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

Native visionOS platform support

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 346 posts

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#251

Post by Eggpants »

wpm wrote: post #185
_mlbt wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spatial computing.

Spatial computing of iPad apps floating in the air with an even worse, low information rate input method? Neat concept, kneecapped at birth by sandboxing requirements, App Store rules, and Apples desire to own all of the innovation that could happen on the platform.

I also wished it was more Mac air than iPad but the remote wide curved desktop feature is VERY nice. It seems to me the next logical step is remote individual app display/controls.

Sadly the Adtech scumbags can’t help themselves from trying to steal all the data they can, just see how they ignore robots.Txt, download phone address/numbers lists, download the outlook data file until measures were added to stop that, paying game publishers to include libraries loaded with phone home calls, and ignoring do not track because $$$ > ethics. Heck even Nvidia video drivers phone home with collected metrics. Sandboxed operating systems based on bsd jails(iOS), flat pack and snaps (Linux), and chromeOS are a first step at stopping this unethical behavior. The good old days of trusting software from large companies not to install data harvesting spyware are long gone.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#252

Post by halJordan »

oofManBang wrote: post #213
arjonagelhout wrote: post #147

This indicates to me that the Apple Vision and visionOS product line and OS are not canceled internally and that Apple is still committed to its future. While the Apple Vision Pro itself is not a good or successful product, progress in display technology will enable Apple to build a more attractive consumer product, in the form of light, comfortable and unobtrusive AR glasses. In this line of thinking — not just focu…

> While the Apple Vision Pro itself is not a good ... product I must admit I'm baffled by this reaction to the first model: * It's clearly far more impressive technologically than any competitor. * The price point clearly indicates it wasn't aimed at the general consumer, which is normal for such a massive technological leap compared to their other recent consumer stuff (e.g. the apple watch). * They got loads of fee…

Same reaction. The vision pro is clearly a great headset. The biggest thing restraining it has been the ability to program for it. If Apple will not let 3rd party devs access the primitives needed to create game engine support then Apple needs to lend that support. Here they are

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#253

Post by halJordan »

porphyra wrote: post #245
oofManBang wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While the Apple Vision Pro itself is not a good ... product I must admit I'm baffled by this reaction to the first model: * It's clearly far more impressive technologically than any competitor. * The price point clearly indicates it wasn't aimed at the general consumer, which is normal for such a massive technological leap compared to their other recent consumer stuff (e.g. the apple watch). * They got loads of fee…

It is a technological tour de force and an amazing demo of what's possible and what is soon to come. But if we define a "good product" to mean a commercially successful one, then it isn't very successful. Still, I'm hoping it won't be killed and that it will continue to evolve and become successful eventually.

Thats a very naive understanding of success. Youre telling the soap maker on etsy doesnt have a successful product because she doesnt sell a million units a day? Youre telling me that Rolls Royce Aerospace isn't successful because they only 100 aircraft engines a year?

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#254

Post by philistine »

jonplackett wrote: post #137
elAhmo wrote: post #106

Both users of visionOS are happy about this announcement.

This is sad but true. I was so excited about the Vision and desperate to get one. Finally my company has bought one for testing and I’m honestly not sure what to even use it for. Maybe a big screen Mac? Is that it? I think Apple has fallen into the same dead end they did with Apple TV: no controller = no games. Both Apple TV and Vision Pro could have been filled with games from indie devs. But it’s impossible to play…

> Both Apple TV and Vision Pro could have been filled with games from indie devs.

Panic, with its minuscule staff, has a more active store than either tvOS or visionOS with the Playdate. It's ridiculous.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#255

Post by philistine »

lynndotpy wrote: post #197
jonplackett wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is sad but true. I was so excited about the Vision and desperate to get one. Finally my company has bought one for testing and I’m honestly not sure what to even use it for. Maybe a big screen Mac? Is that it? I think Apple has fallen into the same dead end they did with Apple TV: no controller = no games. Both Apple TV and Vision Pro could have been filled with games from indie devs. But it’s impossible to play…

I wonder how much of it can be blamed on the Vision Pro being nothing more than a big wobbly iPod Touch, instead of a real computer. For me, a Vision Pro would have been fantastically useful if it was a little bit more like MacOS (or Android), and shipped with a native, real terminal that I could run things on. $3500 is suddenly a lot easier to swallow if I could think about it like 20 monitors to run terminals on.

The better analogy is that it's the Apple TV interface for your face. All the buttons are ginormous, the options are barebones, the information density is crap.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#256

Post by nomel »

vFunct wrote: post #209
numpad0 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congratulations, you just reinvented a decade old discontinued Microsoft products, Windows MR and HoloLens, which ended up being subsidization program for SteamVR and a pure tech demo.

Did not know HoloLens had 23megapixel displays to show high resolution text for coding. It must have been really useful back then with such a high resolution display that you could use for coding all day. People really need to understand that its the details that make a product viable, not the concept.

HoloLens 1 had nearly 40% higher PPD (47) than Apple Vision Pro (34).

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#257

Post by asadotzler »

arjonagelhout wrote: post #147

This indicates to me that the Apple Vision and visionOS product line and OS are not canceled internally and that Apple is still committed to its future. While the Apple Vision Pro itself is not a good or successful product, progress in display technology will enable Apple to build a more attractive consumer product, in the form of light, comfortable and unobtrusive AR glasses. In this line of thinking — not just focu…

>progress in display technology will enable Apple to build a more attractive consumer product, in the form of light, comfortable and unobtrusive AR glasses.

Except the Vision Pro displays have zero to do with the technology they'll use in spectacles. Spectacles are an entirely different tech stack. See the Orion demo for an example and you'll see that 100% of the R&D spent on goggles is tossed on the bonfire when considering spectacles.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#258

Post by arghwhat »

jayd16 wrote: post #231
arghwhat wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Official upstreaming efforts are a significant investment even if they have internal PoCs. You can't just "release what you've got".

Sure you can. That said, I'm not sure what Apple's usual style is and it might be pretty out of character (or not) to drop support shortly after an MR.

No you can't. Upstreaming a large feature like this requires at the very least allocating a number of manweeks to the upstreaming process, and that's without accounting for actually writing the feature in the first place. Making a PR and not following up would be worse PR (heh) than doing nothing, which is also costly.

If they had dumped a tarball or a fork somewhere with a hacked up PoC it could have looked like they just dumped what they had, but even that requires approvals and time from legal, and so someone has to decide its worth investing in.

(I have no interest in speculating about the Vision lineup itself, just commentating on open source contributions.)

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#259

Post by asadotzler »

oofManBang wrote: post #213
arjonagelhout wrote: post #147

This indicates to me that the Apple Vision and visionOS product line and OS are not canceled internally and that Apple is still committed to its future. While the Apple Vision Pro itself is not a good or successful product, progress in display technology will enable Apple to build a more attractive consumer product, in the form of light, comfortable and unobtrusive AR glasses. In this line of thinking — not just focu…

> While the Apple Vision Pro itself is not a good ... product I must admit I'm baffled by this reaction to the first model: * It's clearly far more impressive technologically than any competitor. * The price point clearly indicates it wasn't aimed at the general consumer, which is normal for such a massive technological leap compared to their other recent consumer stuff (e.g. the apple watch). * They got loads of fee…

>* It's clearly far more impressive technologically than any competitor.

Technology hardly makes a product.

>The price point clearly indicates it wasn't aimed at the general consumer,

You don't put your CEO on the cover of Vanity Fair and devote half your retail space and staff to it if it's not for the general consumer.

>* They got loads of feedback

Not as much as they hoped. They hoped to have 500K units in the wild in the first year and ramp up for the second year to a meaningful production run but that never happened because demand fell off a cliff once the fanboys got theirs and so the feedback is very, very limited and mostly negative or untrustworthy.

>* Nobody who is this critical seems to articulate what success would have looked like.

Apple scale scales. Meet or break Watch's first 2 year sales maybe? Watch, derided as a failure in the first year actually sold about ~20M units across both year 1 and year 2. Vision Pro will sell fewer than 500K units across year 1 and 2. 500K units!! One doesn't need to define success when failure is so easily defined here.

>Even just streaming video back and forth is going to be too power-hungry for serious use with lightweight glasses.

Spectacles will be entirely different technology stacks. See the Meta Orion prototype for example. You are correct, battery is an issue. Even bigger though is heat. Can't let things get smartphone hot on your face or it's game over. Anyway, expect low-res, narrow field of view, 2D overlays, more like your car's HUD than the immersive experience of goggles. But at least spectacles have a chance where goggles clearly do not, as demonstrated at both the high end and low end by Apple and Meta.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#260

Post by asadotzler »

halJordan wrote: post #252
oofManBang wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While the Apple Vision Pro itself is not a good ... product I must admit I'm baffled by this reaction to the first model: * It's clearly far more impressive technologically than any competitor. * The price point clearly indicates it wasn't aimed at the general consumer, which is normal for such a massive technological leap compared to their other recent consumer stuff (e.g. the apple watch). * They got loads of fee…

Same reaction. The vision pro is clearly a great headset. The biggest thing restraining it has been the ability to program for it. If Apple will not let 3rd party devs access the primitives needed to create game engine support then Apple needs to lend that support. Here they are

The biggest thing restraining it is the ergonomics and form factor. No one wants face PCs. Imagine how women, who are half the population, and who spend 0.5T dollars a year on hair and makeup products, are going to deal with smashing a 1.5 pound PC into their faces and held in place with straps around their head and hair. SJ would have smothered that thing in the crib the second his team had no answer for how a product that excludes half the population at the get go could possibly be successful. Can you imagine iPhone shipping in a form factor that required women redo their hair and makeup after every single use?
Post reply on HN