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

Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right

hugo.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 863 posts

Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right

#291

Post by tsimionescu »

Retric wrote: post #131
throwaway74432 wrote: post #101

If people wanted to wear a phone screen taped over their eyes out in public, the technical limitations wouldn't barely make a dent in that desire. But the vast majority of people want to have real in-person human interactions when they're out in the world. That's what the makers of these devices fail to see. But they can't see that because they're self-described VR enthusiasts. If they talk to non VR enthusiasts (whi…

> Most people think it's rude to talk to each other indoors with sunglasses on. Nobody finds it rude to talk to each other with actual glasses on. If AR had similar utility and minimal impact on seeing each others eyes, then the same would be true. Sunglasses prevent people from tracking where people are looking which is why they come off as rude. > That's the slimmest form factor you're going to get, and it still st…

> The minimalist form factor for AR is contact lenses not glasses.

That is extremely unlikely to ever be possible. A chip that size that did both high-bandwidth radio AND wireless charging (since you're not gonna have wires dangling from your eyes) AND high refresh rate display would fundamentally have to get extremely hot, with anything resembling current electronics.

You'd have to invent an entirely different transistor to do something like this.

Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right

#292

Post by wolverine876 »

tsimionescu wrote: post #284
wolverine876 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused by comments like this one. Apple very specifically designed Vision Pro to address this problem, going to great lengths to make the outside world visible to the user and the user's eyes visible to others, and marketing that they don't want to create isolation. It is also described in the article (where the author thinks they went too far). What do you think of how the Vision Pro addresses this problem?

The "user's eyes visible to others" part has been widely panned, even by the most enthusiastic reviews. There are two major problems with it. One, it's not the actual user's eyes, it's just a bad rendition of some eyes - without any of the extremely subtle facial expressions that happen with the skin around the eyes, and without any amount of certainty from the other that they are correctly reflecting exactly what yo…

The OP didn't pan it.

Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right

#293

Post by lefstathiou »

monocularvision wrote: post #251
lefstathiou wrote: post #245

My two cents (as an owner of a Vision Pro): 1) This is a beta product and I wouldnt recommend it to anyone that is not a developer or in a position to create apps for it, 2) this is going to have as big of an impact on humanity as the computer or the internet did and every engineer or aspiring entrepreneur should pay it attention. This device is magical. Yes it's too heavy, yes there are not enough apps, yes sharing…

As long as Apple keeps it locked down like an iPad, I don’t see much of a future for the device replacing general purpose computers in the workforce.

50% of all our employees choose Mac over PCs. When you wear an Apple Vision Pro and look at your Macbook, it transfers the screen to Apple Vision and allows you to duplicate and extend. No other PC will have this level of integration.

Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right

#294

Post by matwood »

ryandrake wrote: post #121
joenot443 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were a lot of tablets before the iPad but it wasn’t until the iPad that tablets really took off as a serious market segment. Ditto with AirPods and Bluetooth earbuds. In the past, once Apple started pouring R&D money into a specific product type, the entire industry around it tends to advance very quickly. I’m optimistic about the Vision Pro, and I actually think the n+2 Meta release will be much better off for…

My question is why does it seem like only Apple can do this, over and over? Why are they the only ones who seem to be able to knock a product category out of the park and legitimize it? Is it just the vast amount of money? Are they the only ones who can create products? Is everyone else that bad? Competitors work for ages and ages fighting each other, refining v1, v2, v2.1, v2.2, v2.25, and then suddenly Apple comes…

Because Apple is great at product. They have product built into their DNA. Specs and technology are only there to deliver a product experience. Few companies in the technology space think this way.

Other companies are also really bad at product. Google can't convey a coherent product strategy to save their lives. Great at technology (and building chat apps lol), terrible at product.

Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right

#295

Post by alt227 »

swatcoder wrote: post #285
ryandrake wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My question is why does it seem like only Apple can do this, over and over? Why are they the only ones who seem to be able to knock a product category out of the park and legitimize it? Is it just the vast amount of money? Are they the only ones who can create products? Is everyone else that bad? Competitors work for ages and ages fighting each other, refining v1, v2, v2.1, v2.2, v2.25, and then suddenly Apple comes…

Apple aggressively focus on low-volume high-margin opportunities, have been doing so for some decades, and have a giant war chest to make bets with. In many ways, they work like the very very large version of a successfully bootstrapped business. Most of their peers pursue maximum volume in an attempt to dominate a market and drown all competition, inebitably at much lower margins. It's the continuation of the VC lau…

Apple have only had 1 successful product, and thats a flat device with a screen for media consumption. iPod, iPhone, and iPad are just different sizes of this device.

The only thing Apple have done which elevated themselves above their peers is have marketing which positioned them higher in the market.

Remember those Black and White ads of Steve Jobs next to Ghandi, Malcolm X, and Charlie Chaplin? They are paying off now in spades.

Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right

#296

Post by tsimionescu »

move-on-by wrote: post #157
throwaway74432 wrote: post #101

If people wanted to wear a phone screen taped over their eyes out in public, the technical limitations wouldn't barely make a dent in that desire. But the vast majority of people want to have real in-person human interactions when they're out in the world. That's what the makers of these devices fail to see. But they can't see that because they're self-described VR enthusiasts. If they talk to non VR enthusiasts (whi…

> Most people think it’s rude to talk to each other indoors with sunglasses on …really? I have prescription glasses/sunglasses and I often don’t bother switching them during a quick excursion- such as daycare pickup/drop off. It’s never crossed my mind that I could be perceived as rude. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that anyone with such opinions do not have the level prescription that are required for d…

How many people have you seen wearing sunglasses inside an office, or talking at home?

If you're having a quick interaction like popping in and out of a building to pick up / drop off someone or something, sure. But otherwise, it's quite universally rude.

Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right

#297

Post by nerdjon »

noneeeed wrote: post #30

I think the description of the VisionPro as a dev kit is spot on. It's also a beta product in many way. Apple know full well that this is not a mass market product, they have made no attempt to make it even remotely affordable to most people. But they also know that every aspect of the hardware will improve over the next decade, and as it does they will have ironed out many of the problems with how we use AR/VR and w…

> Apple know full well that this is not a mass market product.

I really feel like too many people are ignoring this. If anyone understands how to play the long game with a new product it is Apple. I mean the Apple TV was a "Hobby" for many years.

Has Apple ever put out a "Pro" version of a product before the "normal" version?

I think it also helps the clear sharing of technology between this and other products. From using the M2 tech, to iOS and (I assume) built with much of the AR tech they have been showing off for the last several years on iPhone.

I honestly kinda wonder how much of ARKit was directly made from work on the Vision Pro?

This version of Vision Pro was never going to be a massive product, I expect they knew they would get returns (and they hoped to mitigate that with the in store demos but that only does so much). But it is setting the ground work for a long term investment.

Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right

#298

Post by smoldesu »

ugh123 wrote: post #274
smoldesu wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just speaking for myself here, but owning a Quest I don't entirely agree. The utility of it is kinda crazy - I can browse the web and OpenXR apps from my browser, or tether myself to my PC with the push of a button. Wanna sideload streaming apps and watch movies over SFTP from your homeserver? There are no guardrails in place to stop you. If I try to imagine myself living the same workflow on Apple Vision Pro, I get…

Meta severely underplays those capabilities. I've always known they're "there", but it's not their preferred presentation of the device. It also takes a bit of "power user" to be comfortable doing much of what you're describing. I'm not even sure if AVP can side load apps or watch movies over SFTP, but I don't think it matters at this point: the global mindshare is sold on Apple being the leader now, and personally I…

They definitely underplay it - Meta is big on services, selling people a quest for sideloading or Blu-Ray streaming probably threatens their bottom line. Hard to blame them when the hardware costs the same as a Switch though. At the price Apple is asking (and the hardware margins they enjoy), I'd expect more capabilities than just spatialized iOS. I'm not sure the Apple customers in my life would buy a Vision Pro even if it was the same price as an iPhone.

> the global mindshare is sold on Apple being the leader now

Besides Casey Neistat and Mark Gurman, I'm really not hearing much from the "global mindshare" anymore. The Quest didn't really get any fanfare either, but it did move units and get market penetration from the start. Apple is on a slow roll right now, and until they get Half Life: Alyx or MSFS2020-tier system sellers, I'm not sure the in-group will even consider them on-par with PCVR. Given Apple's audience, I half expect their biggest VR competitor to be Sony's PSVR2.

Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right

#299

Post by matwood »

swatcoder wrote: post #285
ryandrake wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My question is why does it seem like only Apple can do this, over and over? Why are they the only ones who seem to be able to knock a product category out of the park and legitimize it? Is it just the vast amount of money? Are they the only ones who can create products? Is everyone else that bad? Competitors work for ages and ages fighting each other, refining v1, v2, v2.1, v2.2, v2.25, and then suddenly Apple comes…

Apple aggressively focus on low-volume high-margin opportunities, have been doing so for some decades, and have a giant war chest to make bets with. In many ways, they work like the very very large version of a successfully bootstrapped business. Most of their peers pursue maximum volume in an attempt to dominate a market and drown all competition, inebitably at much lower margins. It's the continuation of the VC lau…

> Apple aggressively focus on low-volume high-margin opportunities

It's hard to call anything selling 200M+ units/year low volume.

Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right

#300

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

eggbrain wrote: post #65

His point on the significant motion-blur / image quality issues that exists with pass-through is my biggest complaint with the device hardware-wise. I got the prescription lens inserts that Apple had suggested, and when I first put on the device I thought that either my eye doctor had gotten my prescription wrong, or something was defective with my device. The blur is distracting -- and looking further away makes it…

> but also for anything that requires Face-ID (which doesn't work well when the Vision Pro is covering your face, which feels like an Apple ecosystem fail).

At some point don't we need to accept the laws of physics and biology? That is, The VisionPro covers a significant part of your face, much more than a pair of glasses. Face-ID already has the challenge of needing to recognize you in tons of different conditions (lighting, pale/tan skin color, wildly different hairstyles, facial hair, etc.), while for security reasons nearly never letting someone else impersonate you. Is it really possible to get that level of forgiveness with accuracy if Face-ID only gets to consider the bottom half of your face?

Post reply on HN