The iPhone X was a huge leap in specs, contrary to the entire market analyst sentiment that people wanted cheaper phones. Apple made a big bet that people would want the opposite: more expensive phones, and they were right.

M series of chips is an arm processor, licensed by ARM and fabricated by TSMC. On top of that it is a processor. Did apple R&D invent the processor? No, they licensed an existing design, tweaked it, and paid a factory to make it for them.

Airpods are just bluetooth headphones. Did Apple R&D invent bluetooth, or even bluetooth headphones?

Apple watch was not even the first smart watch to market. They did not invent the watch, and they did not invent the smart watch.

You must be pretty blinkard to think that Apple invented all these things instead of licensing existing patents and repackaging them, which is what they do best.

Post reply on HN