Live data from Hacker News

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

hugo.blog

101–110 of 863 posts

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

#101
If people wanted to wear a phone screen taped over their eyes out in public, the technical limitations wouldn't barely make a dent in that desire. But the vast majority of people want to have real in-person human interactions when they're out in the world. That's what the makers of these devices fail to see. But they can't see that because they're self-described VR enthusiasts. If they talk to non VR enthusiasts (which is everyone else), they'll see that the limiting factor isn't the hardware.

Think of it this way. Most people think it's rude to talk to each other indoors with sunglasses on. That's the slimmest form factor you're going to get, and it still steps on the toes of human connection.

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

#102
post #95
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll only buy a VR device if it's in the form of glasses, not big goggles I need to strap to my face.

My main concern with the vision pro is that all use cases I know of (other than gaming) work better with some sort of pass through HUD display like the HoloLens. They spent a ton of company resources, weight and power making the wrong form factor emulate the right form factor, and are shipping with zero killer apps. You can’t even let your friends play with it without getting it re-fit to their head at the Apple Stor…

But their work on the software side transfers seamlessly to a pass through device later. It still serves its purpose as a beta (beta meaning data collection and improvement process, not its modern “we just don’t support this” definition.

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

#103
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think, crucially, Apple also invented a price anchor for VR computing. Previously, only the extreme high end of VR broke $1.5k. Now if apple puts out an Apple Vision SE or non-pro or whatever at $1,999 it will be seen as an absolute steal.

No it won’t. It will still be seen as 4x the price of the Quest 3.

It could play out like the iPhone where it costs N times more than the competition, but lasts 2N times longer, and has better resale value. (For iPhone, N is ~1.5)

I’m having a hard time imagining that level of planned obsolescence for VR displays though. If anything, I’d expect the quest 4 (or 5, or whatever generation matches Apple specs) to last longer.

Of course, it’s a moot point for me and the large percentage of the population that will never strap Facebook-controlled eye trackers to their head.

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

#104
post #45

> Watching movies in Vision Pro is great at first but most people will stop doing it after the initial novelty excitement wears off Watching TV/movies in virtual reality seemed like such an incredibly compelling idea that we (the Oculus team at Meta/Facebook) built an entire product around that idea — Oculus Go. Launched in 2018, Oculus Go was the biggest product failure I’ve ever been associated with for the simple…

How do you watch a movie on the vision pro with your family?

People keep vastly overestimating the amount of content that is consumed in group settings.

I watch a show / movie with my girlfriend a couple times a week. A nice TV is still better for that obviously.

But I watch stuff on my own every single day. Personal media consumption for me is probably 8x my group-based consumption. I would wager most people these days have similar habits.

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

#105
post #96

I recently saw Dune 2 on IMAX. If the Vision Pro can soon replicate that experience they will print (even more) money and could lock the big film studios down forever pretty much. That is the killer use case. Everything else seems like fluff.

Solo-movie watching seems like _a_ usecase, but I'd argue most people don't watch movies alone.

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

#106

No matter how much I contemplate about it, there was still no “killer” app that affords me to buy a VR set. I’ve tried them, it’s nice. But it really has no place in my life. And how could this change? Even with better displays etc. the whole idea of disconnecting my main sense - the eyes - from my surroundings is so strange to me that it seems irreconcilable. Can anybody relate?

The killer app for VR is the novelty of putting it on for the first 15 minutes / first 2 hours (depending on if you suffer from motion sickness or not) imho. Thiking about it we would have VR predecessors in shape of screens attached to our forehead if this way of using technology was useful. We don't have that though so VR has nothing to replace. PS: I bought a VR headset to check my bias and I don't use it because…

i felt this way too. i did buy the AVP because of the 14 day return policy. i ended up using it four hours a day, which is all of my non meeting work time.

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

#107
post #77
post #4

Great article. It's so long, the four-part title is deserved and necessary to understand what's here. I found this part somewhat funny or perhaps disingenuous: > "I admit Vision Pro is the ultimate tech toy, but since I’m not an active developer I can’t justify the $4,049.78 price tag (512GB model + California sales tax) simply for keeping up with the VR market, so I returned my Vision Pro for a full refund inside th…

I balked at this too - more because the idea of returning something I bought that arrived in perfect condition, after I’ve given it a fair amount of use, just because I decide I don’t like it never occurs to me. It feels vaguely entitled and unethical. In my head, you can’t return things you’ve used! In this situation I’d either keep it and use it infrequently (or maybe it’d grow on me), or perhaps sell it.

It’s a legitimate form of “try before you buy” for online purchases. Even when buying in-store where you can try it before purchase, the demo is rather limited in time and exploration freedom to really make an informed decision. Companies like Apple know that their lenient return policy is worth the extra purchases it generates.

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

#108

No matter how much I contemplate about it, there was still no “killer” app that affords me to buy a VR set. I’ve tried them, it’s nice. But it really has no place in my life. And how could this change? Even with better displays etc. the whole idea of disconnecting my main sense - the eyes - from my surroundings is so strange to me that it seems irreconcilable. Can anybody relate?

I believe he nailed it with the live sports argument.if Apple can get that going people will buy it for that alone.

I have personally wanted VR for flight sims. It is jarring to have a screen full of instruments or looking out the window, but difficult to do both without a crazy physical setup that I do not want in my office. VR solves this by simply moving your head, the same as pilots do in real life.

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

#109

His point on the significant motion-blur / image quality issues that exists with pass-through is my biggest complaint with the device hardware-wise. I got the prescription lens inserts that Apple had suggested, and when I first put on the device I thought that either my eye doctor had gotten my prescription wrong, or something was defective with my device. The blur is distracting -- and looking further away makes it…

[deleted]

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

#110

His point on the significant motion-blur / image quality issues that exists with pass-through is my biggest complaint with the device hardware-wise. I got the prescription lens inserts that Apple had suggested, and when I first put on the device I thought that either my eye doctor had gotten my prescription wrong, or something was defective with my device. The blur is distracting -- and looking further away makes it…

This actually helps me a little bit. I've also seen people say they can read screens, and that's not my experience. I also have the lens inserts, and I suspect that part of the problem is how they implement the prescription. I'm not knowledgeable enough about lenses to say this with confidence (please correct me!), but I wonder if this is because Apple prioritizes a farther away focal point for the inserts, so you literally can't focus on anything close up.

I've noticed that I can almost read things if I hold my phone a little farther away, but I wouldn't call it usable by any stretch. I've considered getting contacts for the first time just to test all of this, but I'm extremely turned off by the upkeep of them (to say nothing of the idea of touching my eyeball to put them in).

Post reply on HN