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

321–330 of 346 posts

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#321

Post by oofManBang »

asadotzler wrote: post #262
halJordan wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats a very naive understanding of success. Youre telling the soap maker on etsy doesnt have a successful product because she doesnt sell a million units a day? Youre telling me that Rolls Royce Aerospace isn't successful because they only 100 aircraft engines a year?

That soap maker didn't spend $10B in R&D figuring out how to make the soap. Your retort makes zero sense. Apple's worst products sold tens of millions of units in their first couple of years while Vision Pro sold about 370K units in year 1 and well into year 2 still has plenty of inventory sitting on warehouse shelves to cover all of 2025 demand. It literally bombed in the market. It's an abject failure of a product…

> It literally bombed in the market.

Compared to what?

> abject failure

Applying this to apple is beyond comprehension... What do you mean by using such a term? Apple is likely the richest single entity to have every existed, outside of perhaps the US economy as a whole. This single vr product line made apple more money than either of us will make in a lifetime. So hopefully i'm mistaken and you can educate me as to what the word means.

But hopefully you meant "objective". Which is still stupid, but is at least a familiar and manageable form of stupidity.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#322

Post by kridsdale3 »

goosedragons wrote: post #294
lukev wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Vision Pro could easily have been successful if they'd invested an additional 10% of it's R&D budget into software development, and released a suite of tools that actually leveraged what the platform was capable of. It's incredibly impressive tech but just not worth it if all there is to do is to have ipad apps floating in the air around me.

Hey! They have 3D TV too! Didn't you want even more inconvenient 3D TV?

Honestly yes. It's by far the highest quality implementation of 3D TV or 3D Film I have ever viewed. Avatar 2 and IMAX films in particular are stupendous. I really don't have an adjective to describe how much better stereo content in the VisionPro is over every other display device or theater.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#323

Post by oofManBang »

dangus wrote: post #313
commakozzi wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want a face PC, if it's a VisionPro; just can't afford one. My wife wants one more than I do. Two counter-examples for you there.

1. That's an anecdote, but you know that. I'm going to guess that the wife of someone on this forum is nerdier than average. 2. Even if you WANT a face PC, that doesn't mean you'll love using it and keep it once the honeymoon wears off. Supposedly over half of VR headset owners use their device less than once per month. I used to want a headset. I bought a Valve Index. Everything about the device was fantastic. The g…

> So right now we have basically ideal headsets Meta Quest 3/3S

Cmon, it has shitty hardware and shittier software. The only thing going for it is price and a game catalogue they've basically purchased. Which is admittedly a formidable combo, but it's clear nobody wants it. There's no leverage to make them actually cater to the consumer.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#324

Post by thiht »

porphyra wrote: post #245
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 is a technological tour de force and an amazing demo of what's possible and what is soon to come. But if we define a "good product" to mean a commercially successful one, then it isn't very successful. Still, I'm hoping it won't be killed and that it will continue to evolve and become successful eventually.

> But if we define a "good product" to mean a commercially successful one

Why would we define a "good product" as a "successful product"? These are 2 different things. There are many ways to define a "good product" (is it useful? is it well made? is it innovative?), success is something else. All combinations of good-bad / successful-unsuccessful are possible.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#325

Post by arghwhat »

jayd16 wrote: post #312
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…

Nothing about what you said binds Apple to following through. Just because it would be a bad idea doesn't mean they can't or won't.

They could also throw money out their window, light it on fire, let their employees do whatever they want instead of regular Apple work, etc.

A lot of managers (and legal) have to approve and allocate significant budget to bad ideas. Companies generally try to avoid doing bad ideas that are a net negative.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#326

Post by extraduder_ire »

I kind of expected him to be in there, but it was a nice surprise seeing Miguel de Icaza (guy who's the reason unity uses c#) commenting on this addition, with his current work getting swift and godot to play nicely together as well as making xodot for iOS.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#327

Post by waynecochran »

wtallis wrote: post #10
waynecochran wrote: post #6

Are there any apps from this project available in the visionos App Store yet?

The PR to add the basic infrastructure for engine-level support was posted yesterday . There hasn't been enough time for anything to pass through App Store review yet, let alone all the work that has to happen before that, like writing and releasing the rest of the engine support for visionOS, and writing an application to use it.

I simply figured the folks who created this would have actually ported an actual app while in development as part of the process.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#328

Post by freeopinion »

oofManBang wrote: post #315
freeopinion wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, comparati…

Googling "belttop" just shows belts. To what are you referring? Are you suggesting wiring the glasses to some battery stored elsewhere? Sure you can do that, but I thought people these days hated wires (in spite of an objectively superior interface to wireless). But you certainly can't power streaming for it (for more than say an hour) with the battery you can actually store in glasses. I've never even heard of an iV…

Oh this is definitely for rich people only. I thought that was a given. Who else spends $1200 on a laptop every two years? Who else spends $300 on a watch? We're looking for people who spend $200-500 on sunglasses--the non-electronic kind.

You ask where to find these people? Visit your closest Apple store. Or a rodeo arena. Or a Tesla charging lot. Or a Whole Foods market. The United States is crawling with these people.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#329

Post by cg5280 »

bigyabai wrote: post #222
threeseed wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no controller = no games. Bundling a controller would increase the cost for everyone to satisfy a minority of gamers. So instead they support all PS5, Xbox, BT etc controllers.

> Bundling a controller would increase the cost for everyone to satisfy a minority of gamers. Apple doesn't have to increase the cost. The leaked BOM suggests that Apple makes a sizable margin on Vision Pro, even if each controller cost $500 they could give them away in-box and still make more money per-unit than the Quest headset. It's not about cost. > So instead they support all PS5, Xbox, BT etc controllers. Thos…

Apple probably "makes money" on each unit, but I would imagine the development costs of the Vision Pro were astronomical. With that in mind they might not even be recuperating the costs with their sizable margin.

Re: Native visionOS platform support

#330

Post by syndeo »

kridsdale3 wrote: post #322
goosedragons wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey! They have 3D TV too! Didn't you want even more inconvenient 3D TV?

Honestly yes. It's by far the highest quality implementation of 3D TV or 3D Film I have ever viewed. Avatar 2 and IMAX films in particular are stupendous. I really don't have an adjective to describe how much better stereo content in the VisionPro is over every other display device or theater.

Exactly. 3D TV wasn’t a bad idea. It was just pushed a bit too hard too soon. There’s a reason 3D movies are still popular in theaters; people genuinely enjoy them and are willing to pay at least some premium for them.

Frankly, I’d much rather have a 3D TV than a “smart” TV.

Post reply on HN