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

Apple’s new headset meets reality

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 527 posts

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#241

Post by smoldesu »

woah wrote: post #169
Qweiuu wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear your killer features and don't care for them at all in any way to put on glasses for them. I only need real navigation on holiday and I'm pretty sure not taking some expensive glasses on travel. Neither when hiking nor in a foreign country. And all the other Infos? I don't even use my smartphone for them. Why would I wear an expensive headset to compare a 3€ product?

I hear your killer features and don't care for them at all in any way to carry a tiny computer for them. I only need real navigation on holiday and I'm pretty sure not taking some expensive pocket computer on travel. Neither when hiking nor in a foreign country. I just print out the directions from MapQuest. K.I.S.S. And all the other Infos? I don't even use my desktop PC for them. Why would I carry an expensive hand…

What, you expect me to wear those gaudy glasses for my HUD? Can't you just send me the Neuralink version instead?

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#242

Post by avalys »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #236
bredren wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is hard to not compare the breakthrough product release count between Jobs and Cook. If that is the measure, then we have to bring in Jobs' tenure as not only CEO but company founder that stretched 25 years as CEO, 1976 to 1985 and 1997 to 2011. Cook only took the reins in 2011, and at that time arguably the company should not have focused on releasing yet more revolutionary products. iPhone is the most successful…

> One product often left out, which may have started with Jobs, but delivery should be attributed to Cook is the new Apple HQ. The initial impact has crumbled due to Covid WFH. > However, this campus may turn out to be a force multiplier going forward. If so, it is a victory, but not in the minds of consumers. Curious, have you ever actually talked to anyone that worked there? While I have admittedly only talked to a…

Apple Campus 2 is about a superblock away from Apple Campus 1, so unless we’re talking about someone whose 5-minute commute doubled to 10 minutes, no one’s commute doubled in any sense where the comparison is meaningful.

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#243

Post by furyofantares »

I think Apple wouldn't ship this if it wasn't a very, very good AR headset. Something you can read in and work in for VR, and see the world around you in for AR.

Maybe $3000 is just the minimum price to get such a thing right now.

There are tremendous downsides to wearing such a thing on your head, it would take a magical feeling device with tremendous upsides to warrant it beyond the niche VR gaming population. I'm willing to bet the thing isn't just an expensive Oculus Quest.

But I also doubt anyone (internal or external) knows how magical it has to be for the upsides to be so much greater than the downsides that it attracts significant adoption.

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#244

Post by musicale »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #236
bredren wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is hard to not compare the breakthrough product release count between Jobs and Cook. If that is the measure, then we have to bring in Jobs' tenure as not only CEO but company founder that stretched 25 years as CEO, 1976 to 1985 and 1997 to 2011. Cook only took the reins in 2011, and at that time arguably the company should not have focused on releasing yet more revolutionary products. iPhone is the most successful…

> One product often left out, which may have started with Jobs, but delivery should be attributed to Cook is the new Apple HQ. The initial impact has crumbled due to Covid WFH. > However, this campus may turn out to be a force multiplier going forward. If so, it is a victory, but not in the minds of consumers. Curious, have you ever actually talked to anyone that worked there? While I have admittedly only talked to a…

I don't know whether they've backed off from the open plan office layout for Apple Park[1], but that sounded terrible to me.

Personally I'd almost certainly prefer a real office (even a tiny closet-like one) with a door, maybe in Infinite Loop.

[1] https://www.macworld.com/article/670869/complete-guide-to-ap...

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#245

Post by amatheus »

cubefox wrote: post #138

From the information available so far, the Apple headset will be fairly close to Meta's Oculus Quest in terms of hardware: Portable and with external cameras to allow for orientation and "mixed reality". Maybe Apple is on the right track here, since the Oculus Quest has sold more units than all the other VR headsets combined. But there is one big difference: Apple's headset will be a very expensive premium product (a…

I don’t think it’s wise to trust the rumored prices much. Even if the rumors are overall right because of multiple points of leakage in the supply chain, price would be one of the easiest information for Apple to keep secret.

In fact the rumored price may even be planted by Apple to create an anchor and make the product look cheaper once released.

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#246

Post by tomjakubowski »

KerrAvon wrote: post #232
zamnos wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that, dear reader, is how we ended up with hundreds of bland copy-cat Android phones to the iPhone. There's something to be said, mentally, for working somewhere that's inspiring. A shitty office in yet a clone of all the other office parks, buried in office-park-landia of San Jose, is not it. Even a stroll through the secret underground parking lot at Apple is inspiring with all the exotic cars that are owned by…

This is nonsense. The place where the iPhone was invented, and iterated upon for many successful years, was the Infinite Loop campus, which is pretty much a clone of all the other office parks. Initially, when the iPhone was invented, developers had their own individual offices there, with closeable doors, which was nice. Apple Park: it kinda sucks to actually work at Apple Park. It’s a goldfish bowl. It’s impossible…

Jobs drove a Mercedes SL55 AMG into work, sticker price $121k for the 2003 model.

Here's a forum post saying they were selling for $160k at dealerships https://mbworld.org/forums/sl-class-r230/25583-how-much-2003...

Really not a "pedestrian" Mercedes, at the time it would have been in the upper tier of their price range. The current-day SL AMG model starts at $178k.

And he leased a new one every 6 months.

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#247

Post by zamnos »

KerrAvon wrote: post #232
zamnos wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that, dear reader, is how we ended up with hundreds of bland copy-cat Android phones to the iPhone. There's something to be said, mentally, for working somewhere that's inspiring. A shitty office in yet a clone of all the other office parks, buried in office-park-landia of San Jose, is not it. Even a stroll through the secret underground parking lot at Apple is inspiring with all the exotic cars that are owned by…

This is nonsense. The place where the iPhone was invented, and iterated upon for many successful years, was the Infinite Loop campus, which is pretty much a clone of all the other office parks. Initially, when the iPhone was invented, developers had their own individual offices there, with closeable doors, which was nice. Apple Park: it kinda sucks to actually work at Apple Park. It’s a goldfish bowl. It’s impossible…

> Also, Teslas and Mercedes aren’t exotic or rare.

Tell me you live in a rich neighborhood without telling me you do.

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#248

Post by krsdcbl »

bredren wrote: post #80

>underscoring the narrative that the company’s biggest victories were initiated under his predecessor, Apple co-founder Steve Jobs What does the author consider to be a victory? Tim Cook was elevated because he had the operational capability to grow Apple. Jobs did not consider Cook to be a product design person. But Jobs trusted Cook to find and keep people who could design products. By any stretch of the imaginatio…

AirPods where and are loathed by some, but ultimately they present a well designed product that made the underlying product category more seamless and consumer friendly and accessible.

Their winning traits may seem banal, but in everyday carry objects small utility improvements play a huge role. Not having to deal with cables and increased range of movement are enough - what elevated AirPods though is that a visible, wearable product is an implicit fashion statement. Apples product designers succeeded in making st thing that is clearly recognisable and stands out against similar products already on the market, but is subtle enough not to disturb anything or polarise by totally overthrowing stylistic and societal convention. Perfect mix of identity and brand that is easy to integrate with your personal image.

Apple silicon is another kind of thing: it's just the same thing as before but cheaper and more powerful, without compromising any trait that made the predecessor products appealing.

Apple "reality" or whatever - I don't see carrying any of those same traits. It's much too visually disruptive to become an AirPod, it's much too close to similar products to be an M1, and on top of this it's success fully depends on expensive-to-produce software content within a technically complicated ecosystem, while Apple has long lost it's profile as a developer centric and welcoming brand and rather capitalized on it's ubiquity and alienated many developers who only still contribute to the platform it because they have too by sheer numbers.

Apple might be able to not totally fail spinning up the platform, because of buying power, image and again numbers.

But those just slightly more practical, still bulky and odd looking VR glasses are nowhere near replicating the seamless product fit of iPods, IPhones, AirPods or CPUs.

It's Metaverse all over again.

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#249

Post by oatmeal1 »

criddell wrote: post #174
cubefox wrote: post #138

From the information available so far, the Apple headset will be fairly close to Meta's Oculus Quest in terms of hardware: Portable and with external cameras to allow for orientation and "mixed reality". Maybe Apple is on the right track here, since the Oculus Quest has sold more units than all the other VR headsets combined. But there is one big difference: Apple's headset will be a very expensive premium product (a…

> I think consumers just don’t want to spend a lot of money on VR And I don’t think Apple wants those people as customers, at least not initially. $3000 for a headset from a company that sells $1000 monitor stands for $5000 monitors and $500 wheels for the computers doesn’t seem about right to me. In a year or two, the next generation of VR headset will be much better and still $3000 and you will be able to buy this…

The current best uses for VR are engineering and gaming. Given this is a consumer product, it won't be used for engineering, and given it's Apple, it won't have a big gaming library.

Apple will have to come up with something new for users to do for this product to justify a $X,000 price, almost regardless of how good the hardware is.

Re: Apple’s new headset meets reality

#250

Post by mensetmanusman »

astrange wrote: post #198
crooked-v wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key to losing weight with VR for the average person isn't in exercise-specific apps, it's in replacing sitting video game time with something just as engaging but that has you standing, walking in circles, crouching, and waving your arms around for a few hours instead. You're obviously not going to get buff from it, but it can add up fast for an otherwise sedentary person.

You don't lose weight via exercise, you lose it via diet. Exercise is sometimes found counterproductive in empirical studies because it makes you less compliant with your diet, which is much more important.

No, you lose it by not being sedentary.
Post reply on HN