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

381–390 of 582 posts

Re: Apple Vision

#381

Post by zerbinxx »

fnordpiglet wrote: post #365
_gabe_ wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills or something. I have no idea how much of the footage in the long advertisements are actual in-headset recording vs highly editorialized made up aspirational CG. Additionally, I really don't think all the people here singing the praises of Apple's currently nonexistent headset (for actual customer use at least until 2024 or something) have ever used a headset. Headsets giv…

I think it’s actually more reflective of the fact apple tends to be pretty thorough in product development and anything launched usually covers an awful lot of the problem domain. However their 1.0 launch of any product is usually an 80% complete product, for apple. For most other device makers it’s a 220% complete device at 1.0. So, I expect the first version will be a directional indicator that address more than tw…

Amen. Love, hate, or don’t care (me), Apple does have an earned reputation for not delivering flops to market. While I have about as much (personal) interest in Vision as I have in anything Apple-stamped past the release of the iPhone 6, it’s certainly not crazy-pilled to think they will deliver a quality product on day one, with the caveat that there will probably be some iteration before we get to Vision 2.0 where the limitations get smoothed out.

Re: Apple Vision

#382

Post by jayd16 »

jsheard wrote: post #188
xrisk wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This TechCrunch review where the reviewer had access to them says that the issues with headaches/nausea don’t happen: https://techcrunch.com/2023/06/05/first-impressions-yes-appl...

Most of the nausea issues in VR stem from the disconnect between moving in virtual space without moving in the real world, and Apple seems to be focusing on applications which maintain a 1:1 mapping between real and virtual movement. Games are where that's most likely to be an issue and they're very much not focusing on actual VR gaming, only playing non-VR games in VR on a virtual screen.

The poor UX of moving the user camera in the virtual scene is trivially avoided.

If any of the immersive apps drop framerate, you'll feel it. Its not just a games concern.

Re: Apple Vision

#383

Post by Geee »

seydor wrote: post #130

My bet would be completely the opposite. No matter how good these devices get they lack in input bandwidth. My keyboard beats all VR , and it seems to easily beat apple's VR too. The headset is clearly targeted to static environments, entertainment. The apps are like ipad apps, looking cute but when people want to do serious work fast, they use a laptop because it has a keyboard. It is overengineered. There are a lot…

You can see your keyboard and you can use it just fine. You can also use other devices, like your phone and watch.

You can even use your laptop and mirror the screen into a bigger one.

Re: Apple Vision

#384

Post by jsheard »

throw74775 wrote: post #336
bryanlarsen wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This "Apple DNA" provides both advantages and disadvantages. The Apple Vision has a shell of metal & glass. On a product where weight is super important. How many grams could be shaved if they used plastic instead?

Aluminum is about 3x the weight of ABS, but is significantly stronger. It’s not at all obvious that any weight could be ‘shaved’ while still making the device as durable.

We do already have an example of Apple using aluminium for a wearable device that's traditionally made of plastic - the AirPods Max. It's well known for being significantly heavier than the competition, they weren't able to reduce the volume of material enough to offset how much heavier it is.

Re: Apple Vision

#386

Post by masklinn »

Auracle wrote: post #299
masklinn wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple has managed to combine AR and VR, by simply re-creating the AR inside the VR. The idea is simple but profound. The Quest Pro does that, just badly.

The Quest 2 does it even worse. That said it seemed to be a major upgrade point on the announced Quest 3, so we’ll see how it compares.

Does the quest 2 do it at all? I was under the impression that it only has low-ish resolution IR (or possibly monochrome) cameras, I don't think it ever pretended to be an AR/MR device. The cameras were for controller detection, and passthrough mode was only added because it could be (and that was better than nothing).

Re: Apple Vision

#387

Post by Pxtl »

I'm just still surprised that Apple made a heavy-duty massive VR/AR product instead of something more like Google Glass - something lightweight and fashionable as a peripheral for your phone just for showing notifications and turn-by-turn directions and other kind of status updates -- an Apple Watch for your face.

Re: Apple Vision

#388

Post by derefr »

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…

> Apple seems to be the only company that's able to do this on a consistent basis with physical electronics. (video games, cars, construction projects achieve this in their field, but consumer electronics seems to completely lack this, barring Apple)

It's funny watching the interactions between tech reviewers and (usually Shenzhen-based) consumer-electronics startups — think earbuds, "retro consoles", etc.

Almost inevitably, the reviewer gradually develops domain knowledge from reviewing dozens of entrants into the space that allow them to say exactly what would make for a good device. Then one of the startups invites the reviewer to collaborate on a product design with them. The model that the reviewer had design input on becomes wildly successful, because it actually does some stuff right. And then, as soon as the reviewer is gone, everything the company makes goes right back to having the same obvious flaws. As if they're constitutionally incapable of learning what made their one good product succeed in the market and just replicating it.

Re: Apple Vision

#389

Post by greedo »

seydor wrote: post #161
vlovich123 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your keyboard works just fine in VR. What’s the problem? I think a real display replacement (in terms of shrinking down your monitor/TV to something you can trivially carry around with you) seems like a real use case.

it doesnt exactly work as a screen replacement because it is stricly personal. Good for using in airplanes and maybe when alone but like other VR glasses, it doesnt fit well in other circumstances

Most people don't share their laptop or desktop screen.

Re: Apple Vision

#390

Post by masklinn »

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 :)

> IIRC Jobs purchased NeXT when he took the Apple CEO job

No, Apple bought NeXT after the failure of Copland to birth a replacement for the creaky and leaky MacOS (BeOS was the big alternative, but Apple thought they were asking for too much).

And NeXT proceeded to take over: Apple bought NeXT in February 1997 keeping Jobs back as an advisor, Jobs staged a boardroom coup to remove Amelio in July, and was then named interim CEO.

Following that he started cutting into the existing product lines and placing NeXT people (Tevanian , Forstall), promoting people he was interested in (Ive), or hiring them from outside (Cook). Basically reshaping the company.

Post reply on HN