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

First impressions: Yes, Apple Vision Pro works and yes, it’s good

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 562 posts

Re: First impressions: Yes, Apple Vision Pro works and yes, it’s good

#421

Post by ztrww »

contrarian1234 wrote: post #170
PostOnce wrote: post #72

I don't understand why there is no AR or VR killer app for this thing. Their sales pitch was "it makes it amazing to read articles in safari"? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYkq9Rgoj8E&t=5410s $3500 to... look at a floating web browser? Surely they can come up with something. Give me UV/IR vision, let me see the pipes under the ground, show me how to assemble the furniture I'm looking at, give me a template to pain…

Because no one will really do the stuff you suggest. All the things you describe just take too much effort to make Assembling furniture - 1d written description : 1 person half a day - 2d illustration : ~2 people and a 3 days - 3d animation : ~3 people and 2 weeks - 3d interactive thing : a small team and a month.. At least ? Is it really going to yield a ton more sales? You can see it in other media. Zillions of cre…

https://www.ikea.com/au/en/customer-service/mobile-apps/say-... should be pretty nice though

of course still a gimmick

I’m more exciting about a new version of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmFk0AKbXlQ

Re: First impressions: Yes, Apple Vision Pro works and yes, it’s good

#422

Post by ztrww »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #197
geysersam wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But people still do shoot movies and make video games. It takes more work, but also (hopefully) provides an additional value. At sufficient scale it might make sense to do this (something like IKEA).

> But people still do shoot movies There are at least 1,000 books written for every movie shot, even including material shot by amateurs with their phones. Figures range from 500,000 to one million books published annually. However, if you include self-published authors you’re looking at close to 4 million new book titles published each year.

> There are at least 1,000 books written for every movie shot, even including material shot by amateurs with their phones.

I really doubt that considering writing a book requires a lot more effort than shooting a ‘movie’ on your phone.

Re: First impressions: Yes, Apple Vision Pro works and yes, it’s good

#423

Post by ztrww »

gtirloni wrote: post #294
Someone wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are at least 1,000 books written for every movie shot, even including material shot by amateurs with their phones > However, if you include self-published authors you’re looking at close to 4 million new book titles published each year. Combining those, you claim that less than 4,000 movies are shot each year, “even including material shot by amateurs with their phones” . I can’t see how that can be true. Goo…

Wedding videos classify as "shooting a movie"?

a lot of those 500k “books” are about as similar to what we perceive as real books as wedding videos are to blockbuster movies

Re: First impressions: Yes, Apple Vision Pro works and yes, it’s good

#424

Post by cesarb »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #380

The author says he used all the VR systems that exist under the sun, but he doesn't mention SimulaVR. Since for my use case it's the most direct competitor (using VR as working tool, not gaming), anybody got a comparison of the early test devices for both?

> The author says he used all the VR systems that exist under the sun, but he doesn't mention SimulaVR.

I don't think SimulaVR counts, since all they have so far is a few prototypes and a single pre-release build sent to an external reviewer (https://simulavr.com/blog/review-unit-in-transit/). And unless the author is that reviewer (or works for SimulaVR), he can't have used it.

Re: First impressions: Yes, Apple Vision Pro works and yes, it’s good

#425

Post by CyberDildonics »

ztrww wrote: post #418
CyberDildonics wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first iphone was the first time most people could actually use the internet on something they could carry around, even if it was just with wifi. It did everything phones did but much better since it was all touch. Interfaces to alarms, the calculator, the camera etc was entirely different. Anyone who used it knew that everyone else would either copy it or go out of business.

Windows Mobile and Symbian devices were a thing for years and had functioning browsers. The iPhone was an improvement (as long as you had wifi) but it took a couple of years before it actually become widespread

They weren't anywhere close to being the same. You had no multi-touch, no pinch zoom and no fluid panning and scrolling.

Re: First impressions: Yes, Apple Vision Pro works and yes, it’s good

#426

Post by staticman2 »

andybak wrote: post #391
alach11 wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The killer app for smartphones is being a phone.

If you mean voice calls then I disagree. They seem to becoming less important every year.

You still want a way to make voice calls in case you need to contact emergency services, no?

Re: First impressions: Yes, Apple Vision Pro works and yes, it’s good

#427

Post by madeofpalk »

MacsHeadroom wrote: post #401
madeofpalk wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everyone. It's a laptop replacement. Can you build apps on it?

The WWDC demos suggested that it would be a full development device, and it has the same M2 processor as the M2 Macbook. It is basically a Macbook in a different form factor and with a bunch of extra sensors.

iPad also has the same processor as the macs yet it is significantly less capable than a Mac.

You can develop some toy apps with Swift Playgrounds, but Apple isn't developing realityOS using iPad.

Re: First impressions: Yes, Apple Vision Pro works and yes, it’s good

#428

Post by snarfy »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #404
snarfy wrote: post #381

They mention 12ms, which is 83.3fps. It's a bit too slow for my tastes at $3500 price tag. It might be good for more stationary images, but anything moving will have ghosting/stutter. I'll wait for gen2/3. Still, I'm very happy there is new competition in this field.

My understanding is that the latency is 12ms, but that's orthogonal to the framerate. You could be updating at 240fps (doubtful, admittedly), but those frames are 12ms delayed from what's entering the camera.

Yes you are right. It's not clear what the 12ms represents, input delay or framerate or something else. Hopefully we will get better tech specs soon.

Re: First impressions: Yes, Apple Vision Pro works and yes, it’s good

#429

Post by andybak »

staticman2 wrote: post #426
andybak wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you mean voice calls then I disagree. They seem to becoming less important every year.

You still want a way to make voice calls in case you need to contact emergency services, no?

At no point did I say "nobody ever makes voice calls any more".

Re: First impressions: Yes, Apple Vision Pro works and yes, it’s good

#430

Post by webjprgm »

noelrock wrote: post #408
ttul wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first iPhone was pretty crappy. No apps. 2G only. Poor battery life. Limited global distribution - not even Canada could get it. But it captivated people who didn’t own it yet, and it proved out some essential ideas like multitouch. And when the iPhone 3G came out, improving on some of the original device’s shortcomings, it was wildly popular. The rest is history. There is no doubt that AR will eventually get goo…

Spurious enough comparison given there were phones , a developed phone market which was 150m+ globally even at that stage, and demonstrated clear use cases for an iphone (an ipod, a phone and an internet browser combined). Yep it iterated and yep app store really rocket charged it beyond where it was envisaged on day one. But it was also an existing market, albeit one that was at the foothills of its potential. AR/VR…

The potential is to replace computers. In its current version, it is basically an iPad on your face. Look a little forward and it is a laptop on your face. Imagine that the price came down to $1500-2000 in a couple years, now you can buy an Apple Vision instead of a laptop. And you wouldn't need to buy a TV either. So this does have device consolidation potential like the iPhone did and it can tap into an existing market like the iPhone tapped into the phone markets.

I think previous AR/VR devices didn't quite have the right sweetspot of hardware features (too low resolution, tied to one spot, extra controllers), but this one looks like it might just do it. What it doesn't have is a low enough cost, so it will be a slow start. I'm also still curious if there will be a "killer app" that encourages people to get into it, but the long-term vision of spatial computing is itself enough of a killer feature. I just wonder how long that will take.

Post reply on HN