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

Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 1001 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#471

Post by irrational »

nologic01 wrote: post #447
_glass wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember the argument against tablets, I was one of them, I thought because of the weird hand/arm position, this can never be a serious format. It was pushed through several iterations, and now it is accepted.

I never had the same feeling about tablets. If anything, I am still somewhat surprised that they have (in relative terms) flopped. I was really expecting much more widespread use given it is quite a sweet-spot form factor (small and lightweight to carry around to far more places than a laptop yet offering a good fraction of the laptop functionality)

I was listening to a famous shoe designer give a talk today. While telling a story, he mentioned in passing that he no longer uses paper but does all his design work with a stylus on an iPad. This guy has to be in his 60s or 70s. I was kind of surprised.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#472

Post by kickbutt22 »

nologic01 wrote: post #393

There is something quite remarkable and puzzling about the VR/AR and now SC (spatial computing) space. All major (ad)tech companies are convinced that this is a major market that will materialize and be profitable if the right combination of hardware and software is developed. Their VR "visions" differ but only at the margin. No matter how you execute it, we are talking about people (homo sapiens) putting a major som…

I would agree that the putting goggles over your face is absurd and it will never be a hit, not in a million years. However! Having that proof of concept to be able to manipulate your environment with just a gesture of your fingers and simply by looking at something - this I believe can be extended to external cameras, screens, and all sorts of IoT devices.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#473

Post by jayd16 »

brandall10 wrote: post #331
juunpp wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The $3500 price tag and closed ecosystem is self-sabotaging, so MZ doesn't need to be worried at all. Carmack's vision was a cheap device that could hit mass market, and that's where the real game still is. Also, games.

But they're different classes of devices in a way. It's a new (primarily) standalone computing platform vs. just a peripheral. As far as vision, Meta's ultimate goal is to be the modern version of Linden Lab while Apple is providing the next step in personal computing. Meta's product is the metaverse. Apple's product is this device bolstered by their ecosystem. Give it a couple iterations and you'll have something th…

Oculus Quests are also stand alone computers. It really is just that Meta is coming at this from the bottom with mobile hardware and Apple is coming from the top.

They really are not fundamentally different. Apple can bring to bear a lot more polish and synergy with the rest of their ecosystem but it's only as different as iOS and Android.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#474

Post by xenostar »

wiz21c wrote: post #432
jen729w wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This feels like a technology that will be ‘ready’ in ten (twenty?) years, but to dismiss it now a) feels unimaginative and b) precludes that from ever happening. Do I want to wear big goggles? No. Do I, one day, want a device that can magically project anything I want on to my field of vision, and for it to be as realistic as my actual vision? Hell yeah I do! And we can’t get there unless we go through the ski goggle…

I alreday feel exhausted when I walk my town because there's so many information to process: front of shops, advertising, road signs, people, cars, bikes, nice buildings,... If I had to add yet antoher layer of information on top of that, it would be exhausting. Now, if I was someone who works in construction, I'd be happy to have glasses that add the position of eletrical wire in the wall where I'm going to drill a…

If the headsets are good enough you could actually use them to remove information from your view as you walk instead of adding more to it.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#475

Post by layer8 »

mettamage wrote: post #414
nologic01 wrote: post #393

There is something quite remarkable and puzzling about the VR/AR and now SC (spatial computing) space. All major (ad)tech companies are convinced that this is a major market that will materialize and be profitable if the right combination of hardware and software is developed. Their VR "visions" differ but only at the margin. No matter how you execute it, we are talking about people (homo sapiens) putting a major som…

Wasn’t this the same with computers? I remember that people didn’t want to use them about 25 years ago

People mostly still don’t want to use them, other than for texting and taking pictures.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#476

Post by gorbypark »

pzo wrote: post #433
websap wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$3500 is pretty cheap for the HW it provides. An iPhone 14 Pro Max starts at $1100 and has nowhere near the HW that this device has, let alone the economics of scale.

lots of technologies in those vision Pro are similar components as in those iphones and ipads. If you take 2 iphone 14 pro (total cost 2x$1000=$2000) you get: - 2x OLED screens - 2x lidar camera - 2x truedepth camera module - 2x4=8 RGB cameras with very high spec - 2x A15 chip - 2x accelerometer, gyroscope, magnetometer, barometer, proxmity, ambient sensors - 2x gps, wifi, bluetooth, nfc, uwb, 3g/4g/5g - 2x flash led…

I kind of think having the compute power combined with the external battery would have been pretty slick. An AR head unit combined with a portable Mac mini would be pretty compelling at $3500. Give it the ability to be a MacOS desktop when plugged into a regular monitor and I would buy one for sure!

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#477

Post by MaxikCZ »

lanza wrote: post #357
ctvo wrote: post #25

This sounded weak to me. Apple is making an integrated headset: their own lenses, processor, ..., down to the operating system. The Quest uses an Android based operating system and a lot of off the shelf components. We've seen this story before and it hasn't ended well for the folks in Mark's position. A personal device like these headsets needs to be delightful . It has to be responsive. It has to have the little to…

> We've seen this story before and it hasn't ended well for the folks in Mark's position. Meta doesn't need to dominate the market. Being the Android to Apple's iOS or the Windows to Apple's macOS is way more than fine for Meta's business. iPhone's did $250b in revenue in 2022. Meta as a whole did $117b. They aren't looking to replace Apple, they are just trying to find a way to get their revenue growing again. It's…

> They aren't looking to replace Apple, they are just trying to find a way to get their revenue growing again.

Thats like "they arent trying to be the best, they are just trying to be a little better.

Ofc they are trying to beat apple, and everyone else. Or you are saing that if they were magically given the opportunity to become most valued company, theyd simply pass with "no thanks, thats more than we want" attitude?

Every major corporation is trying their absolute hardest to grow.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#478

Post by tsimionescu »

m_mueller wrote: post #421
nologic01 wrote: post #393

There is something quite remarkable and puzzling about the VR/AR and now SC (spatial computing) space. All major (ad)tech companies are convinced that this is a major market that will materialize and be profitable if the right combination of hardware and software is developed. Their VR "visions" differ but only at the margin. No matter how you execute it, we are talking about people (homo sapiens) putting a major som…

I think it's still a couple of years out, but what about a little thought experiment: Let's say you had a pair of normal looking glasses that do everything that Vision Pro is doing now [1] and cost, say, 1500 USD. This would IMO be a no-brainer, as you can then augment any space and activity you want with having views into the digital world - for work, for hobbies, you name it. That would IMO be a mass market device…

What makes you think it's possible, especially in just a couple of years, to have a laptop powerful enough to drive two 4k+ screens + cameras at the same time reduced to the weight and form factor of a pair of glasses?

Phones, laptops, and tablets have all been fighting on weight vs compute power for years, and improvements are incremental year to year. I don't see any reason to imagine it's possible to reduce the size that much in the foreseeable future. Even with compromises like a separate battery, which is already extremely clunky.

Not to mention, the illusion depends highly on having your regular vision blocked out completely and on having the screens at a very fixed position relative to your eyes. So, for the foreseeable future, the screens will have to stay well fixed to your face, even if in a more glasses-like form factor, and completely cover your eyes. Ski goggles are actually a better description of the best that can be done, not glasses.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#479

Post by theaussiestew »

5350-uiop-1130 wrote: post #382
MrJagil wrote: post #356

For the third time, I’d like to reiterate my point on Metas recent trailer for their new Quest headset: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36201835 It turns out, it wasnt marketing that did wrong when Meta designed their trailer to be hip and energetic and happening. And it wasn’t Apple marketing that just “got it right” with their trailer when they focused on immersion. In reality, it has nothing to do with market…

The Vison trailer felt like it was directed by Cronenberg or David Lynch. Something very off about it, the over-polished, plastic execs, talking out of smiles wider than the grand canyon and the weird almost dreamlike people and scenarios.

I agree, it has an otherworldly quality about it, and not in a good way. It's like I died but was stuck in purgatory, except in this purgatory I view my past memories alone through a VR headset.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#480

Post by tsimionescu »

johnchristopher wrote: post #439
nologic01 wrote: post #393

There is something quite remarkable and puzzling about the VR/AR and now SC (spatial computing) space. All major (ad)tech companies are convinced that this is a major market that will materialize and be profitable if the right combination of hardware and software is developed. Their VR "visions" differ but only at the margin. No matter how you execute it, we are talking about people (homo sapiens) putting a major som…

> So far at least, this is a tech that is being pushed onto people rather than being pulled. I don't think this was the case with any of the major steps in the development of digital computing but would be quite interested if people can think of historical precedent. Not computing but 3D TV and 3D movies ?

Is there any movie today that anyone releases exclusively in 3D? I can imagine maybe Avatar 2, but for the vast majority of AAAA blockbusters, they are available in either version, and the 3D is really just a gimmick.

And 3D TVs are not remotely common.

So 3D TV/cinema seems to be a counter-example - a technology that was pushed hard, but has generally failed to become anywhere close to mainstream, nor to continue moving in that direction.

Post reply on HN