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

291–300 of 582 posts

Re: Apple Vision

#291

Post by Auracle »

crazygringo wrote: post #219
bryanlarsen wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Quest has live VR NBA games, and it's not selling a ton of $500 headsets for that use case, so I somehow doubt that it's going to move a lot of $3500 headsets. https://about.fb.com/news/2023/01/nba-games-in-vr-on-quest/

> Five games will feature celebrity broadcasters and be shown in 180-degree immersive VR, and WNBA games, NBA G League games and NBA 2K League games will be available to watch as well. There's a big difference between just five games and all the games in a season. I could totally see it moving $3500 headsets if it were actually all games. Also 180° is good enough for a lot of things but for this you'd want 360°.

Eh, obviously all else being the same 360 would be better - but it’s a lot easier to make 3D camera rigs and streams that at 180 degrees.

People also probably don’t realize just how much bandwidth this takes. You need enough to stream to both 4K eyes along with enough buffer space wherever the head can turn so that there isn’t a delay when you move your head. A good portion of the world doesn’t have fast enough internet for that.

Re: Apple Vision

#292

Post by B1FF_PSUVM »

ilrwbwrkhv wrote: post #275
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…

What is amazing to me is that no matter how much a company makes, you can't change its DNA. Facebook can never build a good physical product, no matter how much money they throw at it. Google can never make a good piece of software, though they can have very strong backend engineering for it, and so on. That is why people talk about culture a whole lot and why it is so important. I wonder if the culture is set and ca…

> Google can never make a good piece of software,

I like Gmail. It started out good, and hasn't yet collapsed under all the features they've been throwing at it. Although recently I've been getting these brief freezes when I'm typing ... the end may be near.

Re: Apple Vision

#293

Post by jack_riminton »

Tepix wrote: post #260
mdanger007 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For any normal company yes a home run, but small in relative terms to what Apple has now become

iPhone sales by year:

2007: 1.3m

2015: 231m

= 17669.2% increase over 8 years

Re: Apple Vision

#294

Post by hencq »

l33tman wrote: post #214
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NeXT Cube was considered a failure. ... except ... when I write iOS software (for the most successful product of all time), I am frequently using types that have "NS" prefixes. I wonder where they came from?

IIRC Jobs purchased NeXT when he took the Apple CEO job, to get a new OS base. As NeXT was his company, I'm pretty sure it was a decision based on bias and urgency and not because NextStep was the best there was. But yeah it's an interesting legacy for sure :)

You recall that incorrectly :) The NeXT purchase came first, Jobs as CEO came after that. But yeah, it was a bit of a reverse takeover in a way.

Re: Apple Vision

#295

Post by GreenWatermelon »

trey-jones wrote: post #46
m3kw9 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he say the product sucks what are you gonna say? It was paid by Meta?

I understand that I have a pretty large bias in the opposite direction that Mr. Thompson claims. That is, I think VR is stupid and I don't understand the use case for it, at least in the incarnations we've seen so far. I also remember the failed Google Glass, and think, "If people wouldn't wear that comparatively less-cumbersome and less-stupid-looking thing, why the hell would they wear this one?". So my immediate r…

While you don't understand the use cases, I (and probably many others) do understand and appreciate them. And that's ok! No one is forced to buy this device, just like no one is forced buy any new innovative technology.

To me, Apple Vision has great implications for work, gaming, and other entertainment. The fact that I can use it sitting in any comfortable position, and interacting with the screen the way I want is a good enough selling point. Gone are the days where I have to hold this heavy slab in my hands and type awkwardly on this small keyboard.

For simple web browsing, reading ebooks, I don't need sit in front of my disk (back pain) and stare at my statically placed monitor (neck pain)

Re: Apple Vision

#296

Post by Auracle »

lm28469 wrote: post #211

> This system was, at the beginning, dismissed by most high-end camera users: sure, a mirrorless system allowed for a simpler and smaller design, but there was no way a screen could ever compare to actually looking through the lens of the camera like you could with a reflex mirror. Fast forward to today, though, and nearly every camera on the market, including professional ones, are mirrorless: not only did those tin…

(Old) optical viewfinders are great in bright light. I’ll take my Z8’s EVF if a dimly lit situation any day though.

Re: Apple Vision

#297

Post by TobyTheDog123 »

beowulfey wrote: post #177
_gabe_ wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills or something. I have no idea how much of the footage in the long advertisements are actual in-headset recording vs highly editorialized made up aspirational CG. Additionally, I really don't think all the people here singing the praises of Apple's currently nonexistent headset (for actual customer use at least until 2024 or something) have ever used a headset. Headsets giv…

If it’s as good as they say, then the market will show it. It’s not worth worrying about whether it will succeed or not; that’s Apple’s concern alone. We can all just enjoy the ride in the meantime.

This is why I dont understand all the doomerism. If Apple is totally bullshitting here, we're going to find out extremely quickly, which will undoubtedly harm their reputation in the space when it comes to the next generations.

If they weren't confident it works almost as magically as its described, it would not have been shown.

Re: Apple Vision

#298

Post by taeric »

Show me you've never used non tactile responses for interfaces, without telling me you've never used them.

I love the VR experience of Gran Turismo for driving. It is truly immersive in ways that is hard to communicate and makes me glad I have the VR. Even with that, the game is not nearly as fun without a force feedback steering wheel. Not even close. To the point that a moderate screen with the steering wheel is a better experience than the VR without.

To the point that the idea that I will do any elaborate hand/arm gestures to interact with something I can't feel, just doesn't seem like something that will fly.

Do I like that it has the ability to work without a controller? I mean, sure? But I also have no problem using controllers for gaming, and I don't see that going away anytime soon for a lot of games.

Re: Apple Vision

#299

Post by Auracle »

masklinn wrote: post #40
kumarvvr wrote: post #32

Apple has managed to combine AR and VR, by simply re-creating the AR inside the VR. The idea is simple but profound. However, for a company that prides itself on "shared" experiences, the VR is for "lonesome" experiences (watching a movie, watching vacation photos, etc) in some cases, but bang on for others (especially at work) This will spurn the industry, just like the iPhone did, and hopefully, we will have a lot…

> Apple has managed to combine AR and VR, by simply re-creating the AR inside the VR. The idea is simple but profound. The Quest Pro does that, just badly.

The Quest 2 does it even worse.

That said it seemed to be a major upgrade point on the announced Quest 3, so we’ll see how it compares.

Re: Apple Vision

#300

Post by thfuran »

ilrwbwrkhv wrote: post #275
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…

What is amazing to me is that no matter how much a company makes, you can't change its DNA. Facebook can never build a good physical product, no matter how much money they throw at it. Google can never make a good piece of software, though they can have very strong backend engineering for it, and so on. That is why people talk about culture a whole lot and why it is so important. I wonder if the culture is set and ca…

It's not immutable, but it is very sticky, especially once it gets stuck in a feedback loop with process.
Post reply on HN