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

281–290 of 346 posts

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#281

Post by vFunct »

numpad0 wrote: post #249
vFunct wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 2 had higher pixel density than AVP at 2K horizontal resolution at 43deg HFOV. So yeah, you just didn't know HoloLens had 23megapixel displays to show high resolution text for coding, nearly a decade ago. The problem was the same as today. Dead numb market response to non-SteamVR VR/MR/AR/XR headsets.

HoloLens 1: 1280 x 720 (per eye)

HoloLens 2: 2048 x 1080 (per eye)

Vision Pro: 3660 x 3200 (per eye)

Yah no one was gonna buy HoloLens as a desktop monitor replacement. It really was a crap product.

People ARE using Vision Pro as a desktop monitor replacement.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#282

Post by vFunct »

nomel wrote: post #256
vFunct wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

So you're saying HoloLens had a tiny field-of-view because of its limited resolution?

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#283

Post by commakozzi »

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 want a face PC, if it's a VisionPro; just can't afford one. My wife wants one more than I do. Two counter-examples for you there.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#284

Post by threeseed »

999900000999 wrote: post #188
threeseed wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> flogging a dead horse It's the first version of their XR device. I still own the first iPod, iPhone and Apple Watch and remember people saying that each one would be failures.

500$ is a toy most upper middle class families can afford. That's the Meta Quest 3. 3500$ will even have someone making 200k plus pause to think if they really need it. Not to mention the Vision Pro looks much more fragile. Looks like it'll slip off my face and shatter. I'm cool with wasting $500, but I could do a lot of things of $3,500.That's a round trip flight to Thailand and a nice hotel room, you might be able…

It's the Vision Pro: for professionals not middle class families.

Apple has every intention of releasing a lower cost version for people like you.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#285

Post by oofManBang »

f33d5173 wrote: post #269
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…

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 .

I get that part entirely! It's the conflation of "good" and "successful" that I find confusing.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#286

Post by tpmoney »

DecentShoes wrote: post #104
josephg wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hell would freeze over before Apple conformed and contributed to an existing open standard. Better get some blankets because Apple has made significant contributions to many open standards - for example, USB-C. And, back in the day, OpenGL. Its a mistake to think of a large company like apple as if it were a person, with their own goals and ideas. Apple is just too big for that. I mean, they have 164,000 staff. Tha…

>Apple has made significant contributions to many open standards - for example, USB-C. And then refused to use it until the EU forced them

Come on. USB-C has been shipped on MacBooks since 2015, and most of their other systems since ~2020. Heck they caught a bunch of flack when they killed MagSafe on their MacBooks and went USB-C only (not just for the lack of mag safe, but also plenty of grief for lack of Ethernet and HDMI too). With or without the EU mandates they were clearly on a trend moving their devices to USB-C

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#287

Post by mrguyorama »

numpad0 wrote: post #203
vFunct wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't need a battery at all. Just have it connect directly to a Mac to use as a virtual Mac display. It's what I use my Vision Pro for as its primary use case, to have an ultra-wide monitor in front of me without taking up any physical space. I use it for hours every day as my primary programming platform. I really have no other use case, and don't need the VR/AR features. The virtual ultra-wide display of the l…

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.

Also two decades of headset display products that have existed the entire time VR has been a thing of pop culture interest, and yet has never been a product the masses give a fuck about.

The masses don't consume everything on their phones because they care about screen size or fidelity. Sure, they will buy phones with bigger and better screens than other phones, but if they want to do something on a big screen they will use their 60 inch 4k TV

In fact, the masses basically don't do computer stuff at all anymore.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#288

Post by mort96 »

jayd16 wrote: post #72
mort96 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Godot does nothing and insists that it's on Apple to to support OpenXR, then VR developers who want to support the Vision Pro will have to use Unity or Unreal or some other non-Godot engine. It achieves nothing other than to reduce Godot's relevance. Godot isn't big enough to pressure Apple.

Considering install base, I'd figure the Vision Pro isn't big enough to pressure Godot.

Good thing I never mentioned anything about anyone pressuring Godot

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#289

Post by khazhoux »

asadotzler wrote: post #278
khazhoux wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s clearly not “popular” but the statement was that it’s not good. That’s wrong — it is a very good product.

Good means fit for purpose and a product your CEO pitched from the cover of Vanity Fair magazine and devoted half of his massive store real estate and staff to making successful that sells only about 350K units in the first year and projected to sell only about 150K units in its second year because even the huge number of in-store demos couldn't convince people to put PCs on their faces, is clearly not fit for purpos…

There are many definitions of “good.” But at the most fundamental, it is an amazing VR device. It excels for watching movies — the video quality is simply stunning. The immersive experiences from Apple are also jaw-dropping. So in terms of what the device IS, it’s a good product.

Is that good enough to break into mass appeal? Evidence says No

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#290

Post by parasubvert »

asadotzler wrote: post #262
halJordan wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It didn’t bomb in the market. It was priced for supply constraints. They basically tied Meta on all headset revenue in its first year (450k units and $1.4 billion). visionOS is a triumph and foundation for the next decade of computing, and the entire product line of Apple is adapting to its look and feel. The entire XR / VR industry is changing their strategy to respond to visionOS , particularly Meta horizon OS which has incorporated numerous improvements that were directly inspired by Apple. And plenty of Apple products sold a lot less than 10 million annually to this day.
Post reply on HN