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

301–310 of 582 posts

Re: Apple Vision

#301

Post by GreenWatermelon »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #265
blantonl wrote: post #47

I'm curious if anyone will be able to develop in it (i.e. write code with virtual desktops etc) I'm also curious about how which unexpected consequences people will experience with such devices (nausea, etc... other unknown illnesses cropping up)

If it's comfortable enough to wear for prolonged of times it might be superior to most common multi monitor setups that users have these days. Nausea would be induced by lack of visual references and latency issues. AR with good responsiveness should address that. Eye fatigue and headaches might be another issue. Too early to tell but this might not be that much of an issue. Otherwise, it looks all good.

Hell just wear for an hour, then take a break for a while, as one is usually advised with regards to PC usage.

At least this way, I could actually do stretches and exercises while watching some video.

Even prolonged usage of a smartphone is painful. So is prolonged usage of any computing device.

Re: Apple Vision

#302

Post by marpstar »

dangus wrote: post #254
mattnewton wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My hot take from a random person spending time in the trenches: Meta leadership is focused on a _meta_ problem, namely that they do not own a major platform and are constrained from further growth compared to Apple and Google who do own major platforms. They are perfectly happy to be the android to whatever the next iOS is. From that perspective, a halo device is a risky bet because it doesn’t let you onboard a lot o…

This exactly. In my view, Meta was hyper-focused on having their own App Store. They missed the boat on having one for smartphones and tablets, so VR was their only reasonable choice. Everything else about the platform was secondary: just get a cheap device into people's homes as fast as possible. The Oculus Quest is cheap enough to be a dust gatherer where many families never plan to purchase the 2.0 product (see al…

I started to reply "why the hell does a social network need an App Store?" -- then I remembered FarmVille and a few of my friends becoming zombies...

What a time that was...

It's an interesting way of looking at things. I think, like the article mentions, Meta has been more focused on creating Facebook VR than on pushing things the tech forward. "Oculus" became a recognizable name even to those of us who weren't following the space.

The Oculus hardware seems well-built (my kid has a Rift S) but it's clunky. I can't count the number of times we've had to reset the boundaries/floor level. It's immersive enough when it's working, but (and I understand it's years-old, mid-level tech) I'd never expect to work with it.

Microsoft, on the third hard, has taken a hard pivot towards industry with HoloLens -- which is at the same price point at Vision Pro, but has almost 7 years experience gained in the space at this point.

Re: Apple Vision

#303

Post by gavinmckenzie »

taeric wrote: post #298

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…

Thankfully it does pair with a Bluetooth keyboard and trackpad for the scenarios where you want to use it to do “work”.

Re: Apple Vision

#304

Post by germinalphrase »

ivan_gammel wrote: post #195
germinalphrase wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is strapping this headset on for their kid’s birthday party. There are incredible concert videos from professional crews, and that’s the direction this will go until the tech can be (if ever) made unobtrusive.

The primary purpose of this headset is not a recording device even if it can record, so I do not really see a point in your comment. Most of content creation will happen by other means.

I was responding to your comment and the parent comment both asserted that people would be using this device to record live concerts or their kid’s birthday party (which we, apparently, agree is silly).

Re: Apple Vision

#305

Post by bnj »

silvestrov wrote: post #281
bnj wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? We're talking about a transformation from a fixed and time-bound asset, the live experience of being physically present, into an entirely digital experience which can be replayed. Doesn't this change the potential customer pool from people within traveling distance at the right time with enough money, into a global market? Consider this: Sell the live courtside seat for the same 1000+; Open up sales for the v…

20% is $200 for a "movie ticket". Is the "virtual experience" $200 better than watching the game on 2D screen?

I wouldn't know, but doesn't the point still hold if I can sell (let's say) 1000 tickets at movie ticket prices, which I wouldn't otherwise have been able to sell? Call it $15 * 1000 people ... ?

I think the made up hypothetical figures distracted from the main idea, I was questioning the position that NBA would lose value when it seems like technology like this would open up a new audience of consumers who might now be willing to spend some money that they wouldn't otherwise have spent.

Re: Apple Vision

#306

Post by cj »

danwee wrote: post #288
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…

It's because Apple is a (top) hardware company (and a software one) and they have years of experience at it. Meta is a software company; they could become a hardware company, but that doesn't happen in just a few years.

To be fair, Oculus was a $2 billion acquisition by Facebook in 2014. That should have brought them the talent needed to make hardware devices, despite being a software company at heart.

Re: Apple Vision

#307

Post by killjoywashere »

I really worry that if AR/VR like Apple Vision takes off, we are going to find ourselves even more alone, isolated, and depressed than ever, separated from the physical humanity we all evolved to live in. Putting a screen between everything is the theme of so many dystopian movies I don't even know where to start.

I mean, I get it. I really, really do. But, man, is this healthy, really?

Re: Apple Vision

#308

Post by wsatb »

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…

Has anyone ever thought of Facebook as a pioneer in anything? They've made some smart purchases and stole a few ideas. I feel like their entire existence is based on right place, right time.

Re: Apple Vision

#309

Post by justin66 »

rsynnott wrote: post #175
justin66 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple's problem is that the "pro" version is not just twice as expensive as the "consumer" version needs to be in order to be a market success, it's ten times more expensive than the consumer version needs to be. edit: the fanatics are really out with the downvotes today

I'd assume any credible consumer version will be a few years down the road, anyway.

I think that's definitely true. To get to that point, Apple's multifaceted problem seems to be knocking a huge amount off the price of the thing while convincing a significant number of users to buy and actually use it (instead of putting it on a shelf after a few uses as so many Oculus users have done over the years), and also to convince a few excellent software developers to create worthwhile stuff for it.

They can throw a ton of money at that problem, but I wonder how effective that can possibly be.

Re: Apple Vision

#310

Post by jmull »

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…

Meta doesn't have the marketing chops, consumer product mindshare, or retail channel that Apple does, so I'm not sure Apple's approach makes sense for them.

And it remains to be seen if Apple's approach will work (though I suspect it will, over time... as you suggest, the premium device will set the market and later Apple will make cheaper devices available that make different tradeoffs.)

Post reply on HN