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

First impressions: Yes, Apple Vision Pro works and yes, it’s good

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

521–530 of 562 posts

Re: First impressions: Yes, Apple Vision Pro works and yes, it’s good

#521

Post by King-Aaron »

p_l wrote: post #377
PostOnce wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good point. Those form factors were massive improvements in portability and accessibility, without necessarily having a killer app compared to its predecessor (laptop not doing anything a desktop didn't do, iphone didn't do much new at first but now has translator apps and GPS and stuff) The headset, though, seems clunkier (awkward non-flat shape, has cables, no keyboard) and you trade that off for... a bigg…

Laptops had killer apps in word processing and spreadsheets and various early email systems, bringing them clients other than field engineering and military.

These applications already existed for desktops, this was not something unique to the laptop form factor.

Re: First impressions: Yes, Apple Vision Pro works and yes, it’s good

#522

Post by crimsontech »

fennecfoxy wrote: post #362
ttul wrote: post #211

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…

Lmao, but the first iPhone was a major improvement over other phones at the time and offered a form of consistence/stability versus the often very experimental models other companies had. The difference here is of course that VR/AR has been thriving already. Apple is late to the game as they are most of the time, but the reactions I have seen so far in YT/Twit comments are the amazed reactions of the tech illiterate…

> No virtual objects, no 3d anything

They did show 3D objects in the key note, someone sent one through messenger that the user pulled out from the message and interacted with it. Then they showed a 3D heart which could be taken apart in to sections. Next they showed a life size 3D formula 1 car with the aerodynamics.

Re: First impressions: Yes, Apple Vision Pro works and yes, it’s good

#523

Post by spicybright »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #347
macNchz wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn’t get one until the 3G came out, but I have a very clear memory of the “wow!” feeling: right after buying the phone, I went down the street to a coffee shop and started browsing the web while waiting in line. I was instantly cured of my prior skepticism that it could actually be a major improvement over my flip phone + iPod.

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…

I don't have much to add except for a "back in my day" story:

I still remember when the only option for GPS directions was buying a dedicated Garmin, or paying your cell carrier for an extremely crappy and very expensive service that was hard to use because phone screens were too small. Everyone I knew used printed map quest for directions.

GPS being standard on smart phones is just so flipping good compared to what we had before and am positive is still the killer app that pushes people to get smart phones.

Re: First impressions: Yes, Apple Vision Pro works and yes, it’s good

#524

Post by Turskarama »

notaustinpowers wrote: post #489
fennecfoxy wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lmao, but the first iPhone was a major improvement over other phones at the time and offered a form of consistence/stability versus the often very experimental models other companies had. The difference here is of course that VR/AR has been thriving already. Apple is late to the game as they are most of the time, but the reactions I have seen so far in YT/Twit comments are the amazed reactions of the tech illiterate…

This device looks to be a monumental improvement over any current consumer AR/VR headset. From the user reviews that've come out so far, they've talked about the very forgiving hand-tracking, the high-fidelity screens, the nearly imperceptible delay from the cameras, how comfortable it is to wear, etc. For your point about the no virtual objects, what would you want Apple to do? Create an entirely new OS requiring de…

For sure this thing is much better than something like the Meta Quest 3, but is it _seven times_ as good?

Let's look at the actual improvements here over the quest, roughly in order from what I consider best to worst:

1) higher resolution screens. This requires more powerful onboard processing and more expensive screens and is an obvious win.

2) better pass through. Again requires better onboard processing and cameras on the front of the device. This is nice to have but I don't think it's a game changer.

3) hand tracking by default. No controllers is in some ways nice but also limits the number of inputs you can have (unless you have virtual controllers, but I can see a lot of accidental button presses with that). It also doesn't preclude adding controllers later but they haven't shown any sign of even considering this.

4) displaying your eyes on the front when talking to people. This is by far the most dubious feature, it looks ridiculous and requires them to add a high definition curved screen to the front of the device. How much does this add to the cost? I think it could be easily cut, just take the damn thing off when talking to people.

The actual value this brings over something like the meta quest is probably, to me at least, a 2x improvement. I might be proven wrong (or they might come out with a real killer app) but as it is I can't see the point.

Re: First impressions: Yes, Apple Vision Pro works and yes, it’s good

#525

Post by op00to »

philistine wrote: post #344
signatoremo wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if just not instructions, but instructions from the perspective of your eyes? Imagine an interactive instruction that guides you step by step according to your progress

Imagine putting a floating PDF in the air next to the pile of parts and you get 90% of the experience for 10% of the dev effort. That's what Apple is clearly focused on. Making your regular computer use functional while wearing techno googly eyes. That's Apple's killer app. AR is not going to get a lot of those experience investments because it makes no monetary sense. It's a massive money and time sink for a very fi…

How do I find the right PDF? What if it’s big? What if it has two pages on each page and it’s kind of hard to read? What if the PDF is high res and causes the interface to choke out?

Re: First impressions: Yes, Apple Vision Pro works and yes, it’s good

#526

Post by Terretta »

aidenn0 wrote: post #508
Terretta wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

If you can afford to pay $2800 more so people can't see what you are doing on your iPad, you are probably in the minority. It's really cool, but really expensive. I see this as like the Macintosh Portable. 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 th…

Except I had the Apple //c with the LCD panel and a handle. So you're right, we'd argue. :-)

https://www.buymobiles.net/blog/content/images/2020/05/Apple...

Image from this article, which is a great reminder of what it means to take risks:

https://www.buymobiles.net/blog/apple-products-you-probably-...

Re: First impressions: Yes, Apple Vision Pro works and yes, it’s good

#528

Post by h5iou234o234 »

mobilio wrote: post #400
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #347

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…

Original Maps in iPhone was actually Google Maps. This make astonishing growth in Google Maps.

Of course, with Google, nothing is "free" free.

Google tracks your location so that they can track ad conversions based on store-visits (no I'm not kidding).

Re: First impressions: Yes, Apple Vision Pro works and yes, it’s good

#529

Post by projektfu »

jryle70 wrote: post #290
m4rtink wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spreadsheets and word processors.

Not when the first laptop came out. Imagine lugging around a heavy piece of computer, with crammed keyboard and not so nice monitor. Why should one be subjected to such a subpar experience?

I had a Toshiba T1x00 in my house (probably a T1000) and I can confirm it was able to do Lotus 1-2-3 and WordStar. Games were strange on the wide screen, and its other killer app was as a serial terminal.

The TRS-80 model 100, an earlier laptop, found a killer app as a word processor and communication device for reporters. Some were still using them into the late 90s.

And the ones that didn't really have killer apps are from a litany of defunct companies/model lines like GRiD.

Re: First impressions: Yes, Apple Vision Pro works and yes, it’s good

#530

Post by h5iou234o234 »

akmarinov wrote: post #123
frant-hartm wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They advertise the "4K per eye" as some kind of an advantage. They need to do this to have 3D vision, but it doesn't improve the resolution, it's still just 4K. And the 4K is across your whole FOV, I would like to see a comparison with some standard monitors (4K at 27" and 32") at particular distances from your eyes. I suppose because they didn't publish anything it is still significantly worse than hi-res monitors (…

For comparison the top of the line PSVR2 does 2K per eye, hooked up to basically a PC made for gaming

(Sony's probably making the display for Apple anyway.)
Post reply on HN