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

291–300 of 346 posts

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#291

Post by parasubvert »

asadotzler wrote: post #259
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…

>* It's clearly far more impressive technologically than any competitor. Technology hardly makes a product. >The price point clearly indicates it wasn't aimed at the general consumer, You don't put your CEO on the cover of Vanity Fair and devote half your retail space and staff to it if it's not for the general consumer. >* They got loads of feedback Not as much as they hoped. They hoped to have 500K units in the wil…

They had about 450 K units in the wild in the first year. They will sell around 600 K units of the first version until the second one is released later this year. This was on a potential production target of 900 K units. So it’s not exactly a failure so much as an underperform due to them over pricing it for supply constraints.

VisionOS is clearly a triumph and the basis of UX for their entire product line. The scepticism is gonna age like those who were sceptical about the original Mac and Windows. Vision Pro isn’t even all that expensive by historical standards.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#292

Post by 999900000999 »

threeseed wrote: post #284
999900000999 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So instead of building for a platform that has a low barrier of entry and millions upon millions of users, developers should spend time in Apple’s expense plantation.

All in the hopes of sharecropping on the Vision Store.

Honestly I want an open source headset I can run my own code on , that’s what I’m waiting for

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#293

Post by parasubvert »

lukev wrote: post #261
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…

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.

It does a lot more than iPad apps. Coexisting 3-D volumetric apps with 2D app is quite innovative and not even an android XR will be able to do that in its first release. What’s software development tools do you think it’s missing?

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#294

Post by goosedragons »

lukev wrote: post #261
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…

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.

Hey! They have 3D TV too! Didn't you want even more inconvenient 3D TV?

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#295

Post by parasubvert »

oofManBang wrote: post #237
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…

Man, I don't even bother using the ultra-wide monitor on my desk . The screen on my laptop can already display orders of magnitude far more information than I can easily process at one time. Even with contexts where I'm comfortable managing windows/buffers manually (e.g. emacs) there's simply too much space to easily manage. What do you do with all that space? Is it just pulling up every possible resources at once so…

And yet I have people constantly telling me how they have four monitors set ups and still not enough screen real estate… and this is why they don’t like the Vision Pro, which can only give you one big ultra wide max.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#296

Post by parasubvert »

asadotzler wrote: post #265
crowcroft wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 aft…

You’re covering this board with statements of rumor, personal opinion and conjecture, as if they were statements of fact and getting the rumours wrong consistently. The Vision Pro leader, Mike Rockwell, runs both visionOS and Siri/AI. Many of his lieutenants are working on Siri, while many are staying on visionOS. The architectural approach and UX of visionOS is infecting the entire software group.

Goggles have not bombed, and are not going away for at least a decade. Apple will not be abandoning visionOS for spectacles, I know you keep repeating this, but it’s false.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#297

Post by klausa »

999900000999 wrote: post #246
dagmx wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not really an answer though, anymore than any other platform. I’m not asking why they don’t want it supported, I’m asking why their distaste should overrule everyone else who does. Just because this one very angry person doesn’t want this platform supported, doesn’t mean others don’t. You could argue the exact same thing in reverse for any other platform that is niche for someone else.

Apple would need to make an ongoing commitment. Either monetarily, or with personnel. What I would have really liked to see is for them to not only fix issues relating to their own products, but to help Godot as a whole. Maybe, even add Swift as a scripting option without a hard requirement of owning a Mac. This looks like a one time "gift" of high maintenance code. It's not like when Microsoft assisted with C# suppo…

> It's also really rude to just open a giant PR without a discussion first.

Would you mind explaining why you feel that way?

I understand being cautious about accepting the PR, but can’t say I quite understand why submitting it would be rude

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#298

Post by parasubvert »

xp84 wrote: post #268
SirBill wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" 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…

Their priority is not selling a mass market low margin product. That is Meta‘s strategy, and they’ve lost nearly $100b because they think it’s the future of all computing. The thing is, Apple agrees. But they’re not the kind of company to burn that kind of capital.

Vision Pro was all about selling an enthusiast device that pushes the boundaries of XR technology into what they thought was appropriate baseline that would shift the market. They succeeded at that, the entire market is changing their strategy to respond to visionOS. visionOS has set the baseline for spatial computing so much that even horizon OS is copying it now. Apple takes the product line very seriously, they they’re just playing a different game than you want them to play.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#299

Post by parasubvert »

wpm wrote: post #185
_mlbt wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spatial computing.

Spatial computing of iPad apps floating in the air with an even worse, low information rate input method? Neat concept, kneecapped at birth by sandboxing requirements, App Store rules, and Apples desire to own all of the innovation that could happen on the platform.

Siri on visionOS is actually quite refreshing for its speech to text, it is almost entirely on device and very low latency, with much more accuracy than you see on iOS. The combination of a keyboard, trackpad, Siri, hand and eye tracking is incredibly high information rate input for me and it’s what I use for most of the day for the past eight months or so.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#300

Post by tpmoney »

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…

I think we’ve forgotten over the years just how expensive tech can be. The original iMac was 1299 at launch, inflation adjusted that’s $2500 today, for what even at the time was considered a cut down machine. The iBook would launch the next year for $1599, or about $3k today. Is the AVP at least as interesting of a product to buyers as the original iMac or iBook was in 1998? Bear in mind 1998 Apple was just barely holding on after years of mismanagement, still was running Mac OS 8 and neither the iPod juggernaut nor OSX were anywhere on the horizon for people to suspect that Apple would even still be in business or supporting their proprietary computers in a few years.

Perhaps more apt, the original Macintosh released at $2495, or a whopping $7,500 inflation adjusted. Now I’m not thinking that the AVP is necessarily going to change the computing world the way the Macintosh did, but surely its novelty and potential fits somewhere between an iMac and an original Macintosh right?

Post reply on HN