231–240 of 346 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you read that much into it? It seems equally possible that they're beginning to wind things down and they're just releasing what they've got to the public now.
Official upstreaming efforts are a significant investment even if they have internal PoCs. You can't just "release what you've got".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I still don’t understand why I see people saying Vision is an unsuccessful and failed platform. Vision Pro is very clearly an early adopter version of a platform that has yet to truly get started. Obviously, a huge $3500 headset on your head is not the actual intended final form of this platform. The actual intended final form is glasses. And until those glasses are out you can’t say it failed, because it hasn’t even…
Because the rumor mill loves to churn things up, and people forget the past. The original iPod was an incredibly niche product. It required a Mac at a time when Macs were way less common than they are now. When Windows support was added, it required FireWire, which was quite uncommon. The original iPhone did OK but didn't sell super well. It was very expensive, had only 2G connectivity when 3G had already arrived, on…
But the Vision Pro? If you sold them at a flat-rate price of $1,000, I don't think I know people that would want to use one regularly. I don't even know anyone who would regularly use one if they got it for free. It's not going to replace the time they spend on their phone or Xbox, and it's probably not going to carve out any new routines so you can watch immersive video. It's competing against your phone and TV for YouTube privileges, and it's going to lose most of the time.
If Vision Pro was desirable to the average person, I might have hope for the product line as a whole. People don't want this from Apple though, it might as well be the spiritual successor to the Pippin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> While the Apple Vision Pro itself is not a good product Do you own one, or have used one extensively, to dismiss it so confidently? I own one, and it's a great product. The experience watching movies/shows is unparalleled.
Its clearly not a popular product and not for lack exposure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 appl…
I think it's not actually that bad a situation, to me I think we're just at matters of degree. To explain:
It's not that people can't see that it might be super nice to have an experience kind of like the AVP for a few already-known problems:
1. As an alternative to a big, heavy, non-portable display(s) or a bulky laptop for people who can't always just work at a desk.
2. As an alternative to a TV
3. Fun gaming applications. For instance, MarioKart Home Circuit is a neat game that uses physical karts with cameras, which you play on the TV, but imagine how cool it would be if kids could run around the house and the neighborhood with friends in AR racing karts that only you can see.
1 and 2 are already perfectly there, and obviously a very small number of games that take advantage of VR exist, but they're not that ambitious.
The issue though is that nobody wants those 'problems' solved badly enough to (A) pay $3500+ plus tax for it, nor (B) wants to wear a very heavy and awkward-looking helmet with poor battery life.
The promise is there. If a device can be made that is far lighter, can fold to fit in a coat pocket, with better battery life, and costing $1000, that could go a long way to being something people would find well worth the effort of carrying around and worth the cost. If everybody has one and it's comfortable and light, watching movies on it together, either on an awesome AR screen with atmospheric effects, or in a VR movie theater could be a fun experience rather than look like an absurd antisocial nerd thing.
All this will require investment and improvement of the tech, and will require a healthy developer ecosystem, but with those pieces I'd give the idea itself a good shot. We'll see if Apple is willing or able to do either one. If not them, someone else might.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 appl…
Its not just about manipulating objects spatially. You could do that on a desktop screen with a wii-mote. The other aspect of the form factor is that its an always on, omni-present display, with awareness of the user's surroundings.
This unlocks the ability for apps to be locked to specific locations and contexts, to overlay information on the world, and to, as you stated, manipulate them in a spatial way.
Once the UX itself isn't an uncomfortable hassle, the use cases are really very easy to imagine.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> While the Apple Vision Pro itself is not a good product Do you own one, or have used one extensively, to dismiss it so confidently? I own one, and it's a great product. The experience watching movies/shows is unparalleled.
Yeah - I thought it was a good product, just a way-too-expensive-to-ever-gain-popular-support, completely useless one since no developer wants to support a new Apple platform knowing how brutally Apple treats developers with their in-app-purchase nonsense, and Apple itself sure isn't doing anything to put any wood behind the arrow. If Apple cared, they'd drop the money to get, say, immersive courtside experience at e…
You assumed that models would stay that price forever???
"how brutally Apple treats developers with their in-app-purchase nonsense"
How is 15% brutal to have access to a market base of hundreds of millions of customers who can click to purchase without entering a credit card.
"Apple itself sure isn't doing anything to put any wood behind the arrow"
Of all the dumb things you said, this may possibly be the dumbest - though to be sure the other two items are incredibly stupid.
Apple has put a TON of effort into the Vision Pro. They have continued to produce high quality immersive content. They have obviously continued to work on new versions. They have recently put on an entire developer day program on producing immersive content (programmatic and video related). They have greatly improved the Mac mirroring features and added other good UI updates on a pretty continuous basis since launch.
Apple is doing all they can to move the platform forward, it just takes time to reduce costs. It's a platform well worth looking into supporting since Apple is obviously fully committed to it moving forward.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Man, I don't even bother using the ultra-wide monitor on my desk . The screen on my laptop can already display orders of magnitude far more information than I can easily process at one time. Even with contexts where I'm comfortable managing windows/buffers manually (e.g. emacs) there's simply too much space to easily manage. What do you do with all that space? Is it just pulling up every possible resources at once so…
Where it really shines though is for photo review and editing. There it is spectacular to have so much space for image review even with a good number of adjustment controls up.
The other thing the screen is great is for use on a plane. No-one can see what you are working on, but it's also a kindness to others since your laptop screen is totally dark. It was really nice working on an international flight with the AVP and a laptop.
Godot already supports VR via OpenXR. OpenXR is the Khronos-maintained industry standard for VR/AR devices—supported by SteamVR, Oculus, Vive, Pico, Windows Mixed Reality, Quest. Notably absent is visionOS / Vision Pro. I would insist Apple conforms to the industry standard. More scalable, open.
> 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.
Counterpoint: WebKit and Swift.