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

251–260 of 582 posts

Re: Apple Vision

#251

Post by elzbardico »

silvestrov wrote: post #104
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.

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.

There's a limited number of seats in any stadium and the demand today is far bigger than the offer. Besides being very hard to find tickets, a lot of fans with money live far away from the cities where the game is being played, and some of them (lots of them, actually) live in other countries.

People don't go to the game solely to watch the game. They go because of the atmosphere, the status of being able to afford the tickets, and the excitement. The VR experience even if a lot more immersive than watching on TV, would never be the same, people would still buy seats as they always did.

Re: Apple Vision

#252

Post by DrThunder »

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…

Maybe... it's also entirely possible this will go the way of Google glass.

Re: Apple Vision

#253

Post by crazygringo »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #94
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.

Is it that different from using one of those gigantic camcorders from the 80’s where you had to put one eye up to a viewer stalk? People used those, but it’s not like they had it out the entire event (I assume, based on how short the videos I’ve seen taken with them usually are).

That's exactly what I'm thinking. SLR's and camcorders were always big bulky things that covered your face when using them.

This isn't much different from that.

Re: Apple Vision

#254

Post by dangus »

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…

This exactly. In my view, Meta was hyper-focused on having their own App Store. They missed the boat on having one for smartphones and tablets, so VR was their only reasonable choice.

Everything else about the platform was secondary: just get a cheap device into people's homes as fast as possible.

The Oculus Quest is cheap enough to be a dust gatherer where many families never plan to purchase the 2.0 product (see also: Nintendo Wii).

Re: Apple Vision

#255

Post by thrashh »

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…

One thing which ties this all together is that Apple has a full-blown legitimate OS that can run professional software that already exists. Throw it into a headset, driving up the price significantly, but potentially make a computer replacement.

The only other company in the world that has an extensive OS ecosystem like that is Microsoft.

Everyone else never really had a chance to make a new class of device.

Re: Apple Vision

#256

Post by bnj »

silvestrov wrote: post #104
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.

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.

Really? We're talking about a transformation from a fixed and time-bound asset, the live experience of being physically present, into an entirely digital experience which can be replayed.

Doesn't this change the potential customer pool from people within traveling distance at the right time with enough money, into a global market?

Consider this: Sell the live courtside seat for the same 1000+; Open up sales for the virtual experience for 20% and sell it to anyone you like -- and, the next day, put the same no-longer-live experience available to pass-holders at $x/season and on-demand for $50 --

Haven't you just transformed your $1000 seat into some hugely increased figure?

Re: Apple Vision

#257

Post by crazygringo »

ryandrake wrote: post #239
brookst wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leaving personal desires out of it, the relationship of porn and tech goes back at least to VHS vs Betamax, probably further. It’s not unreasonable to believe that does not stop with XR headsets.

Apple is famously anti-porn, and enforces this policy in their App Store. What are the chances that apps/content for this device won't be as locked-down or more locked-down as the App Store?

Does it matter? You watch through the web. It's just video playback whether 2D or VR.

Do you think nobody is consuming porn on iPhones?

Re: Apple Vision

#258

Post by ttcbj »

dgs_sgd wrote: post #98

Does anyone think the military would be interested in using vision for training purposes, like a fully immersive combat experience? Seems like a market that the article missed.

I find it much easier to imagine commercial uses (perhaps visualizing a planned building in its real environment) than personal uses.

Re: Apple Vision

#259

Post by Levitz »

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.

>It’s obvious how a 10 second clip scales to 10 minutes or 10 hours or 10 days.

Have you ever watched the announcement of a new videogame console? Or even new videogames?

10 seconds of marketing don't extrapolate well to 10 days of actual usage.

Re: Apple Vision

#260

Post by Tepix »

mdanger007 wrote: post #244
bufferoverflow wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$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.

The 1st generation iPhone was successful.
Post reply on HN