Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Vision Nope: Why I returned mine

jorgeherskovic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 213 posts

Re: Apple Vision Nope: Why I returned mine

#171

Post by samatman »

thiago_fm wrote: post #10

"It’s a V1 Apple product. It’s a new category, for them, and by far the most ambitious headset on the consumer market." Well, all other V1 Apple products weren't half-assed, or at least when they were, they offered something more than the competitors. Meta Quest 3 is better on everything, despite eye tracking(for a reason, it sucks for many things, I'm sure Meta can have just as good, if they wanted to, but they like…

> Well, all other V1 Apple products weren't half-assed

Can't think of an Apple product line in which the first edition wasn't half-assed in some important way. This is something the company is known for, it's a truism. Even the first iPod made significant compromises.

Re: Apple Vision Nope: Why I returned mine

#172

Post by jherskovic »

fsh wrote: post #162
nozzlegear wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author's price breakdown matches mine almost identically, and like he said: if it weren't for the 0% financing for 12 months, there's no way I would've swallowed that $5000 pill. I still haven't decided if I'm going to return mine or keep it yet. I find it pretty compelling and I like to write code with it in bed or on the couch, but I can't say it's better than my much cheaper (by comparison) iPad Pro for such t…

I just don't get this obsession with taking on debt. "Financing" doesn't make a product any cheaper. If you can't pay $5000 now, you probably shouldn't buy the product.

It's better-than-free money. The 0% interest rate means, accounting for inflation, you're getting paid to use Apple's money instead of your own.

I can afford the lump sum, but it's a lot nicer to smooth out the cash flow using Apple's money instead of mine. As long as you're responsible, what's the harm?

Re: Apple Vision Nope: Why I returned mine

#173

Post by timeon »

zie wrote: post #147
itsoktocry wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple made it clear to me that they've released this device mostly out of fears of phones becoming irrelevant and not having a device to replace it. Wait, people think this thing is going to replace a phone ? I can't imagine...

I think they have 2 big paths to go down, the current path which is a device mostly for in one spot, mostly solitary use cases. This is certainly the current version of the product. You don't have to take it off for quick conversations or to go potty or get a glass of water, but you absolutely want to take it off to have dinner with someone, spend quality time with people, etc. The second big path is the it's just a…

This is far from 'just a pair of glasses'. Problem is that this is not real AR while acts as one. Seems like dead end.

Re: Apple Vision Nope: Why I returned mine

#174

Post by jwells89 »

PaulHoule wrote: post #160
jwells89 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Apple has a significant leg up over Meta in the software space, and this shouldn’t be underestimated. visionOS has a proper AR UI framework with affordances for AR/VR usage whereas the Quest is just Android mapped to 3D space. This will become more of an advantage for Apple as the platform matures because it’ll allow for (for example) automatic adaptations of existing apps for different device form factors, w…

I thought AVP was just "iOS mapped to 3D space". Apple has been proliferating form factors for many years and has done little on "automatic adaptations of existing apps for different device form factors" so far.

visionOS adapts UIKit/SwiftUI to a much greater degree than Quests do Android Framework/Jetpack Compose.

visionOS windows and controls have depth, different shapes and sizes, and different interactions than their iOS counterparts and are drawn as vectors which look good no matter how close they are to your face.

By contrast the Quest just draws Android apps as textures on planes, making them floating tablets. The visionOS equivalent is iPad apps running in compatibility mode, which while functional are a notably worse experience than native.

Re: Apple Vision Nope: Why I returned mine

#175

Post by nozzlegear »

OJFord wrote: post #91
nozzlegear wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple's return policy has always been very generous. I often buy their new products to see if I'll like them, and if I don't then I know I can just return them within 14 days for a full refund. It's netted them more than a few sales from me.

In the UK (and EU maybe?) that's not 'very generous', that's just 'distance selling regulation'. (Though as the name implies it wouldn't be mandatory for in-store purchases.) Besides, you could buy your Apple products from Amazon instead and get ..I think it's 30?

I should clarify, it’s generous for the US. =P I’m not sure about the Amazon return policy in the US either, I don’t buy from them very much. I dont think they let US customers return purchases with no questions asked, there has to be a reason such as the product being damaged? I could be wrong though, like I said, I don’t purchase from Amazon much.

Re: Apple Vision Nope: Why I returned mine

#176

Post by paxys »

SllX wrote: post #163
paxys wrote: post #60

Any product that has to be defended by "this is just V1, wait for it to get more mature before it can be useful" is doomed to fail, and this is the most common line in every Vision Pro review I have read. Every successful Apple product to date has been indispensable from the moment it is first launched. On the other hand if people aren't able to extract value out of a $3500 piece of tech in front of them today then n…

> Every successful Apple product to date has been indispensable from the moment it is first launched. Counterpoint: the Apple Watch and AirPods were not indispensable from day one but became very successful product lines for Apple over time. I still wouldn’t call them indispensable (generally at least, I consider my AirPods Pro pretty damn indispensable personally though) and they still consistently bring in billions…

AirPods are the opposite of what you are claiming. They were massively successful from the moment they launched, so much so that Apple has made basically no changes to them over the years and their sales haven't slowed.

Re: Apple Vision Nope: Why I returned mine

#177

Post by nozzlegear »

fsh wrote: post #162
nozzlegear wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author's price breakdown matches mine almost identically, and like he said: if it weren't for the 0% financing for 12 months, there's no way I would've swallowed that $5000 pill. I still haven't decided if I'm going to return mine or keep it yet. I find it pretty compelling and I like to write code with it in bed or on the couch, but I can't say it's better than my much cheaper (by comparison) iPad Pro for such t…

I just don't get this obsession with taking on debt. "Financing" doesn't make a product any cheaper. If you can't pay $5000 now, you probably shouldn't buy the product.

This is America baby, I don’t have a debit card I have a credit card. Jokes aside, if I’m going to pay the $5000 anyway and they let me pay for it over 12 months with no interest, I might as well do that and get a little credit score bump as well. I can afford the product, I just decide to pay it in 12 small chunks instead of 1 big chunk.

Re: Apple Vision Nope: Why I returned mine

#178

Post by timeon »

pirate787 wrote: post #89
elchief wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, it's less than the original macintosh (which would be 7k today)

That's my thought as well. The price is very fair considering all the tech in it, and historically we paid a lot more for less. My crappy 1997 Fujitsu laptop was $3k in today's dollars.

> My crappy 1997 Fujitsu laptop was $3k in today's dollars.

I bet it was more useful.

Re: Apple Vision Nope: Why I returned mine

#179

Post by gigel82 »

KMnO4 wrote: post #32
thiago_fm wrote: post #10

"It’s a V1 Apple product. It’s a new category, for them, and by far the most ambitious headset on the consumer market." Well, all other V1 Apple products weren't half-assed, or at least when they were, they offered something more than the competitors. Meta Quest 3 is better on everything, despite eye tracking(for a reason, it sucks for many things, I'm sure Meta can have just as good, if they wanted to, but they like…

I genuinely think Apple wanted this to be relatively unpalatable to the typical consumer. They want to build something to prove their tech is the future, but don’t actually want anyone to buy this iteration. Why? Because they need developers to make worthwhile apps. Yes, the original iPhone shipped without an App Store, but it could also do regular phone stuff (calls, sms, etc). What’s the “regular” stuff you’d expec…

We've had the Hololens for 8 years (and VR for even longer) and no groundbreaking apps or features showed up. I suspect there simply aren't any.

And there probably won't be any until we get the tech down to just look like regular glasses.

Re: Apple Vision Nope: Why I returned mine

#180

Post by timeon »

paxys wrote: post #73
NarcisMirandes wrote: post #56

This is not a regular product. It's a prototype. The goal is not to sell a lot of units nor compete with existing VR sets. They probably want: - Get feedback - See how the end consumer use it - See what programmers can built In other words, it's the Apple version of a MVP. Minimal Viable Product

You don't blanket the entire country in ads for a "prototype" product that you don't intend to sell a lot of.

I'm not fan of this vocabulary, but: its just cope.

"It is not there yet but it will be."

"They just need to make (unspecified) killer app to make it useful."

Sure

Post reply on HN