Live data from Hacker News

Apple Vision Pro available in the U.S. on February 2

apple.com

421–430 of 442 posts

Re: Apple Vision Pro available in the U.S. on February 2

#421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$400 was still more than the “free” phones that carriers were giving away and it’s my understanding that in the rest of the world, most people still have to drop the cash for the total cost of the phone

You don't slash the price of something selling within your expectations after a few months. And you know that crummy $0 free on contract phones weren't the competitor to the iPhone. It was $400 on contract smartphones like the Palm Treo 750 or Cingular 8525, actually comparable devices.

And you still ignored the rest of my point. Today in 2024, most of the world is paying full price for their phones up front. Apple is competing in a market where you can buy an Android for tenth of the price . Yet, Apple is selling enough iPhones to make it one of the most valuable companies in the world

Re: Apple Vision Pro available in the U.S. on February 2

#422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's interesting to me is that it seems to fully get rid of the screen door effect, and could actually be useable for work with virtual huge screens. I didn't really get into VR games, and maybe I should take another crack at them with something cheaper from meta before investing in the Vision Pro. Anyway, there's no way my work will buy me one, and I'm not buying one with my own dollars just to lock it to my corp…

Yeah, the high density displays are a big thing for me too. Also, the possibility of polished software that’s properly designed for the form factor (most AR/VR software that isn’t a game has felt kinda duct-tapey up until now). I also think that compared to say the Quest Pro/3 it has more potential to be host to the first few apps that kick off the “iPhone moment” for AR. The capable hardware is certainly a factor he…

There is no iPhone moment possible. The iPhone replaced at least 2 existing devices at a digestible price. Indeed, if you bought an iPad Nano plus a good feature phone or one of the early smartphones you would be close to the iPhone price.

In France, it was launched at 600€ (8GB version) with a contract; but just the year prior I had bought a Windows mobile smartphone that completely sucked for 250€ (LG, under contract as well), plus a 210€ iPhone Nano. All in all, you are not that far from the price for a device that was truly something else and had all the functionality of the previous combo and much more.

The iPhone worked because it was priced pretty cheap considering everything it brought to the table. In fact, I am absolutely certain that people started buying iPhones because they intuitively understood that they would save money by staying ahead of the curve while bringing a lot of usefulness into their lives. It is extremely doubtful that something like that will happen with the Vision Pro, firstly because it doesn't really replace any existing device and its pricing is completely disconnected from ordinary people's reality.

The iPhone was 5 years ahead of anything on the market, yet it did not cost 3 to 7 times the equivalent technology. Actually, as I said I'm pretty sure it worked because people figured out that while it lacked some features or had "not as good" specs on paper for certain things, it was a far more usable and useful device. If you looked at its competitors at that time a Nokia N95 8GB would go for 300€ under contract (700€ naked) and the most popular Samsung/LG big feature phones/smartphone were around that price.

The iPhone was not expensive. This is a mythology created by Apple fanboys under Tim Cook that gaslighted everyone with "clever" diversification and an insane pricing ladder where he keeps selling old technology for twice the price of its competitors just because he benefits from the Apple brand halo. When you look at it the first iPhone was what is now called a "Pro" iPhone; it was the best Apple could sell, but it was also the best in the market overall, there wasn't any alternative with a better integrated package. Even if we make a charitable comparison and take for example the most expensive iPhone 3G at 700€ (16Go version) and ignore the Pro Max iPhone (which is an extreme outlier) and go for the "base" Pro iPhone at 1230€ ; you go from 68% of monthly minimum salary to 90%; a rather substantial 22% increase. For what is essentially the same thing relative to the overall market. If you were to just consider inflation, 700€ in 2009 would be around 890€ today. This is already 80€ more money than the "base" iPhone 15. This base iPhone is technologically underwhelming, its only redeeming quality is the fast silicon but it is largely unnecessary and as to make up for the lower amount of RAM (that nowadays is way more relevant to what you can do with your phones that pure benchmark speed). It is basically the same thing as a Samsung S23, expect sold at a 300€ premium.

This is the reality that the Vision Pro is launching with, and as a "new" technology it was already bound to be expensive, but under the Tim Cook "leadership" it is bound to be a meme device considering the pricing placement. It is better technology than the competition, but not 3 times better and its potential use cases are not 3 times better than what exists. In fact, we already know from very similar existing devices that such things are uncomfortable enough that they could not be considered as a primary device. So even if someone finds a use for them, it's going to be very niche and time bound. Nothing that could warrant its asking price.

But I find it very fitting to the Tim Cook era, it represents exactly what Apple has become with him: overpriced, overengineered, luxury show-off technology. Lots of posturing, enormous potential to display wealth; very little substance.

Re: Apple Vision Pro available in the U.S. on February 2

#423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I'm excited for the productivity aspects of it. I think my main use case will probably be relaxing in my comfy chair with a macbook on my lap projected into a much larger screen with some other floating windows like documentation, youtube tutorials, etc. off to the sides. I currently don't have any extra screens for the macbook, so being able to utilize some native apps for stuff like that seems quite hel…

For what it's worth I currently play flat games on Quest 3 via Xbox Cloud Gaming (i.e. streaming) [1], in passthrough mode (i.e. mixed reality with the virtual screen floating in the air) using a PS4 controller paired with the Quest 3, and it's definitely very playable, if much lower visual quality than just playing it on a 4K TV (30hrs into Starfield at the moment). But I like it because I can take my giant floating…

While I understand what you mean, you gotta be extremely strapped for space for that to be a true argument. For the 500 bucks a Meta Quest will cost, you could get a pretty decent 4K TV or display. Definitely not the best thing around but its potential uses case and potential future usefulness infinitely better ?!

Personally, I still think VR is mostly something like 3D TV/movies where you end up paying a lot more for nothing of real value, just a novelty factor.

Re: Apple Vision Pro available in the U.S. on February 2

#424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I won’t buy it because I don’t have any use it for it. But $3500 for a gadget is not crazy. I look back at what some of my computer set ups cost over the years in non inflation adjusted terms - An Apple //e with a duo disk drive, a green screen monitor, and a dot matrix printer in 1986 was $3000 - A Mac LC II with 10 MB RAM, an 80MB hard drive, a laser printer a little 12 inch monitor, and a //e card with a separate…

$3500 for a headset isn't crazy. $3500 for a headset that isn't allowed to do the overwhelming majority of VR things is. Even if it could, it's not even remotely a competitive price. 90s hardware cost what it cost because that's what was available. Today, there is plenty of competition for VR, and Apple is explicitly ignoring it.

Pretty much. Under Tim Cook, Apple has become the greediest corporation ever, for products that are just about competitive with the overall technology market. But since they have fanboys that created some sort of cult they can get away with absurdity.

I have been an Apple customer since the first iPod but nowadays their pricing makes absolutely no sense considering their products' positioning compared to the rest of the market.

But somehow you cannot say that and you will be gaslighted about Apple pricing that always have been this way (even though it is demonstrably and factually not true).

At least for the iPhone there was a good excuse: network operators were not very keen on letting a completely open device run on their network, and still today there are limitations on what you can do with a fully rooted Android device. It somewhat makes sense; the nefarious potential is pretty big.

But for a headset? No reason at all to have it locked down from the get go.

Re: Apple Vision Pro available in the U.S. on February 2

#425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can't prove it, why do you yourself believe it? You said you "know how science works" but you've been arguing that 0.1 watts of non ionizing radiation that can't penetrate the skin causes cancer and in a previous thread you were arguing that humans aren't smarter than mosquitos.

I can’t prove it to other people. I proved it to myself, but when other people want proof, they don’t sit down with me to investigate it. I’m not arguing that not ionizing radiation causes cancer. I’m arguing that it causes neurological problems. And because it can’t penetrate the skin deeply does not mean it cannot affect ion channels. And also I wasn’t saying that we’re not smarter than mosquitoes I’m saying that t…

[dead]

Re: Apple Vision Pro available in the U.S. on February 2

#426
post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s got a worse track record than blockchain This is not true. VR gaming is something some people genuinely enjoy doing and paying money for. There are more than handful of VR gaming studios that can run healthy businesses based on this market. I'm not saying that the Vision Pro will make VR replace laptops, someday it might, who knows. But suggesting that there is zero value from VR is also not true.

I said "non-gaming applications." Apple is marketing this for general consumer adoption. What are those applications?

I'm sorry, I must have missed that. I'm not sure what non-gaming applications could take off, to be honest. Some ideas:

- VR meetings in my opinion feel better than 2D Zoom calls - but I don't see companies buying VR headsets for this purpose for their employees

- Education: There's definitely some cool stuff here, but hard to monetize I think (did something in this space a few years ago)

- Non-gaming entertainment, such as watching movies on big screens. This could be the next big area for VR after gaming.

- Fitness. You could count this as gaming, but specific fitness apps are really popular and I would define fitness as a separate category.

Re: Apple Vision Pro available in the U.S. on February 2

#427
post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, at least if you live in the EU, soon, you'll be able to sideload apps to your iPhone (and I think also iPad) and probably this law will require them to do it for the Vision (Pro).

The cynic in me thinks apple will find a way to create "approved APIs" or similar and sifeloaded apps will be neutered.

Yeah. I hope not. We'll see though.

Re: Apple Vision Pro available in the U.S. on February 2

#428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is, that we talk about a potential placebo/nocebo effect, which means you need to make sure to get rid of all ambigiousities. And tbh buying / using a device made by a Anti EMF Page/Company who sells EMF protection is everything but trustworthy. You know bias, fake shops, gold audio cables, crystals etc. Now: Have you done a proper blind test? What was your experiment setup? How often did you repeat it? And…

I already told you what I purchased. Now you’re just trolling me and it’s useless to continue with you. I was a freaking network engineer I think I know how science works.

> I was a freaking network engineer I think I know how science works.

The fact you think having been a network engineer has much to do with the scientific method, does not bode well.

I've got a published paper with my name on it. It's about forecasting octopus reproduction using satellite data. Even despite that, I don't go around calling myself a proper scientist, because I appreciate the difficulties of proper experimental design and eliminating confounding variables and know that even "proper scientists" don't get it all correct on their first attempt any more than I as a software developer get bug-free code on my first attempt.

Re: Apple Vision Pro available in the U.S. on February 2

#429
post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said "non-gaming applications." Apple is marketing this for general consumer adoption. What are those applications?

I'm sorry, I must have missed that. I'm not sure what non-gaming applications could take off, to be honest. Some ideas: - VR meetings in my opinion feel better than 2D Zoom calls - but I don't see companies buying VR headsets for this purpose for their employees - Education: There's definitely some cool stuff here, but hard to monetize I think (did something in this space a few years ago) - Non-gaming entertainment,…

Thanks for the serious response and example app ideas.

Re: Apple Vision Pro available in the U.S. on February 2

#430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it have less space than the Quest and no wireless and therefore will be lame? (Deep cut)

Do you think the iPod would have been the same sales success if it cost 700% more than a Nomad instead of being basically the same price? $399 for 5GB iPod, $500 for 6GB Nomad?

The current crop of Apple fanboys apologist has left all logics and facts out of the door, so I don't expect telling them something true will have any effect.

In fact, they are the sole reason Apple has been able to charge those ludicrous price lately. It seems they exist only to validate and rationalise any stupidly greedy decision Apple is making. At this point it really has become very close to a cult...

Post reply on HN