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

Apple Vision Pro's Optics Blurrier and Lower Contrast Than Meta Quest 3

kguttag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–38 of 38 posts

Re: Apple Vision Pro's Optics Blurrier and Lower Contrast Than Meta Quest 3

#31

Post by kn0where »

dann0 wrote: post #29
andsoitis wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The following products were all created under Jobs' direction and failed commercially: - Apple III (1981) - Lisa (1983) - Puck Mouse (1998) - The Cube (2000) - iTunes phone (2005) - Apple TV (2007)

I’d argue that the Motorola iTunes phone was a success. I don’t think its goal was to be a great phone, I think it was to bring in some much needed cash. The original Apple TV, like the iPod hifi, always felt like a hobby project that really needed some decent investment. I think they couldn’t really figure out what they needed it to be, but someone important wanted to have an Apple something in their home.

Much needed cash? Apple was making lots of money off the iPod in 2005. If it was a “success” it was in the sense that it proved they needed to make their own phone

Re: Apple Vision Pro's Optics Blurrier and Lower Contrast Than Meta Quest 3

#32

Post by al_borland »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #6

Also the FoV is narrower on the AVP than the Quest. Granted, all current headsets suck at this, as in it's less AR/VR and more like looking through a pair of binoculars which absolutely sucks for immersion, but it's crazy the AVP has a worse Fov than a Quest that's 7 times cheaper. Only Apple can get people to pay 3.5K to be beta testers of a devkit/prototype. > The AVP image is much worse than a cheap monitor displa…

I don't have either, as I expect after the novelty wears off I won't want to bother putting on a headset for most things.

That said, if I had to buy a headset today, I'd go with the Vision Pro. All the technical stuff aside... I simply don't trust Meta enough to buy a piece of hardware from them. I will pay 7x to buy from a company where I'm less worried about their intentions.

Re: Apple Vision Pro's Optics Blurrier and Lower Contrast Than Meta Quest 3

#33

Post by al_borland »

freitzkriesler2 wrote: post #26

Am I the only one sick of this cyberpunk dystopian tech? VR tech was a fun niche toy and this isn't that much different. Walking around all of the time with one is a level of cringe I can't even fathom. Might as well call them iSores.

To be fair, they weren't designed to be used while walking around all day. In that case, it's the people who are the problem, not the product.

Re: Apple Vision Pro's Optics Blurrier and Lower Contrast Than Meta Quest 3

#34

Post by Ancapistani »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #12
zitterbewegung wrote: post #2

When does Apple even make this claim that this should be is better / worse at the task? I get the idea of testing this for the purpose of testing this outcome but when I’m using safari or a movie this doesn’t come up as much but if you use pass through it is apparent. This is an intentional engineering choice and keeps on getting reposted…

>When does Apple even make this claim that this should be is better / worse at the task? But then at what kind of tasks is the AVP better at in order to justify its existence/purchase?

It integrates far better into the entire Apple ecosystem of products.

Given the current state of the software - both visionOS itself and available apps - it’s simply not a mass-market device. I believe it will be in 1-2 iterations, but we’re not there yet.

For what it’s worth, I say that as someone who loves their AVP and owns several other headsets including the Quest 3 an Pimax Crystal. I’ve had my AVP for jsut over two weeks and would comfortably estimate that I’ve spent over 100 hours with it on.

Re: Apple Vision Pro's Optics Blurrier and Lower Contrast Than Meta Quest 3

#35

Post by FirmwareBurner »

Ancapistani wrote: post #34
FirmwareBurner wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>When does Apple even make this claim that this should be is better / worse at the task? But then at what kind of tasks is the AVP better at in order to justify its existence/purchase?

It integrates far better into the entire Apple ecosystem of products. Given the current state of the software - both visionOS itself and available apps - it’s simply not a mass-market device. I believe it will be in 1-2 iterations, but we’re not there yet. For what it’s worth, I say that as someone who loves their AVP and owns several other headsets including the Quest 3 an Pimax Crystal. I’ve had my AVP for jsut ove…

>It integrates far better into the entire Apple ecosystem of products.

That's not a task you can use it for. It's just a feature.

>it’s simply not a mass-market device. I believe it will be in 1-2 iterations, but we’re not there yet.

My point exaxtly. I was only talking about the present device and what it doe. Not what it can do in the future iterations.

Re: Apple Vision Pro's Optics Blurrier and Lower Contrast Than Meta Quest 3

#36

Post by xetplan »

freitzkriesler2 wrote: post #26

Am I the only one sick of this cyberpunk dystopian tech? VR tech was a fun niche toy and this isn't that much different. Walking around all of the time with one is a level of cringe I can't even fathom. Might as well call them iSores.

[flagged]

Re: Apple Vision Pro's Optics Blurrier and Lower Contrast Than Meta Quest 3

#37

Post by hackeraccount »

freitzkriesler2 wrote: post #26

Am I the only one sick of this cyberpunk dystopian tech? VR tech was a fun niche toy and this isn't that much different. Walking around all of the time with one is a level of cringe I can't even fathom. Might as well call them iSores.

Think of them as a monitor replacement not a phone replacement. At least that's what they are now...

Re: Apple Vision Pro's Optics Blurrier and Lower Contrast Than Meta Quest 3

#38

Post by dann0 »

kn0where wrote: post #31
dann0 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d argue that the Motorola iTunes phone was a success. I don’t think its goal was to be a great phone, I think it was to bring in some much needed cash. The original Apple TV, like the iPod hifi, always felt like a hobby project that really needed some decent investment. I think they couldn’t really figure out what they needed it to be, but someone important wanted to have an Apple something in their home.

Much needed cash? Apple was making lots of money off the iPod in 2005. If it was a “success” it was in the sense that it proved they needed to make their own phone

That’s fair, but they weren’t out of the woods yet. But probably less important than I previously stated/thought.
Post reply on HN