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

321–330 of 582 posts

Re: Apple Vision

#321

Post by soylentcola »

keiferski wrote: post #62

Am I the only one that is surprised they went with the "all in the glasses" design? (Minus the exterior battery and cable.) I was expecting an extremely lightweight pair of glasses that wirelessly connects with a stationary device that provides most of the computing power for the VR/AR. That device could even be the new generation of iPhones... The design as-is looks better than 95% of other headsets, but still strik…

But if it's "extremely lightweight", where would you put the battery to power a high bandwidth transmitter/receiver? I can't imagine anything approaching the size of a pair of Wayfarers having space for the battery or electronics (not to mention all the optics and sensors!)

Re: Apple Vision

#322

Post by B1FF_PSUVM »

pavlov wrote: post #35

"The company was fairly mum about how it planned to make those cameras and its format more widely available, but I am completely serious when I say that I would pay the NBA thousands of dollars to get a season pass to watch games captured in this way. Yes, that’s a crazy statement to make, but courtside seats cost that much or more, and that 10-second clip was shockingly close to the real thing." The author was shown…

> The reality-shaping power of Apple's demo maestros is truly admirable

I like the Marques Brownlee takes, he's one of the "30 minutes hands on" guys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFvXuyITwBI

He seems fairly well impressed, at least in the first half of the video ...

Re: Apple Vision

#323

Post by retrocryptid »

So... what's the killer app for this thing? Best I can tell it's a status symbol for a particular type of computer nerd.

But blather about the Apple "Vision" has replaced blather about GPT based chatbots on HN, so I am thankful for that.

But I am not being facetious when I say that I don't see any application for the technology that justifies the $3500 price tag. But I'm more than willing to be educated.

Is BMW going to use it to train assembly line workers?

Is it going to be used to assist people living in memory care by recognizing faces of people in their field of view and displaying identity annotations?

Are construction workers supposed to wear it so they can view 3D plans overlaid on top of actual construction? Maybe it's cameras can create a 3d model of existing construction to beam back to the site architect to get input about how to proceed?

These all seem plausible, but none of them are consumer apps. Is Apple now not selling direct to consumers? I just don't get the business around these things.

Re: Apple Vision

#324

Post by spacebanana7 »

ilrwbwrkhv wrote: post #275
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…

What is amazing to me is that no matter how much a company makes, you can't change its DNA. Facebook can never build a good physical product, no matter how much money they throw at it. Google can never make a good piece of software, though they can have very strong backend engineering for it, and so on. That is why people talk about culture a whole lot and why it is so important. I wonder if the culture is set and ca…

> Google can never make a good piece of software, though they can have very strong backend engineering for it, and so on.

I think it’s more accurate to say that Google struggles to make application layer software. Most of their successful products like search, YouTube, Maps and Gmail are successful because of infrastructure/data layer advantages despite unexceptional UX/FE.

Chrome is a notable exception.

> I wonder if the culture is set and can never be changed though. Is it an immutable property of companies based on initialization?

I suspect there’s a feedback loop where the people who drove the initial product success end up running the organisation and their priorities dominate.

I’d love to read a study that investigated this by looking at how org charts on LinkedIn evolve over time.

Re: Apple Vision

#326

Post by taeric »

gavinmckenzie wrote: post #303
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”.

This makes me realize that the gestures it is being demonstrated with are going to be hilarious if they are misidentified. I'm /assuming/ that the thing will not pick up gestures between you and someone else. Such that if I pick up a paper with a similar hand shape as their "pinch and move things" gesture, it will realize it wasn't the same.

Or will this be akin to how siri does a shit job understanding anything that is not mechanical in speech? Will be absolutely hilarious if it has a hard time recognizing non-light skinned hands for the gestures. Really hope they don't make that mistake.

Re: Apple Vision

#327

Post by matt-attack »

nashashmi wrote: post #5
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?

iView was better and more clever. Or iScreen. Literally anything that begins with i

The “i” stuff feels really outdated now. The Apple Watch was not the iWatch. There are too many competitors who use it to mean too many cheap things.

Re: Apple Vision

#328

Post by jmull »

Just a side issue, but... can we drop the VR vs. AR terminology now?

It just leads to pointless arguments, e.g. about whether a person said VR when they meant AR, etc. and to the awkward MR and XR terms.

How much is real and how much is virtual is inherently variable, and good devices (at least for general purpose usage) will make it quite fluid.

Re: Apple Vision

#329

Post by scarface_74 »

cj wrote: post #306
danwee wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That’s not enough. Apple built its headset on top of 15 year mobile OS that has been ported across devices, custom built silicon, custom built cameras, screens, etc. Out of all the BigTech companies, Apple is the only one that does custom hardware at scale.

Re: Apple Vision

#330

Post by throw74775 »

beezlebroxxxxxx wrote: post #249
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…

I think Apple might stumble over the same things as Meta and other AR/VR headset companies. The big issue for consumers is product differentiation. Put simply: How is the experience of using this product any different than another product that they already use? Fundamentally, these companies have to show how their product is a) unique and b) useful in a way that differentiates the headset from using a laptop or a tab…

I think you’re overthinking it.

I was considering buying a new studio display for my Mac Studio. I have a single 4K display that is fine most of the time, but for serious work, I want more. That purchase is now on hold until I’ve tried Vision Pro.

For just this application alone, Vision Pro is interesting. As well as a desk, my office has a sofa, and a round conference table. I like to be able to move from one to another for different activities because it’s better for my body. Being able to do this and still access my Mac, or have computing surfaces floating nearby would be a huge benefit for me.

I also have a living room with a TV in it. For me, TV isn’t a social activity - it’s just a way to unwind or watch something of cultural significance. I would love to be able to remove the TV and arrange the room in a more social way. I’d also like to be able to watch movies etc. in other rooms.

I’m considering having roommates, and being able to sometimes watch large screen content in my bedroom feels like it would take pressure off the shared spaces, and allow me to downsize my personal use of space more comfortably.

If it works as well as is claimed, it’s practically a no-brainer for me to buy even at $3500, just based on the added freedom it would give in my own home.

Post reply on HN