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

441–450 of 582 posts

Re: Apple Vision

#441

Post by basch »

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

Apple is best off with 4 tiers eventually.

Vision Pro. Vision Classic. Vision Air. Vision S. (expensive, everyday, luxury slim, budget.) They can also make variants of those 4 using Nano and Max modifiers.

Re: Apple Vision

#442

Post by eep_social »

CharlesW wrote: post #431
eep_social wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> This is how he writes. Maybe, but Marques Brownlee gushed about it as well ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFvXuyITwBI ), and he's not a person that pulls punches. This is an extremely ambitious, qualitatively different device than anything that's come before.

Completely agree about MKBHD. My point was strictly that Stratechery is trash.

I cannot argue with Apple’s ambition but as has been hashed over in these, and many other comments I am skeptical of the adoption story.

The [i]VP is a snazzy product without a market. It remains to be seen whether it will create the market in the way gpt3 did or if it will be another flop like glass, oculus, and every other attempt in the space.

Re: Apple Vision

#443

Post by Mimmy »

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…

To provide an alternative perspective, your comment convinced me to read the article and I didn't think it was substantive at all.

Can you give an example of an "sharp" "observation" he made?

Re: Apple Vision

#444

Post by killerstorm »

jedberg wrote: post #419
retrocryptid wrote: post #323

So... what's the killer app for this thing? Best I can tell it's a status symbol for a particular type of computer nerd. But blather about the Apple "Vision" has replaced blather about GPT based chatbots on HN, so I am thankful for that. But I am not being facetious when I say that I don't see any application for the technology that justifies the $3500 price tag. But I'm more than willing to be educated. Is BMW going…

The power in the headset makes it sound like it replaces your laptop. So for $3,500 I get a new laptop plus a 100 inch screen. To buy those separately would be far more than $3,500. In my case I plan to buy it on day one because I want it for working. I'm tired of having to choose enjoying the nice weather outside while using a tiny 15 inch laptop screen or being inside at my desk with my 3 32" screens. With Apple Vi…

I kinda doubt it would be comfortable to wear it for 8+ hours...

I can't use Quest 2 for more than 30 minutes at a time: sweating, eye strain, etc.

Re: Apple Vision

#445

Post by jedberg »

danpalmer wrote: post #90
samwillis wrote: post #51

It's interesting that Magic Leap took $3.5 billion in investment, and had a very similar vision and almost identical demos. But they failed to deliver. I wander what the R and D cost for the Vision Pro is, 10x Magic Leaps investment, $35 billion over last 5 years? Seems plausible... Their total R&D expense is about €100B in same time period.

There's no way this has cost $35bn. Tech companies label a lot of stuff as R&D, it's almost more likely that the €100B value includes all the macOS/iOS/etc development as well. I expect until the last year or so this has been well under $1bn per year (based on 1000 people at $300k/yr, $300m). This will have ramped up as they begin figuring out mass production, but I'd still be surprised if this is more than single-di…

As was pointed out elsewhere, we've seen some of the R&D show up in other places already. AR kit has been around for a while. All of the Apple Silicon has been in everything for a few years now (except the new R1 chip, but I'm sure that builds on their M1/M2 work).

Face unlocking tech on the iPhone applies to eye tracking (and eye unlocking). Battery tech applies across devices. All the new cameras on the last few years' of iPhones. And so on.

So it's totally reasonable that total all in is in the 10s of billions.

Re: Apple Vision

#446

Post by stocknoob »

scarface_74 wrote: post #335
tootie wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Thank you. It’s amazing how people think Apple is somehow mind controlling everyone to buy their products, and mind controlling them to have huge customer satisfaction ratings and resale value. Maybe, just maybe, the products are actually good? Nah, Occam’s razor says they have a Reality Distortion Field.

Re: Apple Vision

#447

Post by scarface_74 »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #409
scarface_74 wrote: post #402

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. No one seriously thought that the Apple Watch was going to be an iPhone size hit. It’s a complete straw man argument.

Do you understand what "solid gold first-gen Apple Watch" means? Or, in the other comment, "Apple Watch Edition"? It does not mean what you clearly think it means.

It was a pet project for Ives. Do you really think that Apple didn’t know their target market well enough to think that they wouldn’t be selling millions of $10K watches?

Re: Apple Vision

#448

Post by stocknoob »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #228
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…

$3500 + tax device won't scale. It's not something that most people have a budget for.

It’s not a device for most people.

Re: Apple Vision

#449

Post by scarface_74 »

ruszki wrote: post #408
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.

> a better user interface As somebody, who are changing between top iOS and Android phones all the time, I don’t see that much real difference in the same price category.

Well, obviously enough people do to pay Apple a premium and still Apple has 50% market share in the US…

Re: Apple Vision

#450

Post by bodge5000 »

retrocryptid wrote: post #323

So... what's the killer app for this thing? Best I can tell it's a status symbol for a particular type of computer nerd. But blather about the Apple "Vision" has replaced blather about GPT based chatbots on HN, so I am thankful for that. But I am not being facetious when I say that I don't see any application for the technology that justifies the $3500 price tag. But I'm more than willing to be educated. Is BMW going…

The idea of virtual displays seems practical, right now if you want another monitor (or to make your primary one larger) you need the desk space + the money to add that on, which virtual monitors solves.

However, how practical that really ends up being relies on how the OS is positioned and the kind of thing it can run. If it ends up like MacOS, yeh I can see that being very useful, but if it ends up like iPadOS (or god forbid iOS), well I can just say anecdotally after owning an ipad for however-many years this is the first time I've even considered using multiple monitors for that kind of thing.

Post reply on HN