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

301–310 of 346 posts

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#301

Post by tim-- »

mattlondon wrote: post #91
tim-- wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have done that. They gave some cash money to CodeWeavers, the company that created wine. It's called the Game Porting Toolkit: https://developer.apple.com/games/game-porting-toolkit/

That's the problem I think: porting. As I understand things, proton allows windows games to just work (pun intended) on Linux. No porting, no rebuild - just download and run. Who is going to bother doing all the extra work to port their game for Mac?! Time and time again there have been loads of articles on here over the years with developers saying it is simply not worth the hassle to support Linux and Mac.

Despite the name, the GPTK isn't just a porting toolkit. It contains a version of Wine that is specifically patched to pass DirectX calls to Metal.

There is a relatively easy way for a player to use GPTK to run games from their Steam library on Mac.

Here is how to use Apple's Game Porting Toolkit to install Wine & Steam.

1. Go to https://github.com/installaware/AGPT and download & run the installer

2. Go to https://store.steampowered.com/about/ and download the installer

3. Open a Terminal, run mkdir Games && gameportingtoolkit ~/Games Downloads/SteamSetup.exe

4. Follow the instructions at https://www.applegamingwiki.com/wiki/Game_Porting_Toolkit#Sh...

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#302

Post by freeopinion »

oofManBang wrote: post #213
arjonagelhout wrote: post #147

This indicates to me that the Apple Vision and visionOS product line and OS are not canceled internally and that Apple is still committed to its future. While the Apple Vision Pro itself is not a good or successful product, progress in display technology will enable Apple to build a more attractive consumer product, in the form of light, comfortable and unobtrusive AR glasses. In this line of thinking — not just focu…

> 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…

> Battery alone precludes this. Even just streaming video back and forth is going to be too power-hungry for serious use with lightweight glasses.

I know this is obvious, but the battery doesn't have to go in the glasses. When the glasses are just a wireless monitor, it opens up all sorts of possibilities for belttop computers. Obviously, the glasses still need some power, but the battery can be very small, comparatively. Put the weight and heat into something with a mobile phone form factor.

Apple Watch -> $250

iPhone 16 Pro Max -> $1200

iVirt -> $2400

iVirt LTE -> $3200

iGlass -> $600

Now you can charge $3000 for you VR kit, but claim it only costs $2400. Plus people shell out $600 for the glasses even though they don't have the CPU. They just want to look like they do. Or they buy multiple pairs for different locations or as backups or whatever. The profit on the glasses could be huge. Especially if they could replace the Apple Watch for some people.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#303

Post by aaronfranke »

andsoitis wrote: post #191
solarkraft wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple wants Godot to support the Vision Pro, hence the PR. Hence Godot has some leverage here (though possibly not enough).

They could just politely declare that visionOS / Vision Pro is not a big enough platform to warrant the distraction (opportunity cost). That is my recommendation. Heck, the PR comment even asks that someone creates a vision OS logo (you would think Apple would include it)!

Godot supports lots of niche platforms, it even supports the editor on Android and web. It won't be turned down for this reason.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#304

Post by [deleted] »

asadotzler wrote: post #273
arghwhat wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No you can't. Upstreaming a large feature like this requires at the very least allocating a number of manweeks to the upstreaming process, and that's without accounting for actually writing the feature in the first place. Making a PR and not following up would be worse PR (heh) than doing nothing, which is also costly. If they had dumped a tarball or a fork somewhere with a hacked up PoC it could have looked like the…

You really don't understand how much money Apple's sunk on this and how little comparatively it takes to wind down operations in a way that makes partners and suppliers happy. Keeping a couple small teams going, even with entirely new versions shipping, to keep your supply chain whole and your partners coming back for future products is cheap and easy and very likely what Apple's doing now that most of the top talent…

[deleted]

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#305

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#306

Post by parasubvert »

bigyabai wrote: post #232
wat10000 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the rumor mill loves to churn things up, and people forget the past. The original iPod was an incredibly niche product. It required a Mac at a time when Macs were way less common than they are now. When Windows support was added, it required FireWire, which was quite uncommon. The original iPhone did OK but didn't sell super well. It was very expensive, had only 2G connectivity when 3G had already arrived, on…

The iPod did have demand, though. It was huge, clunky, somewhat fragile, but people wanted to use one and carry it with them everywhere. Same goes for the iPhone, to some extent. They succeeded as lifestyle products because they were desirable and made life better. But the Vision Pro? If you sold them at a flat-rate price of $1,000, I don't think I know people that would want to use one regularly. I don't even know a…

Anybody I’ve ever demoed this product to has the opposite impression: it would replace their iPad and their TV easily if they could afford it and it was a bit lighter. I play Xbox and PS5 in it all the time ; it isn’t a rival to those products. It’s a preview of the future of all computing.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#307

Post by fouc »

intellix wrote: post #241
khazhoux wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While the Apple Vision Pro itself is not a good product Do you own one, or have used one extensively, to dismiss it so confidently? I own one, and it's a great product. The experience watching movies/shows is unparalleled.

I had the HTC Vive quite a few years ago, using it a lot and constantly buying new games and experiences to try it out. It was a little annoying paying full whack for little 5-10min tech demos but was still encapsulated by it. Eventually got the wireless extension to avoid having to detangle the rope of a cable you were tethered to, but the base stations in the corner of the room were still annoying me cause you cons…

what about the non-entertainment factor? i.e. using Quest 3 or AVP to replace the monitor for development work?

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#308

Post by arghwhat »

asadotzler wrote: post #272
arghwhat wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Official upstreaming efforts are a significant investment even if they have internal PoCs. You can't just "release what you've got".

Not if it was 90% done and you want to clear the decks of nearly completed work before moving on. It's absolutely common to ship stuff to make third party suppliers and partners whole even when you've decided not to continue investing in a product. Keeping partners happy is critical to the smooth functioning supply chain Cook built and which gives Apple most of their success today.

A big feature like this will be at most 20-30% done when you open a PR, because the rest of the work is in collaboration to suit upstream which will as always require notable changes and rewrites.

Spending manweeks to manmonths on new upstream work that won't see any practical use until half to a whole year later, after getting legal to work things out, is a significant investment in new development.

This has nothing to do with suppliers or partners. They are not dumb enough to measure a product roadmap in number of random PRs, but will look at first party software and hardware roadmap.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#309

Post by threeseed »

999900000999 wrote: post #292
threeseed wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You can run your own code on the VisionOS.

And it's weird to call it sharecropping when developers are simply trying to get paid for their hard work.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#310

Post by 999900000999 »

threeseed wrote: post #309
999900000999 wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You can run your own code on the VisionOS. And it's weird to call it sharecropping when developers are simply trying to get paid for their hard work.

The only way to officially distribute apps for iOS devices is via the App Store, giving 30% off top to Apple. If that's not sharecropping I don't know what is
Post reply on HN