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

Apple Vision

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 582 posts

Re: Apple Vision

#201

Post by danpalmer »

samwillis wrote: post #174
danpalmer wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you include the development of iOS and the A/M series chips then sure I guess it gets close, but it seems obvious to me they would have been doing those things anyway. I guess it depends whether you want an all-in cost to compare to Magic Leap, in which case you could argue that most of the history of Apple has set them up for this – if you want to make a great VR headset, just make the best phone ever first – if…

Yeh, exactly, I was aiming for a more direct comparison to Magic Leap. Effectively how much would it have cost them to actually achieve this level of functionality and polish, based on the "all in" cost for Apple.

I'm not sure if it's possible to draw that comparison. For example, Magic Leap could have used Android (I don't know, maybe they did?) and saved almost all of that iOS R&D cost. Even they were working on incremental costs over what already exists.

Re: Apple Vision

#202

Post by boringg »

Is stratechery still doing high quality content? I remember reading their content a couple years ago and really enjoyed it but it's a tough business building constantly interesting content on a consistent basis.

Honestly curious -- it's a challenge for most podcasts / content producers.

Re: Apple Vision

#203

Post by layer8 »

nynx wrote: post #2

> It really is one of the best product names in Apple history: Vision is a description of a product, it is an aspiration for a use case, and it is a critique on the sort of society we are building, behind Apple’s leadership more than anyone else. I agree that “Vision” is a good product name, but “Vision Pro” just feels intensely pedestrian. Why is it called “Pro?” Is there a non-Pro version?

The “Pro” moniker is mainly to make the price more palatable.

Re: Apple Vision

#204

Post by Aperocky »

flappyeagle wrote: post #59
pavlov wrote: post #35

"The company was fairly mum about how it planned to make those cameras and its format more widely available, but I am completely serious when I say that I would pay the NBA thousands of dollars to get a season pass to watch games captured in this way. Yes, that’s a crazy statement to make, but courtside seats cost that much or more, and that 10-second clip was shockingly close to the real thing." The author was shown…

It’s obvious how a 10 second clip scales to 10 minutes or 10 hours or 10 days. You don’t need that much imagination or even a leap of faith. A court side seat to an NBA game is north of $1000. If this creates 20% of the experience it will easily pay for itself in 1 season.

Make no sense to sit courtside, the spectator should be able to be wherever they wanted, either in the air, on the nosebleeds, on the court itself, or under the court.

Having a courtside seat is a physical constraint that does not need to be respected in VR.

Re: Apple Vision

#205

Post by l33tman »

jimlikeslimes wrote: post #190
silvestrov wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would NBA allow for this as they would lose an extreme amount of money if people can get the same experience at home? That would be economic suicide for them. They need to keep the seats being a special experience.

In the UK football broadcasting is regulated. The traditional top-flight league games kick off at 3pm on Saturday. None of those matches are allowed to be broadcast to maintain gate revenues for the clubs. Very roughly speaking only 3 matches on Sunday and one or two on weekday evenings are broadcast. Cup matches etc are allowed to be broadcast too. All these rules only govern what they can broadcast to UK citizens t…

Unfortunately any case where the camera moves is not going to work, for a very large portion of the population (I don't know the percentages of people who get motion sickness in VR but they get that even from their own slow motion, imagine motion from a bouncing camera on a motorcycle)

Re: Apple Vision

#206

Post by flappyeagle »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #192
pavlov wrote: post #35

"The company was fairly mum about how it planned to make those cameras and its format more widely available, but I am completely serious when I say that I would pay the NBA thousands of dollars to get a season pass to watch games captured in this way. Yes, that’s a crazy statement to make, but courtside seats cost that much or more, and that 10-second clip was shockingly close to the real thing." The author was shown…

The Quest has live VR NBA games, and it's not selling a ton of $500 headsets for that use case, so I somehow doubt that it's going to move a lot of $3500 headsets. https://about.fb.com/news/2023/01/nba-games-in-vr-on-quest/

180 degree VR. This is not the same thing.

Re: Apple Vision

#207

Post by matwood »

pavlov wrote: post #163
mcphage wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> iMac G4 "Sunflower" What was a failure about that? It looked good and worked well. > solid gold first-gen Apple Watch In what way did the gold watch fail? It was the first gen watch, the same hardware as the rest, just made of gold for rich people. It didn’t fail any more than any other color did.

Both failed badly to live up to Apple's sales expectations. The Sunflower iMac was discontinued even before its successor shipped. The Apple Watch Edition was supposed to grow Apple into a luxury brand and expand its margins massively (you can find many interviews with Jony Ive from 2015 where he explains this thinking). This strategy was a dud.

The AWE strategy failed, yet now the AW (like the iPad) define the category they are in. AV could be similar. Apple doesn't know which use case will take off, but it has to get it out there to find out. Leading with the best hardware they have right now lets developers go wild.

Re: Apple Vision

#208

Post by wussboy »

flappyeagle wrote: post #59
pavlov wrote: post #35

"The company was fairly mum about how it planned to make those cameras and its format more widely available, but I am completely serious when I say that I would pay the NBA thousands of dollars to get a season pass to watch games captured in this way. Yes, that’s a crazy statement to make, but courtside seats cost that much or more, and that 10-second clip was shockingly close to the real thing." The author was shown…

It’s obvious how a 10 second clip scales to 10 minutes or 10 hours or 10 days. You don’t need that much imagination or even a leap of faith. A court side seat to an NBA game is north of $1000. If this creates 20% of the experience it will easily pay for itself in 1 season.

Is "an unrestricted view of the game from close up" the only appeal to court-side seats? I think it's perhaps the least interesting aspect, since you can achieve this for free at almost any non-NBA level basketball game.

Or perhaps the appeal of court-side seats is the atmosphere, experience and social signaling, none of which are provided by these glasses.

Our desire for "cheap" court-side seats is understandable from an evolutionary sense. But it's almost like these glasses (and VR in general) are designed to provide the "feeling" of evolutionary benefit while carefully and completely removing any actual benefit.

Re: Apple Vision

#209

Post by screye »

_gabe_ wrote: post #138
pavlov wrote: post #35

"The company was fairly mum about how it planned to make those cameras and its format more widely available, but I am completely serious when I say that I would pay the NBA thousands of dollars to get a season pass to watch games captured in this way. Yes, that’s a crazy statement to make, but courtside seats cost that much or more, and that 10-second clip was shockingly close to the real thing." The author was shown…

Thank you, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills or something. I have no idea how much of the footage in the long advertisements are actual in-headset recording vs highly editorialized made up aspirational CG. Additionally, I really don't think all the people here singing the praises of Apple's currently nonexistent headset (for actual customer use at least until 2024 or something) have ever used a headset. Headsets giv…

> Acne (from sitting on the same parts of your face all the time)

This might actually end up being the hardest bit to solve. VR has to create a dark room for your face, so removing facial contact is practically impossible.

There are very few things that normies will accept, if the compromise is more acne.

Re: Apple Vision

#210

Post by monkbent »

pavlov wrote: post #140
parthdesai wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MKBHD mentioned the same use case in his video and how he would pay good money to NBA for it. And he used the headset for a good 30 minutes. Maybe it's a valid use case? Have you personally tried the headset to flat out dismiss it?

I'm not dismissing it. I'm actually considering shelling out the money for this Apple headset. I've just become wary of exuberant initial reports based on 10-second exposures to completely scripted demo apps. These journalists who get this launch-day experience were selected for their history of writing nice things about Apple. They're being shown the device in ideal conditions under the watchful eye of Apple's world…

I have been exceptionally critical of Apple, particularly in terms of ATT.
Post reply on HN