Live data from Hacker News

Native visionOS platform support

github.com

181–190 of 346 posts

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#181
post #180

This indicates to me that the Apple Vision and visionOS product line and OS are not canceled internally and that Apple is still committed to its future. While the Apple Vision Pro itself is not a good or successful product, progress in display technology will enable Apple to build a more attractive consumer product, in the form of light, comfortable and unobtrusive AR glasses. In this line of thinking — not just focu…

The core idea is solid. At this point it just needs to be lighter, have better battery, and a much lower price. With further refinement and increased economies of scale these issues could potentially be fixed. Nearly all of the reviews I’ve read say that it’s a good user experience overall, but it’s not worth the price.

> The core idea is solid

What is the core idea?

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#182
post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The core idea is solid. At this point it just needs to be lighter, have better battery, and a much lower price. With further refinement and increased economies of scale these issues could potentially be fixed. Nearly all of the reviews I’ve read say that it’s a good user experience overall, but it’s not worth the price.

> The core idea is solid What is the core idea?

Spatial computing.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#183
post #180

This indicates to me that the Apple Vision and visionOS product line and OS are not canceled internally and that Apple is still committed to its future. While the Apple Vision Pro itself is not a good or successful product, progress in display technology will enable Apple to build a more attractive consumer product, in the form of light, comfortable and unobtrusive AR glasses. In this line of thinking — not just focu…

The core idea is solid. At this point it just needs to be lighter, have better battery, and a much lower price. With further refinement and increased economies of scale these issues could potentially be fixed. Nearly all of the reviews I’ve read say that it’s a good user experience overall, but it’s not worth the price.

It doesn't need a battery at all. Just have it connect directly to a Mac to use as a virtual Mac display. It's what I use my Vision Pro for as its primary use case, to have an ultra-wide monitor in front of me without taking up any physical space. I use it for hours every day as my primary programming platform.

I really have no other use case, and don't need the VR/AR features. The virtual ultra-wide display of the latest VisonOS updates, which has the area of 2 4k monitors, is just amazing for coding. It's an incredible user experience and worth every penny for the Vision Pro for that alone.

Throwing away some of the AR/VR features and using it as a virtual display only would make it lighter and smaller. I could use something that doesn't block me from taking a drink while I code, for example. I couldn't care less about video games as well.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#184
post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The core idea is solid What is the core idea?

Spatial computing.

Spatial computing is to interact with and manipulate 3D space—blending the physical and digital worlds. It enables users to understand, interpret, and respond to the geometry, position, and movement of real-world environments.

I fail to see that as a future mode of user/computer interaction that competes with or augments mobile/laptop computer usage in any meaningful way.

Even movie watching, the most successful application of visionOS / Vision Pro, has limited use because it forces a solitary experience. While it can be useful (eg on a plane or in bed while your SO sleeps), you also already carry your phone and earbuds with you so it isn’t a compelling enough use case. Nobody is creating games for vision either and it I think it’s unlikely to become a favored general computing device or mode.

I can probably say more succinctly: spatial computing appears to be a classic case of a solution looking for a problem.

Prior art by Microsoft (HoloLens) and Google (Glass) are interesting because they occupied very different positions on the spatial computing spectrum, but in both cases they surfaced headwinds like the fact that people are unlikely to put glasses or headsets on the face/head juts in order to “compute”.

If there was a path to direct neural input or contact lens delivery, now we might be talking, but even then, you’ve solved the physical impediments but still don’t have a compelling general purpose computing use case.

Some would argue an addictive use case like porn can tip the scales, but I’m doubtful and, besides, I think we can be sure that Apple would never position themselves to depend on porn to advance their business interests.

It seems safe to predict that within 3 — 5 years Apple gives up on this vision. They might come back to it in the future but I think they’re more alarmed by the other computer interaction paradigm that is getting a lot more traction: GenAI/LLM, which subverts the need for a rich visual display and fits and extends all our other computing models more elegantly.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#185
post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The core idea is solid What is the core idea?

Spatial computing.

Spatial computing of iPad apps floating in the air with an even worse, low information rate input method?

Neat concept, kneecapped at birth by sandboxing requirements, App Store rules, and Apples desire to own all of the innovation that could happen on the platform.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#186
post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://caniuse.com/webgpu Caniuse says it's still behind a feature flag, are you sure you didn't enable that at some point?

I don’t recall enabling it.

This doesn't load for me on my iPhone or iPad:

https://webgpu.github.io/webgpu-samples/?sample=texturedCube

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#187
post #115
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The VisionOS crew have decided to not support OpenXR and Apple has broadly decided not to support Vulkan Because they already have their own graphics API called Metal. Why aren't you asking Microsoft to drop DirectX and start first-party support for Vulkan?

Because DirectX is a success and Metal is not. If Apple wanted Metal to be a success then they'd need Windows devices to support it, and ideally a console too (like DirectX with Xbox). There's a lot of bad things you can say about Vulkan's market position relative to DirectX, but it's clearly more successful than Metal. More games and work applications are written in it. I don't see what Apple gains from going their…

Even without a standard, people will create abstractions on top so all you need to do is add support to those abstractions. If needing to conform to a standard was hampering Apple's ability to get developers to make software for their platforms they would add support. It's obviously not materially affecting them.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is "playing the long game" and there is "flogging a dead horse". I still can't believe that both apple and meta bet the farm on VR and screwed up so spectacularly. It was fairly clear that VR was never going to be mainstream for the same reasons that 3D movies and TVs vanished after all that fanfare and marketing a few years ago: people don't want to wear the glasses, and they don't want to pay extra ei…

> flogging a dead horse It's the first version of their XR device. I still own the first iPod, iPhone and Apple Watch and remember people saying that each one would be failures.

500$ is a toy most upper middle class families can afford. That's the Meta Quest 3.

3500$ will even have someone making 200k plus pause to think if they really need it.

Not to mention the Vision Pro looks much more fragile. Looks like it'll slip off my face and shatter.

I'm cool with wasting $500, but I could do a lot of things of $3,500.That's a round trip flight to Thailand and a nice hotel room, you might be able to fit in a trip to Paris too.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#189
post #183
post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The core idea is solid. At this point it just needs to be lighter, have better battery, and a much lower price. With further refinement and increased economies of scale these issues could potentially be fixed. Nearly all of the reviews I’ve read say that it’s a good user experience overall, but it’s not worth the price.

It doesn't need a battery at all. Just have it connect directly to a Mac to use as a virtual Mac display. It's what I use my Vision Pro for as its primary use case, to have an ultra-wide monitor in front of me without taking up any physical space. I use it for hours every day as my primary programming platform. I really have no other use case, and don't need the VR/AR features. The virtual ultra-wide display of the l…

There's nothing really to "throw away" that would make it slighter and smaller whilst still keeping your desired feature set.

The reality is that you're using the VR/AR features in one specific way - not that you're not using VR/AR

It's possible a slightly weaker CPU or GPU could be used but I don't think so and in any case the effects of that would be on cost not on weight. And I don't think the difference would be significant.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The visionOS platform doesn't have OpenGL support, as it's not supported by visionOS. Hell would freeze over before Apple conformed and contributed to an existing open standard. They even failed to follow the Godot contribution guide for the PR itself.

POSIX? C++? HTML? USB? There are plenty of existing open standards that Apple conforms and contributes to. When open source types complain about this, I always enjoy the irony that macOS is POSIX compliant while Linux is not.

Those are fantastic examples. At the same time it begs the question: why does Apple not play nicely with graphics standards? It could be that the those standards bodies are dysfunctional or too slow so Apple has to go their own way. However, I suspect that that is not the main reason.
Post reply on HN