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

451–460 of 582 posts

Re: Apple Vision

#451

Post by throw74775 »

ARandumGuy wrote: post #372
throw74775 wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming Apple’s product has all the deficiencies of failed products from the past will of course lead you to conclude that they will fail.

We also shouldn't assume that Apple will magically fix all of these issues either. These are well known problems with VR, and Apple has yet to prove they've solved them. And until these problems are solved, VR will struggle to move beyond a novelty.

If these are well known problems with VR, should should assume Apple is fully aware of them. Imagining otherwise would be stupid.

If they are aware of the problems then we should assume they believe they have adequate solutions. Imagining otherwise would be stupid.

Magic is not needed. All it takes is a team that is aware of the problems, and has the engineering resources to address them.

Re: Apple Vision

#452

Post by wahahah »

soylentcola wrote: post #226
bigwheeler wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I forgot that Apple was having an event yesterday, and when I saw “Apple Vision Pro“ in headlines everywhere, my first thought was that they were opening an eyeglass store…

Well, if you normally wear glasses, you will need to order special Zeiss lenses to use the Vision Pro.

Will this be necessary for nearsightedness as well?

I figured it would be fine but I'm not aware of the physics

Re: Apple Vision

#453

Post by throw74775 »

jsheard wrote: post #384
throw74775 wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What makes you think they were trying to match the competition’s weight?

Re: Apple Vision

#454

Post by beezlebroxxxxxx »

throw74775 wrote: post #330
beezlebroxxxxxx wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Apple might stumble over the same things as Meta and other AR/VR headset companies. The big issue for consumers is product differentiation. Put simply: How is the experience of using this product any different than another product that they already use? Fundamentally, these companies have to show how their product is a) unique and b) useful in a way that differentiates the headset from using a laptop or a tab…

I think you’re overthinking it. I was considering buying a new studio display for my Mac Studio. I have a single 4K display that is fine most of the time, but for serious work, I want more. That purchase is now on hold until I’ve tried Vision Pro. For just this application alone, Vision Pro is interesting. As well as a desk, my office has a sofa, and a round conference table. I like to be able to move from one to ano…

I might be overthinking it, but you also might be mistaking yourself for the general consumer when you're really a rather select consumer. I don't doubt that the product appeals to you and to a certain demographic, but will that transfer to a general popularity? I'm rather skeptical but open to be proven wrong.

Personally, I think the "movie screen in a headset" is not the play. It's cool and novel at 3.5k, but will only remain that if that's all it does. AR and overlaid graphics is where I see the tech really coming into maturity and establishing its market share. Apple could be the company that owns that, or they could be a stepping stone.

Re: Apple Vision

#455

Post by randmeerkat »

distortedsignal wrote: post #338
randmeerkat wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One thing which ties this all together is that Apple has a full-blown legitimate OS that can run professional software that already exists. Throw it into a headset, driving up the price significantly, but potentially make a computer replacement. There’s no reason that the iPhone or iPad couldn’t be a computer replacement. The issue is that Apple locks down devices preventing them from being fully utilized. I’m expe…

https://store.steampowered.com/valveindex

The Index is a neat piece of hardware, but it needed a refresh even before the release of Vision. Now that Apple has planted a flag in the ground, Valve has the opportunity to make a cheaper, open, mixed reality headset, and own modern computing in the 2030s.

Re: Apple Vision

#456

Post by randmeerkat »

htag wrote: post #314
randmeerkat wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One thing which ties this all together is that Apple has a full-blown legitimate OS that can run professional software that already exists. Throw it into a headset, driving up the price significantly, but potentially make a computer replacement. There’s no reason that the iPhone or iPad couldn’t be a computer replacement. The issue is that Apple locks down devices preventing them from being fully utilized. I’m expe…

It's a long way away for corporate to buy it's developers a headset like what your describing. As far as Work goes, if you cannot get a corporate office to buy them then it's never going to take off.

> It's a long way away for corporate to buy it's developers a headset like what your describing. As far as Work goes, if you cannot get a corporate office to buy them then it's never going to take off.

GDP is driven by consumer spending, business spending, and government spending, in that order. B2B is a nice niche and a person or a company can become wealthy in it, but if you want to be fortune one, the consumer _has_ to be your primary focus.

Re: Apple Vision

#457

Post by jpeeler »

gavinmckenzie wrote: post #320
function_seven wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is what long term planning looks like. You need to prime your audience to buy something, before they actually want to go out and buy it. When the Apple Watch was first unveiled, my opinion was something along the lines of, "What, I'm so lazy that I'll spend $400 to avoid pulling my phone out of my pocket?" When the AirPods were released, I probably said something like, "What, I'm supposed to hate a little wire…

100%. I thought the same thing with my Apple Watch and I resisted spending what I considered to be an unreasonable amount on earbuds as I didn’t care (or so I thought) about having wireless earbuds. But eventually so many colleagues had them and talked to me about how great they were that I caved and bought a pair. Wow was I wrong about how wireless earbuds was something I didn’t need. Then I started evangelizing to…

You're supporting the idea behind "A lot of times, people don’t know what they want until you show it to them." Except, it sounds like the barrier is even higher for some people.

Re: Apple Vision

#458

Post by mynameisvlad »

scarface_74 wrote: post #447
mynameisvlad wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That would be a perfectly acceptable comment... 3 comments ago.

Instead, you pretended as if they said AW as an entire category was a failure.

Next time, reply to what is written in the comment, not what is easier to argue against.

Re: Apple Vision

#459

Post by lolinder »

flappyeagle wrote: post #59
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…

It’s obvious how a 10 second clip scales to 10 minutes or 10 hours or 10 days. You don’t need that much imagination or even a leap of faith. A court side seat to an NBA game is north of $1000. If this creates 20% of the experience it will easily pay for itself in 1 season.

Your value calculations are off.

* You can't do the math from a baseline of "not watching the game at all". If this creates 20% of the experience but a $1000 TV creates a different 20% of the experience (watching with other people next to you, for example), you haven't gained any value over the cheaper device.

* Unless you're regularly buying NBA tickets, this isn't going to "pay for itself". Solar panels can (in theory) pay for themselves because they cut back on a bill you'd have either way. A product like this can only pay for itself if it causes you to spend less money on NBA tickets than you otherwise would have.

Re: Apple Vision

#460

Post by scarface_74 »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #458
scarface_74 wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That would be a perfectly acceptable comment... 3 comments ago. Instead, you pretended as if they said AW as an entire category was a failure. Next time, reply to what is written in the comment, not what is easier to argue against.

It’s a perfectly acceptable comment now. No one in their right mind thought there Apple had realistic expectations of selling 10 of millions of slow 1st generation $10K watches. It was a straw man argument that I really didn’t think that people took seriously
Post reply on HN