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

Vision Pro Review: Apple's First Headset Lacks Polish and Purpose

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 76 posts

Re: Vision Pro Review: Apple's First Headset Lacks Polish and Purpose

#21

Post by outcoldman »

robg wrote: post #3

As a media consumption device it seems really cool, but I don’t see how the 10th or 20th generation version is relevant for daily life or work. Magic Leap spent over $4 Billion on the physics of high definition light onto the retina. There just doesn’t seem to be any way around the reality of the limitations in the AR approach. In 20 years it will still be a bulky headset with battery life limitations preventing the…

It is a long path not only to improve technology, but also find applications. It is like iPhone, was a long road to get where we are right now. It is possible that we might not find applications, and it is going to be dead end, as we had with 3D Movies. Sure it is fun to watch them on AVP as well, but it is way cooler to watch a movie even on smaller screen but with a good company.

Re: Vision Pro Review: Apple's First Headset Lacks Polish and Purpose

#22

Post by bottlepalm »

karim79 wrote: post #19

A single Thunderbolt (or HDMI) output. Then it could double as a Mac Mini on a desk. That would help justify about 1k of the total spend. I know it sounds a bit ridiculous, but I think it's less ridiculous than a 3,5k (minimum) face computer that, for most people, will not be getting nearly as much facetime (pun intended) as a normal desktop. One wired output, just one, for the love of God.

Can I get one of those for my iPhone as well? It has more than enough power for general purpose computing.

Re: Vision Pro Review: Apple's First Headset Lacks Polish and Purpose

#23

Post by [deleted] »

bottlepalm wrote: post #22
karim79 wrote: post #19

A single Thunderbolt (or HDMI) output. Then it could double as a Mac Mini on a desk. That would help justify about 1k of the total spend. I know it sounds a bit ridiculous, but I think it's less ridiculous than a 3,5k (minimum) face computer that, for most people, will not be getting nearly as much facetime (pun intended) as a normal desktop. One wired output, just one, for the love of God.

Can I get one of those for my iPhone as well? It has more than enough power for general purpose computing.

[deleted]

Re: Vision Pro Review: Apple's First Headset Lacks Polish and Purpose

#24

Post by wkat4242 »

bottlepalm wrote: post #22
karim79 wrote: post #19

A single Thunderbolt (or HDMI) output. Then it could double as a Mac Mini on a desk. That would help justify about 1k of the total spend. I know it sounds a bit ridiculous, but I think it's less ridiculous than a 3,5k (minimum) face computer that, for most people, will not be getting nearly as much facetime (pun intended) as a normal desktop. One wired output, just one, for the love of God.

Can I get one of those for my iPhone as well? It has more than enough power for general purpose computing.

If you're not bound to iOS: yes. Samsung DeX is just that. I can plug it into the Lenovo dock at work and have a personal pc on the go.

Id imagine this kind of thing is way too geeky for Apple to make though.

Re: Vision Pro Review: Apple's First Headset Lacks Polish and Purpose

#25

Post by kingds »

robg wrote: post #4
system2 wrote: post #2

People will look at this article in 20 years and laugh at the NY Times for being ridiculously wrong.

What does the version in 2040 look like? We’re 17 years on from the first iPhone, and it’s still the same basic device. Incrementally better every year hasn’t meant any radical changes.

it’s insane to argue that the iPhone 15 isn’t radically different from the iPhone 1. since 2007 smartphones have become capable of replacing so many of the separate gadgets people used to have. cameras and mp3 players (and phones!!) are basically a thing of the past thanks to the iPhone. i’m bearish on Apple Vision but if Apple can improve it at the same rate as the iPhone it will be here to stay imo

Re: Vision Pro Review: Apple's First Headset Lacks Polish and Purpose

#26

Post by wkat4242 »

novok wrote: post #11

This is the first vision pro review I've seen that has mentioned nausea. I know it is a possibility with any kind of VR headset, but in my usage of it I was surprised how good it was at avoiding nausea. Are there any other major outlet reviews that also mention nausea?

It's good at it not only because frame rate but because it avoids the scenario where the user walks around in a virtual world without physically moving. That disconnect is the #1 reason. The vision pro has no thumbsticks to move inside a game, you always move in the real world. Of course that doesn't really work for most immersive games because movement is restricted to whatever physical space you have. One of the reasons gaming is not a priority for this headset I think.

Re: Vision Pro Review: Apple's First Headset Lacks Polish and Purpose

#27

Post by wkat4242 »

system2 wrote: post #2

People will look at this article in 20 years and laugh at the NY Times for being ridiculously wrong.

People also said the iPad would replace laptops and it hasn't except for the 0.1% that have complement adapted to its limitations.

Doesn't mean the iPad is bad, but it's inherently much better at being a content consumption device.

I think this is how we should view the vision pro. It's not "the new laptop", it's something entirely new that has its own pro and cons that are not necessarilya complete match with existing products.

Re: Vision Pro Review: Apple's First Headset Lacks Polish and Purpose

#28

Post by kj99 »

karim79 wrote: post #19

A single Thunderbolt (or HDMI) output. Then it could double as a Mac Mini on a desk. That would help justify about 1k of the total spend. I know it sounds a bit ridiculous, but I think it's less ridiculous than a 3,5k (minimum) face computer that, for most people, will not be getting nearly as much facetime (pun intended) as a normal desktop. One wired output, just one, for the love of God.

Why not just buy a Mac? It really does sound ridiculous to ‘justify’ the price this way.

Re: Vision Pro Review: Apple's First Headset Lacks Polish and Purpose

#29

Post by pzo »

karim79 wrote: post #19

A single Thunderbolt (or HDMI) output. Then it could double as a Mac Mini on a desk. That would help justify about 1k of the total spend. I know it sounds a bit ridiculous, but I think it's less ridiculous than a 3,5k (minimum) face computer that, for most people, will not be getting nearly as much facetime (pun intended) as a normal desktop. One wired output, just one, for the love of God.

Unfortunately apple doesn't have courage to cannibal their other devices contrary to Steve Jobs that allowed iPhone kill iPod. Which is weird considering Macs (especially iMacs and Macs mini) are really tiny part of their revenue and apple is trying to diversify and earn from services. They sell just around 25m macs per year comparing to 250m iphones. MacOS still has around 10% market share. They definitely have big opportunity to grow here and move more people to their ecosystem.

Similarly with Apple TV - great specs and cheap device but too much restricted. Wish they make tvOS more open, apple TV having at least one usb-c port and allow to add some magnetic modules to add smart speaker, router, local backup (with removable ssd), wireless charging for smart devices.

Re: Vision Pro Review: Apple's First Headset Lacks Polish and Purpose

#30

Post by dmix »

Apocryphon wrote: post #9

Derek Guy, menswear writer: "Aesthetically, this is basically how you have to dress to make things like the Vision Pro and Cybertruck look cool. These things mainly look bad in public bc there's no congruity between the business casual gear most ppl wear and these futuristic designs" https://twitter.com/dieworkwear/status/1755425085580869834

Vision isn't really designed for urban outdoor use, which is obvious from the more detailed videos of people trying it (ie, moving backgrounds turning off windows, the motion stuff walking etc). Influencers were just doing it for attention or randoms with friends as a joke. But everyone seems to be treating it like it's supposed to be Google Glass 2.0 because they saw some viral photos,
Post reply on HN