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

211–220 of 582 posts

Re: Apple Vision

#211

Post by lm28469 »

> This system was, at the beginning, dismissed by most high-end camera users: sure, a mirrorless system allowed for a simpler and smaller design, but there was no way a screen could ever compare to actually looking through the lens of the camera like you could with a reflex mirror. Fast forward to today, though, and nearly every camera on the market, including professional ones, are mirrorless: not only did those tiny screens get a lot better, brighter, and faster, but they also brought many advantages of their own, including the ability to see exactly what a photo would look like before you took it.

Even in 2023 EVFs aren't as nice to look through as OVF from the 80s though. I'm always surprised when I pick up my old film nikon after shooting digital for a while.

No matter what you do, real life will always look better than a screen, especially if said screen sits 2cm from your eyeball

Re: Apple Vision

#212

Post by vxNsr »

the_sleaze9 wrote: post #103
endisneigh wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but what's the relationship post Blu-Ray? Serving video in general has been important, but not pornography in particular. Ridiculous to say porn is the real usecase. If you have some articles about how porn in particular has driven cutting edge tech please do share. My understanding is that it's been more military, video games and space that have driven cutting edge tech (along with serving ads, of course).

Porn was the use-case behind the invention of internet payments. Why are so many people (outwardly) against porn when it's one of the biggest digital markets in the world?

Considering how hostile the whole financial industry is to that market segment I kinda seriously doubt that. eBay and PayPal propped each other up, Amazon normalized online shopping. It’s a little odd to me that you’re so set on putting porn at the center of everything in some strange Disney/marvel retconning attempt.

Re: Apple Vision

#213

Post by moralestapia »

Aperocky wrote: post #204
flappyeagle wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's the pragmatic approach, not the marketing one.

Re: Apple Vision

#214

Post by l33tman »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #143
Jakob wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except for the Apple Watch I had all these products. They were some of the best of their time and even hold up today in terms of design and usability. Your definition of success seems extraordinarily high, if these products were failures. Maybe measured by items sold. But then each of them stands in nearly every single design museum like MoMA, history books, and were clear stepping stones to the Mac mini (cube, sunfl…

The NeXT Cube was considered a failure. ... except ... when I write iOS software (for the most successful product of all time), I am frequently using types that have "NS" prefixes. I wonder where they came from?

IIRC Jobs purchased NeXT when he took the Apple CEO job, to get a new OS base. As NeXT was his company, I'm pretty sure it was a decision based on bias and urgency and not because NextStep was the best there was. But yeah it's an interesting legacy for sure :)

Re: Apple Vision

#215

Post by interpol_p »

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 reality-shaping power of Apple's demo maestros is truly admirable.

It really isn't just the demos that wow us, and it isn't just the high-end device. The device is packed with tech, for sure. But 80% of the story here is Apple's strong design choices:

"Here's how you will interact with the world. Here's how other people fit in. This is how UI is going to display. We rewrote our entire UI stack on top of a physically based renderer so developers can comfortably recompile their millions of existing apps. Here's how we process-isolated the gaze tracking so no third-party app will be able to data-mine it for personalised Ads"

They didn't just build a headset and call it a day. They didn't show useless, aspirational demos (though during the keynote, Disney certainly showed a whole lot of rubbish). They developed the UI paradigms, human interface guidelines, put huge thought towards accessibility. Those of us impressed with this are not wowed by just hardware, we're amazed by the amount and strength of design thought put into every aspect of your interaction with this computer. There's so much _opinion_ about what this computer should be, and how we should use it, that's the exciting thing

Their opinions may not pan out in the future. But I'm so glad _someone_ is having strong opinions about human computer interaction in the AR/VR space, because Meta and the rest certainly don't

Re: Apple Vision

#217

Post by justin66 »

DrammBA wrote: post #178
justin66 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple's problem is that the "pro" version is not just twice as expensive as the "consumer" version needs to be in order to be a market success, it's ten times more expensive than the consumer version needs to be. edit: the fanatics are really out with the downvotes today

Is it really a problem if it works and people buy it?

"People buy it" could mean a lot of things and I'm not sure what you mean. I don't think anyone is arguing that literally no people will buy it. "It works and people buy it" is a phrase that could be used to describe the Magic Leap One.

In my comment I wrote "be a market success."

Re: Apple Vision

#218

Post by mattnewton »

screye wrote: post #189

Now I am a lowly programmer + VR enthusiast, so my opinion does not count. But, how do big companies allow Apple to get away with such easy wins !?? Apple said : "We are going to throw infinite money at a pilot product that's basically a tech demo, and convince the market that this tech is for-real-for-real." Meanwhile, Facebook refused to create a balls-to-the-wall VR headset for years and still ended up with a cons…

My hot take from a random person spending time in the trenches: Meta leadership is focused on a _meta_ problem, namely that they do not own a major platform and are constrained from further growth compared to Apple and Google who do own major platforms. They are perfectly happy to be the android to whatever the next iOS is. From that perspective, a halo device is a risky bet because it doesn’t let you onboard a lot of people quickly and start building platform.

Re: Apple Vision

#219

Post by crazygringo »

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/

> Five games will feature celebrity broadcasters and be shown in 180-degree immersive VR, and WNBA games, NBA G League games and NBA 2K League games will be available to watch as well.

There's a big difference between just five games and all the games in a season.

I could totally see it moving $3500 headsets if it were actually all games. Also 180° is good enough for a lot of things but for this you'd want 360°.

Re: Apple Vision

#220

Post by MagnumOpus »

justin66 wrote: post #152
rsynnott wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Pro", in AppleSpeak, means "the expensive one". They've actually done this before; the MacBook Pro (first Intel Mac) launched some time before the MacBook (first consumer-oriented Intel Mac). This feels like fairly clear signalling that there'll be a cheaper more consumer-oriented one along later.

Apple's problem is that the "pro" version is not just twice as expensive as the "consumer" version needs to be in order to be a market success, it's ten times more expensive than the consumer version needs to be. edit: the fanatics are really out with the downvotes today

People buy non-pro iPhones for $800 - 20% less than the Pro; they are willing to buy MacBook Air's for >$1000 or so, more than half the price of a Pro; if this is marketed as both a TV and computer monitor replacement, many will be willing to spend quadruple digits (or $45 a month for 24 months) even on next year's budget version.
Post reply on HN