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

391–400 of 582 posts

Re: Apple Vision

#391

Post by esskay »

justin66 wrote: post #152
rsynnott wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Pro", in AppleSpeak, means "the expensive one". They've actually done this before; the MacBook Pro (first Intel Mac) launched some time before the MacBook (first consumer-oriented Intel Mac). This feels like fairly clear signalling that there'll be a cheaper more consumer-oriented one along later.

Apple's problem is that the "pro" version is not just twice as expensive as the "consumer" version needs to be in order to be a market success, it's ten times more expensive than the consumer version needs to be. edit: the fanatics are really out with the downvotes today

To go 10x lower we're at $339. Thats not happening, this thing has essentially a full blown macbook baked into it. Apple has never been interested in cheaping out, and in VR that's Meta's job - their Quest headsets are litterally using the cheapest possible ways of getting to its price point, and it shows.

The consumer one will likely settle somewhere closer to $999 - matching the price of the cheapest macbook air. And it'll be a success at that price point, because by the time we get to that people will understand that it's not a quest with a mobile phone processor slapped inside, it's a laptop grade platform.

Re: Apple Vision

#392

Post by password54321 »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #343
TobyTheDog123 wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I dont understand all the doomerism. If Apple is totally bullshitting here, we're going to find out extremely quickly, which will undoubtedly harm their reputation in the space when it comes to the next generations. If they weren't confident it works almost as magically as its described, it would not have been shown.

Skepticism is not doomerism— and in fact should be praised. Multiple companies have tried and failed. Their marketing demos looked just as compelling. Sure, we will find out. Eventually. In over a year when it launches. But until then, why should we trust companies who’s best interest is not to give us the truth on what their product is but rather the best possible vision for what it will be? So far every single iter…

When you say something IS going to fail, then it is doomerism which isn't hard to find. Also expressing skepticism on some forum is nothing praiseworthy, only reviews matter or just trying it yourself at the Apple store once available.

Re: Apple Vision

#393

Post by Mindwipe »

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…

Not least because we have been doing the courtside view of sports events for what... nearly a decade now? And it's not very compelling compared to proper coverage with camera angles.

Re: Apple Vision

#394

Post by esskay »

AnonC wrote: post #186
andsoitis wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What will the non-Pro version not have, compared to the Pro?

It won’t have a very high price, for one. Other than that, it won’t have screen resolutions as high as this, nor have as many cameras and mics as the Pro version. It may not have some features in the software either. It helps to think about the “SE” models of iPhone and Apple Watch in relation to this. And it will have its own target customer base for which it makes more sense than the Pro.

At a complete guess, the non-pro model will arrive in around 2025. It will have the same M2 chip as the current one, and less or lower quality sensors/cameras, and maybe a cheaper and/or non-replaceable strap (I'd lean towards the former as selling extra straps will be something they'll want to profit on).

By the time it comes out the pro model will move to the M3 or M4. Storage will also be lower on the non-pro model, and you wont get the same level of sound quality (Which for 99% of people wont matter as they'll have Airpods being existing Apple users).

Apples historically launched pro products, and then when its ready for a performance and/or feature bump it's passed those old features down to the non-pro models. Think TouchID and FaceID for example.

Re: Apple Vision

#395

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

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…

One of the things we have dissected in our MBA class was Apple's Iphone reveal and how carefully choreographed[1] it was ( I am being very generous given my anti-Apple bias ). You could argue that Apple was simply lying since the product was not ready, but looking back, they were able to deliver on the promise of that reveal.

Oddly, it makes me somewhat hopeful that this product will work as well. I am not ready to shell out that cash on it just yet, but I will be looking at SDK as soon as they actually release it. Heavens protect me; I want to play with that toy.

[1]https://www.macrumors.com/2013/10/04/former-apple-engineer-g...

Re: Apple Vision

#396

Post by eep_social »

jmbwell wrote: post #111

This article is dead on, all the way to the end. Takes a few minutes to read, but its observations on the market position of the device, all the way to the individual/social ramifications and the relevance vis a vis Meta, are as sharp as anything I’ve read about this yet. If it seems like he’s gushing, he is. He’s speaking as someone who has seen lots of these devices and, in his view, this hardware and software outc…

> If it seems like he’s gushing, he is.

This is how he writes. If you ever read him on a topic where you are an actual expert, you’ll probably never bother reading him again.

Re: Apple Vision

#397

Post by Yizahi »

_gabe_ wrote: post #138
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…

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…

And also to chime in on the most common argument for the "VR/AR for work" - the meetings. I actually DON'T need to see anyone's faces or avatars on the online meeting. I don't WANT to see them and I'm honestly tired of Zoom trying to shove me in my face their speaker thumbnails and constantly switching to full screen. I don't need that at all FOR WORK. For work I eithr want to see screen being shared pixel perfectly (so no floating pseudo screens in VR) or don't see zoom/meet interface at all, keep it in background and just listen, while doing work at the foreground.

VR people advertising to me a "real life like meetings along with a meeting room, whiteboard and full body avatars" are either clueless or delusional, because that stuff has actually a negative value FOR WORK. Sure, when you have something like an online party (yay... fun...) then seeing other can be entertaining. But not for actual work.

Re: Apple Vision

#398

Post by scarface_74 »

tootie wrote: post #374
scarface_74 wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it’s all marketing. People have been saying that for 20 years. It couldn’t possible have anything to do with having hardware that is literally years ahead of the competition, tight integration between products, a better user interface, etc.

Vertical integration/monopolism is part of it too. The money machine feeds everything else. They sell very high end hardware for uses that are beyond the needs of 99% of their market. I literally had a dream the other night that I still had my android phone from 5 years ago because it had an IR blaster I could use to control my TV. That's probably the last time a phone from any maker had a distinguishing feature wort…

Yes, Apple with 10% of the PC market and 50% of phone market in the US is a “monopoly”

> That's probably the last time a phone from any maker had a distinguishing feature worth paying for.

Yet people by new phones every year. Every TV to a first approximation is a smart TV where you can control everything with an app.

Re: Apple Vision

#399

Post by ggregoire »

tootie wrote: post #267
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…

Quest 2 is the best-selling headset to date. This Apple device will have an even smaller addressable market at the $3500 price. Meta can add more pixels faster than Apple can drop their price by 2/3. Really, Apple does a lot of things well, but their market supremacy is primarily due to marketing. They are incredibly well-positioned as a necessary luxury brand. They are "cool" while Android and Microsoft are not.

> Quest 2 is the best-selling headset to date. This Apple device will have an even smaller addressable market at the $3500 price.

I don't think they address the same market at all. Apple will sell their headset to people who already own an iPhone, an iPad or a Mac. This is a market on its own and it's not small. I wouldn't be surprised if 99% of Apple consumers never heard about the Quest 2 and don't care about VR headsets in general, but might still be interested in trying that new Apple device.

Re: Apple Vision

#400

Post by esskay »

matt-attack wrote: post #327
nashashmi wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Agreed. If you pop into any dollar/pound type store the shelves are filled with cheap cables and car phone holders that use the 'i' name. It's become synonymous with cheap junk now.
Post reply on HN