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

351–360 of 582 posts

Re: Apple Vision

#351

Post by mynameisvlad »

scarface_74 wrote: post #345
pavlov wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Newton, Power Mac Cube, iMac G4 "Sunflower", and solid gold first-gen Apple Watch come to mind as Apple hardware products that failed to live up to the hype. On the software side there are more misses, but also the stakes are lower. It's a great track record for thirty years, of course. All the other big tech companies have graveyards full of half-assed product launches.

The Apple Watch is not a failure by any objective measure. It’s very profitable and by far the biggest in the industry. Everything else you name was pre-iPhone.

They didn’t say the AW was a failure and your obvious cherry-picking of the comment is showing.

Re: Apple Vision

#352

Post by LexGray »

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 agree there is a lot of low hanging fruit which could differentiate consumer from Pro for the next generations.

The pro could increase the FOV (some mentioned black borders at edge of vision), increase refresh rate and brightness (some mentioned adjusting to room brightness when removed), reduce the weight and thickness with titanium (some mentioned unbalanced weight), have more private sound (I understand it is pretty noisy to the neighbors so you would currently need AirPod Pro for plane/bed use), increase the cooling system (some mentioned it is warm), get some sort of med-tech sensors (control with thoughts, detect stress etc), get back sensors (the AirPod demo of being passed by the bike seems it needs some sort of backup camera/360 video record options), get cellular features, get Mx Pro chip, and increase the front screen size. After that I expect outdoor waterproof Ultra models (The scenes of people twitching on couches compared to the iPod dancers flinging themselves around could not be more stark).

Many reviewers also mentioned getting their hair messed up making it unwanted in professional scenarios where sharp looks are important which is something to solve for a true pro model. I imagine corporate will want all sorts of usage data and screen sharing.

Re: Apple Vision

#353

Post by throw74775 »

l33tman wrote: post #214
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NeXT Cube was considered a failure. ... except ... when I write iOS software (for the most successful product of all time), I am frequently using types that have "NS" prefixes. I wonder where they came from?

IIRC Jobs purchased NeXT when he took the Apple CEO job, to get a new OS base. As NeXT was his company, I'm pretty sure it was a decision based on bias and urgency and not because NextStep was the best there was. But yeah it's an interesting legacy for sure :)

NextStep was easily the best there was. Nothing else was remotely suitable. The only contender people like to fantasize about is BeOS, which was nice (I used it as a daily driver for a year), but a toy compared to NextStep and OSX.

Re: Apple Vision

#354

Post by ugh123 »

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…

In their demos they clearly show the pairing up of controllers to play games.

Re: Apple Vision

#355

Post by mynameisvlad »

scarface_74 wrote: post #348
pavlov wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both failed badly to live up to Apple's sales expectations. The Sunflower iMac was discontinued even before its successor shipped. The Apple Watch Edition was supposed to grow Apple into a luxury brand and expand its margins massively (you can find many interviews with Jony Ive from 2015 where he explains this thinking). This strategy was a dud.

Have you looked at the revenue from their wearables category? If the Watch is a failure then the Mac is an abject failure.

You need to seriously read what you’re actually replying to instead of what you think you are because you keep bringing up that the AW is not a failure when nobody said it was.

Re: Apple Vision

#356

Post by minhazm »

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'm not sure it's fair to say that Facebook had a 7-8 yr head start because Apple has been developing every single component that goes into the VR headset for well over 10 yrs. They design their own cameras, displays, micro processors, lenses, speakers, sensors, etc. Apple has hundreds of engineers working on each of these components for various devices they sell. They've shipped a billion+ of their own custom processors and have a world class chip design team to make custom chips for specific products. Meta has no where near the level of hardware design expertise that Apple has. They've also been slowly laying a lot of this ground work for years now with ARKit and LiDAR on iPhones / iPad Pro, moving Mac's to Apple Silicon and supporting iPad apps on it (allows them to bootstrap the Vision Pro app store).

Even if Apple found the displays, cameras, sensors, etc. the one thing they won't find available is the processors(s). Apple is shipping an M2 chip, which they use for desktop computing as well as a custom new chip to handle sensor information. I read that the actual parts cost of the Vision Pro is $1500, and that's with Apple having huge contracts with their suppliers for other components and getting a discount. Add in R&D costs and even at $3500 Apple is likely not making much on this device. If Meta were to make a similar device I think it would cost $5k or they would have to sell it at a major loss.

Re: Apple Vision

#357

Post by blitz_skull »

I think the point that many are missing is that Apple doesn’t announce half-baked products at nearly the rate that Google and company does.

The fact that Apple took this bet isn’t indicative of the current product, it’s indicative of the future. They’re correct in almost every product bet they make. If you don’t see it, you’re probably not seeing the long game.

Re: Apple Vision

#358

Post by darzu »

killjoywashere wrote: post #307

I really worry that if AR/VR like Apple Vision takes off, we are going to find ourselves even more alone, isolated, and depressed than ever, separated from the physical humanity we all evolved to live in. Putting a screen between everything is the theme of so many dystopian movies I don't even know where to start. I mean, I get it. I really, really do. But, man, is this healthy, really?

Anybody that goes to work alone in a home office room is isolating themselves more completely than sitting in a common area with an XR mask.

Re: Apple Vision

#359

Post by sebastianconcpt »

sanitycheck wrote: post #14
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?

It seems lazy to me, do a Google search for "Vision Pro", excluding results from the past couple of days, and it seems there were already a ton of products and services with the same name. Perfect time to bring back the "i", though they already have "iSight". "iBorg"?

iWon'tUseIt

Re: Apple Vision

#360

Post by wmeredith »

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…

Apple's Achilles heal here seems to be search. They just can't do it.
Post reply on HN