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

311–320 of 582 posts

Re: Apple Vision

#311

Post by TheNewsIsHere »

tomp wrote: post #279
noirscape wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with Meta is far deeper than a few corporate heads or what they control - the customer just straight up does not trust them. Privacy is something they've never really been good with (remember, they were at the center of the Cambridge Analytica scandal) and whenever they've been asked to do any form of moderation, Metas name always gets dragged through the mud (regardless on if you think they screwed up or…

The problem is even deeper than lack of trust/privacy. It's that Meta's business model optimises for the wrong thing. M$ optimises for pleasing employers. Meta & Google optimise for pleasing advertisers. Amazon optimises for cheapness. Only Apple actually optimises for pleasing consumers, with amazing products. It would require a fundamental pivot in company strategy, their raison d'être .

That’s a great way of putting it. It’s not necessarily that any given path is _bad_, but some of those paths aren’t consumer/privacy/business/whatever-friendly.

I think Meta and Amazon stand alone here with a different problem than the rest, which is in terms of people that they both have sociopathic leadership. Technically, neither have an “in-hand/hands-on” platform either: no desktop OS or truly viable productivity platform. Amazon doesn’t even use the AWS WorkMail. Those two things combined make the erraticism seem perfectly “normal”.

I think Google’s problems are survivable if they get rid of Pichai and learn to focus.

Re: Apple Vision

#312

Post by tcmart14 »

Tepix wrote: post #260
mdanger007 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1st generation apple products are never for the masses. If you want to see what Vision will be in a few years, look at their other product trajectories.

The 1st generation iPhone was successful.

While that is true, I would also say it was a little bit special. There are many reasons why, but I imagine one is, people loved their iPods. When iPhone came out, you now had both your phone and your iPod in a single device. I do think without iTunes and iTunes integration, iPhone may have been a flop.

Re: Apple Vision

#313

Post by Auracle »

endisneigh wrote: post #73
andsoitis wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What will the non-Pro version not have, compared to the Pro?

I imagine when it launches, the 2024 or 2025 "Vision" will be equivalent to the Vision Pro announced yesterday, and the new Vision Pro will probably have 8K displays or something ridiculous.

I bet they (very slightly) downgrade a feature or two just to not piss off the people that already purchased.

Re: Apple Vision

#314

Post by htag »

randmeerkat wrote: post #287
thrashh wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing which ties this all together is that Apple has a full-blown legitimate OS that can run professional software that already exists. Throw it into a headset, driving up the price significantly, but potentially make a computer replacement. The only other company in the world that has an extensive OS ecosystem like that is Microsoft. Everyone else never really had a chance to make a new class of device.

> One thing which ties this all together is that Apple has a full-blown legitimate OS that can run professional software that already exists. Throw it into a headset, driving up the price significantly, but potentially make a computer replacement. There’s no reason that the iPhone or iPad couldn’t be a computer replacement. The issue is that Apple locks down devices preventing them from being fully utilized. I’m expe…

It's a long way away for corporate to buy it's developers a headset like what your describing. As far as Work goes, if you cannot get a corporate office to buy them then it's never going to take off.

Re: Apple Vision

#316

Post by TheNewsIsHere »

marpstar wrote: post #302
dangus wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 foll…

The “Facebook Platform” days of FarmVille were the closest they came to building something resembling a platform. Unfortunately for them they optimized against their own long-term interests in exchange for quarterly ad revenue. And they spent it all on chasing Zuckerberg pipe dreams.

Re: Apple Vision

#317

Post by fullshark »

Seems like most of the use cases he's raving about are novelty VR experiences (e.g. immersive experiences watching sports), and the benefit of the AR is simply you can exit/browse these experiences without feeling like you're inside a VR void. I guess it would be nice to have infinite monitors when I'm doing work for productivity purposes if its seemless but I don't see the killer general use case yet for AR.

Re: Apple Vision

#318

Post by matt-attack »

shafyy wrote: post #11
nynx wrote: post #2

> It really is one of the best product names in Apple history: Vision is a description of a product, it is an aspiration for a use case, and it is a critique on the sort of society we are building, behind Apple’s leadership more than anyone else. I agree that “Vision” is a good product name, but “Vision Pro” just feels intensely pedestrian. Why is it called “Pro?” Is there a non-Pro version?

They probably plan on releasing a non-pro version later. Importantly, adding "Pro" also has the psychological effect of better justifying the higher price.

I found it odd that they started out with Pro. I think “Apple Vision” would have sufficed. Leaves room for the future to add “Pro” when they go to 8K/Retina or whatever. Plus just saying “Apple Vision” is kinda nice.

Re: Apple Vision

#319

Post by spacemadness »

coldpie wrote: post #115
aqme28 wrote: post #34

All these "relive your memory" videos are incredibly awkward, because of how downright sad it is to strap this on your head during your kid's birthday just to relive it on repeat like Tom Cruise in Minority Report. The real usecase is porn, but they're too tactful to say it.

Yeah, if this thing catches on, I think this will be my "old man gets left behind by technology" moment. Everything I see from the marketing of this just looks like a soulless dystopia. I hate it. If the future is strapping a phone to your face and never leaving the house, I'm ready to be left in the past.

I am fairly cautious about tech in my own life but this still seems like an extreme Black Mirror episode take. The battery doesn’t even last long enough to have you never leave your house. It seems like something I might use two hours of my day maybe. I’m not sure how that makes it worse than any other media device or what it is about it that has people thinking they’ll never leave home again and feel completely socially isolated. I’m just considering the case of using it at home though and not walking around with it expecting people to interact with me normally.

Re: Apple Vision

#320

Post by gavinmckenzie »

function_seven wrote: post #269
screye wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A Halo device is not meant to sell, it is meant to impress. Apple doesn't want to sell this Headset at all. They want everyone to wish for a headset when it is able to sell one for $1000. This is what long term planning looks like. You need to prime your audience to buy something, before they actually want to go out and buy it. A few hundred millions wasted in the development of this device is pocket change for Apple…

> This is what long term planning looks like. You need to prime your audience to buy something, before they actually want to go out and buy it. When the Apple Watch was first unveiled, my opinion was something along the lines of, "What, I'm so lazy that I'll spend $400 to avoid pulling my phone out of my pocket?" When the AirPods were released, I probably said something like, "What, I'm supposed to hate a little wire…

100%. I thought the same thing with my Apple Watch and I resisted spending what I considered to be an unreasonable amount on earbuds as I didn’t care (or so I thought) about having wireless earbuds. But eventually so many colleagues had them and talked to me about how great they were that I caved and bought a pair. Wow was I wrong about how wireless earbuds was something I didn’t need. Then I started evangelizing to people about them, and the cycle continued.
Post reply on HN