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

Apple Vision Pro review

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#281

Post by layer8 »

losvedir wrote: post #59
tunesmith wrote: post #7

One of the aspects of the device that has been under-realized is that when mirroring your desktop/laptop display to the AVP, you can't break out its applications into different areas. You can't pull them away from the desktop window. This is one of those things that Apple never claimed was supported, and yet there's something about that behavior that feels like such a natural intuitive implication to the technology t…

Yeah, I don't think "mirroring" is quite the right term. It's effectively a 4K monitor for the laptop, with the laptop screen going black. Most (all?) Mac laptops don't have a 4K screen, so you have more screen real estate than "mirroring" would make you think. But this is sufficient for many use cases (or at least, mine). I pre-ordered one with the idea that my main work will be on the 4K monitor, with most of my su…

The screen real-estate is the same as for a 1440p screen. From The Verge’s review:

“There is a lot of very complicated display scaling going on behind the scenes here, but the easiest way to think about it is that you’re basically getting a 27-inch Retina display, like you’d find on an iMac or Studio Display. Your Mac thinks it’s connected to a 5K display with a resolution of 5120 x 2880, and it runs macOS at a 2:1 logical resolution of 2560 x 1440, just like a 5K display. (You can pick other resolutions, but the device warns you that they’ll be lower quality.) That virtual display is then streamed as a 4K 3560 x 2880 video to the Vision Pro, where you can just make it as big as you want. The upshot of all of this is that 4K content runs at a native 4K resolution — it has all the pixels to do it, just like an iMac — but you have a grand total of 2560 x 1440 to place windows in, regardless of how big you make the Mac display in space, and you’re not seeing a pixel-perfect 5K image.”

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#282

Post by treprinum »

patapong wrote: post #26

I think we are now at a stage where VR hardware has surpassed software. Between this and the Quest 3, we have powerful, polished and consumer friendly devices, but beyond a few niches (fitness, simulation, gaming to some extent), there is nothing to convince users to put the headsets on. I am hoping we will see a lot of experimentation in the coming years, and I am excited for what the Apple ecosystem will bring to t…

I personally think MSFS 2020 and Automobilista 2 are killer VR apps. All (wannabe or pro) pilots could learn how to operate any given aircraft in MSFS and relive past glorious racing in A2 on current or historic tracks/cars. Senua and Alyx showed what is possible in gaming as well and why it's so much better than 2D. Elder Scrolls looks great in VR just the controllers make it a joke when fighting (too easy and weird). I still think 4k is too low and 8k will be needed to feel like a 1080p phone.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#284

Post by crooked-v »

kevinak wrote: post #197
KolmogorovComp wrote: post #158

For me the two takeways from the various reviews are that: - The Vision Pro is the best VR set that can be done today, with massive investment (rumoured 5e9 USD) and competent staff, and hefty price. It is miles ahead of the competition. - It’s still not enough for most if any practical use, apart from films maybe. The technical requirements for a really useful VR are still largely out-of-reach, and will be for at le…

It really isn't 'miles' ahead of the competition. If anything it is way behind. For example, look at Varjo: https://varjo.com/products/xr-4/

The XR-4 is already 665g as a tethered headset. I imagine it would be (literally) painfully heavy as a standalone device.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#286

Post by SoftTalker »

miohtama wrote: post #221
joshstrange wrote: post #124

> Q: What if I wear glasses? > A: The Vision Pro wasn’t designed to be worn with glasses. Instead you have to order prescription Zeiss optical inserts for $99. The two monocle-looking pieces snap right into place. It's $99 for readers (non-prescription) and $149 for a prescription. Very odd that she would have gotten that detail wrong since it's so easy to check and it's been repeated so often in coverage of the AVP.

Can you use Vision Pro with contact lenses?

Sounds like only if you don't also need readers for close focus.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#287

Post by pteraspidomorph »

mr_toad wrote: post #227
TulliusCicero wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a bunch of VR games/apps that are notable for fitness. Beat Saber is the most well known one that's explicitly a game, Supernatural is maybe the most famous one that's framed as more of a fitness app/service. But other notable ones include Synth Riders, FitXR, OhShape, Pistol Whip, Thrill of the Fight, and (maybe) Gorilla Tag. And this list is far from exhaustive. VR is pretty good for fitness just because it…

I’d be too worried about sweat damage to use it for serious exercise.

You don't need to worry with most headsets (don't know about AVP). I've been sweating in VR headsets for years and it never did any harm. I saw in the AVP reviews that it has a removable and swappable facial interface, so it should be easy to clean; the same is true of other modern headsets, and before that you had third party face covers or disposable absorbant stickers you could put on the facial interface to keep the sweat away.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#288

Post by willis936 »

MBCook wrote: post #137
jhatax wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This review from TheVerge answers some of your questions: https://www.theverge.com/24054862/apple-vision-pro-review-vr... I recommend the video review as well. Seeing the video call between Nilay, Joanna, and MKB shows how much the tech has advanced but also how much it still needs to evolve to be at the level of FaceTime Video.

I’m excited about the Vision Pro but I now see why some reviewers called the FaceTime “Personas” creepy. They’re like talking paintings in the Haunted Mansion ride with bunch of blur and depth of field. It’s way too weird. Joanna’s looks a bit like she’s been stuck as the replacement person in the Mona Lisa. A static picture of you or maybe your Memoji (remember those?) would be far preferable. I’m surprised Apple is…

They've also shipped memojis.

Facebook has also shipped meta.

All the money in the world can't buy you an understanding of your market.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#289

Post by kccqzy »

pmarreck wrote: post #169
aloer wrote: post #132

It is interesting how many here are excited about this for productive computer work. It’s also what Apple advertises with. But what is the account situation like? For years I’ve been complaining that I can’t easily use my private iPad with my company Mac because they have separate Apple IDs. Things like sidecar for a quick virtual whiteboard are basically impossible. AirPods have gotten better over the years where to…

If your company Mac is locked down to the point where you couldn't just create a separate account on it that is tied to your iCloud account, then it is also unlikely that they would allow you to hook up another device to their network and your work computer in order to have this convenience. (My partner is corpo; I'm startup, but have worked at corpos. No thanks.) Better to keep it all owned by the company, in my opi…

Sure you can create a separate account on your company Mac. But there's no assurance that whatever work resources needed would be available on that second separate account.

If your work is on the traditional model of perimeter protection and trusted intranet, a non-work device can't join the network as you have correctly pointed out. If your work is on the newer BeyondCorp style model, switching to a second account on your computer is going to invalidate the device trust needed to access work resources.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#290

Post by cgk »

pvg wrote: post #118
pavlov wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wouldn't be the first time that hardware gets ahead of software. In 1988-94, the CPUs available in desktop computers were substantially more advanced than the widely used operating systems. Windows 3 and Mac System 6/7 didn't support pre-emptive multitasking, memory protection, or many other features that define a modern OS. Maybe we'll look back at today's Quest and Vision Pro as similar transitional devices with…

The Apple headset is maybe more akin to the expensive workstations of the time which did make fuller use of their CPU facilities but were neither priced nor aimed at consumers. The headset is not nearly as expensive (especially inflation adjusted) and is ostensibly a consumer device but it's current incarnation seems unlikely to have the kind of mass adoption for the analogy to work out.

Visiting a certain urban area on the east coast, dm me on X if possible to meet up
Post reply on HN