Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Vision Pro review

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#341

Post by aidenn0 »

lbussell wrote: post #317
joshspankit wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On Windows of all places (95ish to MEish) there was a remote tool called radmin and it had something that I wish companies had embraced: it hooked in to (maybe even before?) the window-rendering functions and sent the changes over the network. It’s hard to explain exactly what I mean because everyone is so used to streaming pictures of the screen over the network (if they even use remote access at all), but you could…

Yeah, you can do this with x forwarding on Linux. Not sure if there’s a modern Wayland equivalent.

Wayland clients don't draw things the way old-school X clients do (neither do modern X clients), so it doesn't make sense at the Wayland level. KDE or GTK could potentially implement something like this though.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#342

Post by shermantanktop »

joshspankit wrote: post #306
tunesmith wrote: post #7

One of the aspects of the device that has been under-realized is that when mirroring your desktop/laptop display to the AVP, you can't break out its applications into different areas. You can't pull them away from the desktop window. This is one of those things that Apple never claimed was supported, and yet there's something about that behavior that feels like such a natural intuitive implication to the technology t…

On Windows of all places (95ish to MEish) there was a remote tool called radmin and it had something that I wish companies had embraced: it hooked in to (maybe even before?) the window-rendering functions and sent the changes over the network. It’s hard to explain exactly what I mean because everyone is so used to streaming pictures of the screen over the network (if they even use remote access at all), but you could…

IIRC many windows apps at that time were using MFC or otherwise composing a UI out of rects, lines, buttons, etc. Then came Winamp and the fad to draw crazy bitmaps as part of the UI. If everyone does that, shipping draw commands is less useful and shipping pixels makes a lot more sense.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#343

Post by coconut08 »

zmmmmm wrote: post #276

Lots of surprises on the downside from all the reviews. Pass through much more limited in quality with motion blur, pixelation, distortions, limited color and dynamic range. The eye tracking driven input method which was seen as holy grail turns out to be annoying after a while because people don't naturally always look at what they want to click on. Personas straight up aren't ready. The lack of AR features is the b…

i generally agree with the sentiment of this post. it does appear to be a beta/dev kit. i will say that the productivity criticism is a BIT unfair. It may be the case that you can only have 1 MACOS display, but you can have many non macos apps running right alongside the 1 macos display. You could have your macos display doing things that only macos can do, and then run the vision pro version of discord or teams or safari or whatever else you would use that has an ipad/vision version as floating windows separate from the macos display.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#344

Post by outofpaper »

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #314
zmmmmm wrote: post #276

Lots of surprises on the downside from all the reviews. Pass through much more limited in quality with motion blur, pixelation, distortions, limited color and dynamic range. The eye tracking driven input method which was seen as holy grail turns out to be annoying after a while because people don't naturally always look at what they want to click on. Personas straight up aren't ready. The lack of AR features is the b…

I wonder given all this... what the expectations are at Apple from a higher up/board/executive standpoint are Most of Apple offerings are good: Watch iPad Mac iPhone services Are they really expecting this to just be a hard problem initially that they get better at over time? When is the last time they launched a "so so" product?

Newton and to a much much lesser extent the first iPod and iPhone. But really the Newton while a product that I love and a super profitable line was the last time Apple created something that had so many rough edges.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#346

Post by filoleg »

jsheard wrote: post #85
dylan604 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always think back to the Nikkor 6mm fisheye lens[0] for example of what it takes to have 180° FOV. It's a lot of glass. [0] https://duckduckgo.com/?t=h_&q=nikkor+6mm+f2.8+fisheye&iax=i...

Amusingly the XTAL 3 MR is only slightly heavier than the Vision Pro despite all the glass it must have inside to produce that FOV.

Yeah, but XTAL 3 MR has zero standalone capabilities and requires being tethered to a rather beefy PC to function at all.

From their own page, the very minimum requirements for the PC are 32GB RAM and an RTX2060 GPU. And that’s a minimum, so I am not sure how well it functions with those specs.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#347

Post by lambdasquirrel »

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #314
zmmmmm wrote: post #276

Lots of surprises on the downside from all the reviews. Pass through much more limited in quality with motion blur, pixelation, distortions, limited color and dynamic range. The eye tracking driven input method which was seen as holy grail turns out to be annoying after a while because people don't naturally always look at what they want to click on. Personas straight up aren't ready. The lack of AR features is the b…

I wonder given all this... what the expectations are at Apple from a higher up/board/executive standpoint are Most of Apple offerings are good: Watch iPad Mac iPhone services Are they really expecting this to just be a hard problem initially that they get better at over time? When is the last time they launched a "so so" product?

So-so in what way? This product is clearly a toy. Which is to say that it is genuinely new. Maybe like how the Apple II was when it first came out. PCs were quite expensive back then too, if I remember correctly. This really will take time. All the important technological things were toys before they became tools.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#348

Post by jsheard »

threeseed wrote: post #303
aloer wrote: post #132

It is interesting how many here are excited about this for productive computer work. It’s also what Apple advertises with. But what is the account situation like? For years I’ve been complaining that I can’t easily use my private iPad with my company Mac because they have separate Apple IDs. Things like sidecar for a quick virtual whiteboard are basically impossible. AirPods have gotten better over the years where to…

> But what is the account situation like? These devices are going to have your sweat, makeup, odours etc on them. So you're really not going to want to share a device with anyone else.

The facial interfaces are just held on with magnets, so it's not unrealistic to think that people might swap them out regularly depending on who's using it. The interface is sized for the user so hygiene aside you'd probably want to swap it for a different one anyway.

Unfortunately Apple is charging $200 per extra facial interface though.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#349

Post by 38 »

dwaite wrote: post #244
38 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AirPods have gotten better over the years where today I can freely switch between devices belonging to different Apple IDs with the same AirPods. What the fuck. The fact that an apple ID is even involved is absurd. Should be able to just Bluetooth to any device.

You can just bluetooth to any device. However, pairing an audio device is an exchange of settings and encryption keys, and Apple will sync that pairing that to your entire account. Hold your AirPods near your Phone and tap the button to create the initial pairing, and they start working with your Mac and Apple TV.

that doesn't explain the previous status quo, which appears to be that previous (and maybe current) incarnations cant Bluetooth pair without an apple ID.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#350

Post by csmiller »

delfinom wrote: post #178
jsheard wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to excuse that mistake but FWIW there are third party manufacturers which sell prescription lenses for various headsets for as little as $50, so there will probably be cheaper options once they start making them for the Vision Pro. The cost to actually manufacture the lenses depends on the strength of the prescription, and most VR lens manufacturers reflect that in their pricing, but Apple appears to be charging…

I await the day that Apple adds authentication chips to lenses and locks out 3rd parties. Basically it wouldn't be them to pass up a accessory sell opportunity.

Sounded in Gruber's review like they have something that sort of incidentally does that https://arc.net/l/quote/wgcwgxod
Post reply on HN