501–510 of 562 posts
At USD$3500, who is it for? And who will develop software for something with such a small user base?
I mean who would pay $600 for a cell phone ?
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…
Apple cut the price of IPhone 2G by 33%, and got AT&T to subsidize handsets for $200. It was dead in the water before then. Even if Apple made a similar price cut here, the device would still cost over $2000.
The true genius was getting AT&T to subsidize the handsets and pay for the marketing, which gave Apple a lifeline worth billions and essentially created the market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also GPS maps with that shiny glass dot. You bought a phone, and you got a GPS navigator for free. I had a friend who had just bought a high end Nokia. We arranged to meet for lunch. She got hopelessly lost because Nokia's GPS and mapping were crap. Apple's just worked. Same with the App Store. I'd guess this is going to have some kind of VApp Store. But I suspect what it really needs is plain old MacOS running every…
It’s worth remembering the original iPhone did not have GPS at all. It had google maps for calling up information like you would with map quest, but no turn by turn/live navigation
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, #3, you're saying this should be $349? How would this, which has the hardware of two iPhones in it and stands in for a 100" screen and Dolby Atmos surround system, cost less than an iPhone Pro Max? It was obvious as soon as they listed the cameras involved, the M2 chip, and the micro-OLED screens (plural), this was going to cost 2x a single top of line iPhone plus headset, so $3000+.
GP didn't say how much it should cost, just how much most people are willing to spend. Right now this is just a portable, private screen (maybe a really nice one, but without any killer XR app, that's all it is) . There are few people who have a use for that to make it worth spending $3.5k on. If an app comes out that enables something people want to do, but you can't do with a laptop, then it may start to become wor…
That "just" is doing a lot of work there except I think it's WFH and on a Netflix binge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At 90-100 degrees, a 4K/eye display will likely end up being around 35-40 PPD (pixels per degree). This is about equivalent to what a FHD display would like like (27" monitor at 60cm: https://qasimk.io/screen-ppd/ ). There are a lot of other factors like fill factor (screen door effect) and there are definitely some optical designs that can increase PPD as well. Apple bought Limbak recently, btw, it's possible they u…
Could you expand on your numbers a little? Assuming 4k resolution per eye and 120 degree FoV would give 3840*2/120 = 64 ppd. Using the link that you gave a 4k screen at 60cm is 73 ppd, so it is reasonably close. Apple haven't said what the FoV is yet, so I'm guessing 120 based on the pi-max and an early impressions video from mkbd. The horizontal range isn't clear either: 23 megapixels would be about three 4k screens…
As mentioned resolution on the centroid may be higher depending on the lens design, but there's so much dependent on the rendering pipeline and the optics that I don't think it's worth doing more than ballparking. If you're interested in HMD displays, Oliver Kreylos has posted a lot on resolution measurements over the past few years:
* Optical Properties of Current VR HMDs http://doc-ok.org/?p=1414
* Measuring the Effective Resolution of Head-mounted Displays http://doc-ok.org/?p=1631
* The Display Resolution of Head-mounted Displays http://doc-ok.org/?p=1677
* The Display Resolution of Head-mounted Displays, Revisited http://doc-ok.org/?p=1694
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For some reason I assumed you meant traditional non-realistic avatars - but yes - I concur those are avatars. However the only reason these are needed is because you're wearing something that obscures your face. With your iPad scenario, you could use the camera view of your actual face.
Indeed, so you have a worse experience, I still think that they could have the avatars for other devices so that folks can use them if they have their camera off it would be nice. Whereas with an iPad I can use it as a second display with my Mac anyway and put the chat on it. It might be better, but it doesn't sound to me to be quite the slam dunk that it sounds like to you. I am happy to be proved wrong though so I'…
It's oddly draining doing zoom or meets where you can't make mutual eye contact. If you look at the camera you cant see their eyes, and vice versa.
If the digital avatar is as good as it looks, it could resolve that and make teleconferencing less exhausting. Not to mention worry less if you're having a bad hair day. ;)
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GP didn't say how much it should cost, just how much most people are willing to spend. Right now this is just a portable, private screen (maybe a really nice one, but without any killer XR app, that's all it is) . There are few people who have a use for that to make it worth spending $3.5k on. If an app comes out that enables something people want to do, but you can't do with a laptop, then it may start to become wor…
> Right now this is just a portable, private screen That "just" is doing a lot of work there except I think it's WFH and on a Netflix binge.
Also, there's a good chance that devices like this have a strong future. Just like you could argue that a Macbook is a descendant of the Macintosh Portable, the fact that lots of people own macbooks doesn't mean the Macintosh Portable was a success.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think 'killer app' is missing the point. Looking for a killer app you are looking at this to be a traditional VR or even AR device, that is not what this is. This is about having a screen anywhere, multiple screens and turning anything into a screen and any environment into one, hence the name Vision Pro, that is how Apple are trying to sell it. If you watched the keynote I think that was clear, everyone else seems…
> everyone else seems to missing the point and comparing this to traditional headsets. I think most people are trying to find better value in the product. Headsets focused on providing a screen already exists, NReal is a decently selling product. Sure the Vision Pro has way better resolution, but we're also assuming that NReal and co will have better resolution in their next iterations. To jest, if a VR screen dedica…
> Namely, 5,000 patents filed over the past few years and an enormous base of talent and capital to work with. It was mentionned in the keynote as well...should Apple really brag about their patent minefield in a field that is in need of more players and more efforts to push it forward ? > In many cases it literally hurt to do so. Not with the Apple Vision Pro – text is super crisp and legible at all sizes and at far…
> > Namely, 5,000 patents filed over the past few years and an enormous base of talent and capital to work with. > It was mentionned in the keynote as well...should Apple really brag about their patent minefield in a field that is in need of more players and more efforts to push it forward ? That I didn't understood. Should that be a message to the competition? What should that tell me as a developer? What should tha…
(It makes me sick to the stomach personally)