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

261–270 of 346 posts

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#261

Post by lukev »

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…

The Vision Pro could easily have been successful if they'd invested an additional 10% of it's R&D budget into software development, and released a suite of tools that actually leveraged what the platform was capable of.

It's incredibly impressive tech but just not worth it if all there is to do is to have ipad apps floating in the air around me.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#262

Post by asadotzler »

halJordan wrote: post #253
porphyra wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That soap maker didn't spend $10B in R&D figuring out how to make the soap. Your retort makes zero sense. Apple's worst products sold tens of millions of units in their first couple of years while Vision Pro sold about 370K units in year 1 and well into year 2 still has plenty of inventory sitting on warehouse shelves to cover all of 2025 demand. It literally bombed in the market. It's an abject failure of a product that couldn't be called a success in any way beyond a great prototype and some excellent demoware. It's a flop and a joke.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#263

Post by macintosh-hd »

amelius wrote: post #96

Back in the day when Microsoft dominated everything, we would have said embrace, extend, extinguish.

There is nothing going on here but embracing. When Microsoft did it, they forked a project and added their own features to their private fork, intending to replace the original. Apple is directly contributing code to the source project here.

Even if Apple was somehow harming and attempting to subsume Godot in this situation, what would the end game be? What would managing a game engine descended from Godot do for them?

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#264

Post by macintosh-hd »

raverbashing wrote: post #126

Jeez, some people are just insufferable I'm glad some people like https://github.com/godotengine/godot/pull/105628#issuecommen... exists "why this is not an extension" sounds like an awfully naive question. I'm not a Godot expert but I'd bet a very large amount of money that this is not in the realm of a simple extension, as flexible as Godot can be (and a check of the PR seems to confirm this)

With Godot, you can’t make sweeping platform changes—especially adding a new one—as an extension. This is the only path besides Apple forking Godot, which would be unworkable in the long run and obviously undesirable for both parties.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#265

Post by asadotzler »

crowcroft wrote: post #177
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…

I believe there's going to be a lot more investment if no other reason than Tim Cook seems to care deeply about it (and beating Zuckerberg). Strategically it make sense. The only real threat to the iPhone which Apple makes all their money from, is a new form factor that replaces phones. Maybe glasses/goggles will never replace phones, but spending billions a year to make sure that you win the glasses market just in c…

Cook took all of the top Vision Pro talent and put them to work on Siri. Those who didn't go are either working on the spectacles (no relationship at all to the tech in the goggles) or they're working to clear out the pipleline of goggles work that's already close to finished that they can deploy along with a new model that uses mostly the same components as the first which lets them make their supply chain whole after they ended production well short of what they promised their component makers. Rather than leave their supply chain high and dry and their developers disappointed with early cancellation, they'll make one more go of it to buy themselves the time to progress on spectacles (again, totally unrelated tech) so Cook can claim that goggles evolved into spectacles rather than admit that goggles bombed and they're retrenching around spectacles and that entirely different tech stack and approach, for which zero of the goggles investment by Apple or 3rd party developers will transfer.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#266

Post by philistine »

andsoitis wrote: post #30
nopakos wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And since Apple is here, please help adding support for Apple TV. Apple and Android TV support sometimes makes the difference when choosing an engine.

Apple TV for games is super niche, with very little market share in the big scheme of things. Even when it comes to TV, Apple realized they had to create an Apple TV+ app for other platforms to extend the reach of their investment in shows/movies beyond their own hardware.

If you want your game picked up for Apple Arcade ($$$), you need to support Apple TV.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#267

Post by oofManBang »

asadotzler wrote: post #260
halJordan wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 produ…

I would say cost is the hardest part to swallow—hence why I think it's ludicrous to even vaguely suggest it's aimed at general consumers. But i suppose it's difficult to tease these things apart.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#268

Post by xp84 »

SirBill wrote: post #238
xp84 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

" just a way-too-expensive-to-ever-gain-popular-support" 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 d…

> You assumed that models would stay that price forever??

Apple didn't bother to try to keep the cost down on this version, and for Apple, cost plus the margins they demand dictated the high price.

> "How is 15% brutal to have access"

Okay, first of all, 30%. We're not talking indie devs with > "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)."

Big deal. There isn't enough content that even many big Apple fans who love the product in theory mostly don't use them and admit they were a poor investment. A couple silly 10 minute shorts a month isn't enough to justify it. If they cared, they'd put serious money - of which they have plenty - behind selling a device (any device!) at a compelling price even at a subpar margin. See gaming consoles. Or they'd do what it takes to get developers and content companies to produce content. That means sucking it up and offering better terms than they have on other platforms (or doing sweetheart deals, say, Amazon can sell on the Kindle iOS app with a 5% commission in exchange for promising to produce a ton of immersive content on AVP.) Whatever it takes.

They're not serious (at the top level -- i am sure the person just in charge of AVP is serious, but Tim's not on board enough to support them).

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#269

Post by f33d5173 »

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…

I assume the GP means "successful in the market" by "successful product". They're distinguishing between something that might be successful otherwise and something that is successful as a product.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#270

Post by asadotzler »

layer8 wrote: post #194
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…

The product line not being cancelled hasn’t been in question lately: https://www.macrumors.com/roundup/apple-vision-pro/#apple-vi...

It was never (yet) cancelled.

The first "cancelled" reporting was Gurman saying that they'd moved on to spectacles which is true, much of the talent was reassigned to other projects including AR spectacles.

The next reports said Vision Pro was over but a Vision "lite" was on the way to give it one more go.

The next reports said the Vision Pro chip and ship minor spec bump plus a lighter cheaper version.

The next reports said Vision, unclear pro or lite, plus tethered goggles (PCVR for Mac, probably like the Beyond 2 but shiny and metal.)

The reports after that said most of the top talent from the Vision Pro teams has moved to Siri to rescue it and AI.

So, we've got most of the talent moved to spectacles and Siri, and a tethered device and an all-in-one device on the table.

Those are mostly likely last ditch attempts at rescuing the massive R&D investment and equally important, a chance to make their supply chain whole after ending production short of what Apple promised them. We'll see the next products integrate nearly all of the components of the first and that'll clear the decks for their suppliers so they're not left high and dry as well as letting their devs get one more crack at things and ship the VisionOS 3.0 stuff they've been hard at work on this last year.

Making your devs and supply chain happy is hardly a drop in the bucket cost wise compared to the investment already made so that's what they're doing.

They'll try a cheaper version of the immersive all-in-ones and a PCVR version that strips out the PC they've spent 10 years and $10B integrating to see if a display peripheral for $2K will beat an all-in-one face PC at $4K (but that won't give Cook the new platform he was hoping to own and monetize, just another accessory for SJ's creations.)

Post reply on HN