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

241–250 of 582 posts

Re: Apple Vision

#241

Post by elcomet »

seydor wrote: post #161
vlovich123 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your keyboard works just fine in VR. What’s the problem? I think a real display replacement (in terms of shrinking down your monitor/TV to something you can trivially carry around with you) seems like a real use case.

it doesnt exactly work as a screen replacement because it is stricly personal. Good for using in airplanes and maybe when alone but like other VR glasses, it doesnt fit well in other circumstances

You'll certainly be able to share screen with others later.

Re: Apple Vision

#242

Post by crazygringo »

zwily wrote: post #124
silvestrov wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even the clip with recording the kids felt awkward as the kids did not ackowledge the presence of the parent at all. It felt they were Photoshopped into an empty movie. Recording using an iPhone would an upgrade as your kids can now much better see your facial expressions and you would be able to turn around to make a "selfie" recording showing both you and the kids in the movie.

There’s lots of rumors that an upcoming iPhone model will include 3D recording.

Yup that will make perfect sense.

Once Apple has a 3D playback device, adding another camera bump at the bottom of the phone won't be terribly hard. I just wonder if it'll be a pair of regular lenses or fisheye lenses.

Re: Apple Vision

#243

Post by zild3d »

seydor wrote: post #139
aqme28 wrote: post #34

All these "relive your memory" videos are incredibly awkward, because of how downright sad it is to strap this on your head during your kid's birthday just to relive it on repeat like Tom Cruise in Minority Report. The real usecase is porn, but they're too tactful to say it.

Can't you do that already with a 360 camera? VR porn is generally meh, no? It's a nice gimmick but is it really better beyond the novely factor?

3d video would capture depth, so not really the same thing as 360 degree video. Think moving your head and seeing in 3D from that new perspective and feeling the depth, vs just being able to look in all directions (in 2D)

Re: Apple Vision

#244

Post by mdanger007 »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #228
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…

$3500 + tax device won't scale. It's not something that most people have a budget for.

1st generation apple products are never for the masses. If you want to see what Vision will be in a few years, look at their other product trajectories.

Re: Apple Vision

#245

Post by alpaca128 »

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

All non-budget smartphones of the last 5+ years were more expensive than what you imagine as consumer-compatible price.

Re: Apple Vision

#246

Post by crazygringo »

AnonC wrote: post #157
tashoecraft wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, here's a wild thought, the whole device will get smaller....And standalone cameras will exist. So it wont be awkward, as it will just appear to be glasses on your head that we've not found awkward in the last several hundred years.

> So it wont be awkward, as it will just appear to be glasses on your head that we've not found awkward in the last several hundred years. That’s what Google Glass tried and it flopped anyway. People also found a camera on glasses (like the Google Glass version) to be highly creepy. Apple emphasized that the front of these glasses will clearly indicate when someone’s taking a photo or video (to the subjects who’re se…

> People also found a camera on glasses (like the Google Glass version) to be highly creepy.

I knew someone who wore Google Glass all day every day, they worked on my floor.

It wasn't creepy, nobody ever reported feeling uncomfortable at all. It was merely extremely dorky.

Re: Apple Vision

#247

Post by screye »

justinsaccount wrote: post #234
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…

> To be fair, Carmack had been pushing for an all-out device but got sidelined by Zuck's push towards cheap and scale. You have that completely backwards. > "I've always been clear that I'm all about the cost-effective mass-market headsets being the most important thing for us and for the adoption of VR," Carmack said. "And Quest Pro is definitely not that..." https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2022/10/carmack-wants-a-25…

Thanks, corrected

Re: Apple Vision

#248

Post by bryanlarsen »

flappyeagle wrote: post #206
bryanlarsen wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How much do you look behind you at an NBA game? 180 degrees is fully immersive in my experience.

Re: Apple Vision

#249

Post by beezlebroxxxxxx »

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…

I think Apple might stumble over the same things as Meta and other AR/VR headset companies. The big issue for consumers is product differentiation. Put simply: How is the experience of using this product any different than another product that they already use?

Fundamentally, these companies have to show how their product is a) unique and b) useful in a way that differentiates the headset from using a laptop or a tablet or a smartphone. I think all of them are great at marketing point a but seriously struggle with point b. Getting widespread adoption, in any way, requires moving beyond novelty factor and into serious impact on how people work or go about their lives. Apple seems to be really focusing on domestic, 'casual' applications, or 'knowledge work' style arrangements, like meetings or co-operative creative work. I don't think people will find much benefit in that outside of their normal desktop workstations. AR in warehouse or construction or more labour intensive situations or (unfortunately) military applications is actually where I think something like these headsets could be more successful. Cheaper devices do have an advantage in that respect, so long as the tech matches the user need. To summarize my point, I think we're still a good decade or more away from the point when these headsets reach anything near moderate adoption. At some point the cheap devices, the amazing tech, and the clear use-case will converge; but I don't think we're there yet.

Re: Apple Vision

#250

Post by noirscape »

mattnewton wrote: post #218
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 o…

The problem with Meta is far deeper than a few corporate heads or what they control - the customer just straight up does not trust them. Privacy is something they've never really been good with (remember, they were at the center of the Cambridge Analytica scandal) and whenever they've been asked to do any form of moderation, Metas name always gets dragged through the mud (regardless on if you think they screwed up or not, this is about how this affected their PR).

It doesn't matter how much money they dump into VR - unless they either get to brand it fully away from Facebook or do some serious PR repairing, their VR efforts won't work out. Privacy is a big thing and for Facebook/Meta, that is the one name even most average users will recognize as "do not trust" when it comes to their privacy related matters.

Note that this only really goes for the Facebook and Meta brand names because Meta spend a lot of time promoting the rename of Facebook to Meta, so it inherited all that distrust. It doesn't go for Instagram or WhatsApp.

Post reply on HN