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

551–560 of 562 posts

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

#551

Post by simonebrunozzi »

PostOnce wrote: post #72

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…

> Are they just hoping someone comes up with all the above in the next 6 months?

Yes.

> If they did, would anyone care?

Also yes.

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

#553

Post by staticman2 »

andybak wrote: post #429
staticman2 wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You still want a way to make voice calls in case you need to contact emergency services, no?

At no point did I say "nobody ever makes voice calls any more".

The point being the option to call emergency services still makes phone software the killer app for smartphones.

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

#555

Post by dandellion »

akmarinov wrote: post #476
dandellion wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you make a list of groundbreaking products that would include the light bulb, the bicycle, the refrigerator, the radio, the car, printed books, the newspaper, the TV, personal computers, mobile phones... The iPhone is great, but I doubt it could even make it to the top ten.

The things you list aren't products, they're the inventions. The car is the invention, a car product is a Tesla. The TV is the invention, a TV product is the LG OLED CX. I'm not saying the iPhone is the greatest invention ever (though the telephone might be). I'm saying that it's one of the most groundbreaking and transformative products ever. Hope that clears it up.

The things I listed are also products. I just didn't pick individual examples because for most of them I wasn't alive at the time and so I don't know what the equivalent "first mass produced model that popularised it" would be. For cars it would probably be the Model T, for example. The iPhone was a great product that sold very well, but it was more of an incremental improvement over mobile phones which had been a thing for a while. But I'm also not in the US, so maybe it doesn't seem that groundbreaking because it never was all that popular over here.

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

#556

Post by philistine »

op00to wrote: post #525
philistine wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Welcome to spatial computing: it has the same problems we’ve always had, but now you’re wearing the computer on your face.

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

#557

Post by askafriend »

dandellion wrote: post #555
akmarinov wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The things you list aren't products, they're the inventions. The car is the invention, a car product is a Tesla. The TV is the invention, a TV product is the LG OLED CX. I'm not saying the iPhone is the greatest invention ever (though the telephone might be). I'm saying that it's one of the most groundbreaking and transformative products ever. Hope that clears it up.

The things I listed are also products. I just didn't pick individual examples because for most of them I wasn't alive at the time and so I don't know what the equivalent "first mass produced model that popularised it" would be. For cars it would probably be the Model T, for example. The iPhone was a great product that sold very well, but it was more of an incremental improvement over mobile phones which had been a th…

What does this level of reductionism get you? If you follow that to its logical conclusion then it's essentially "nothing matters, nothing is interesting, who cares about anything, it would have been invented anywhere, pyramids are more interesting".

It's just a deeply cynical point of view for cynicism's sake.

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

#558

Post by dandellion »

askafriend wrote: post #557
dandellion wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The things I listed are also products. I just didn't pick individual examples because for most of them I wasn't alive at the time and so I don't know what the equivalent "first mass produced model that popularised it" would be. For cars it would probably be the Model T, for example. The iPhone was a great product that sold very well, but it was more of an incremental improvement over mobile phones which had been a th…

What does this level of reductionism get you? If you follow that to its logical conclusion then it's essentially "nothing matters, nothing is interesting, who cares about anything, it would have been invented anywhere, pyramids are more interesting". It's just a deeply cynical point of view for cynicism's sake.

I don't know, it doesn't seem like that to me, I'd even say the opposite. There are plenty of groundbreaking and great inventions, so many that I think grandparents comment of calling the iPhone the greatest product ever is just biased due to it being a very recent product and very popular right now, and Apple being the most valued public company in the world at the moment. And also it's not that I don't think it's a great product and very innovative, I would definitely put it somewhere in the top 100, I just don't think it's the number 1 is all, so decided to argue that in the comments.

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

#559

Post by andybak »

staticman2 wrote: post #553
andybak wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At no point did I say "nobody ever makes voice calls any more".

The point being the option to call emergency services still makes phone software the killer app for smartphones.

"Calling emergency services is the killer app for phones" - yes.

"Calling emergency services is the killer app for smartphones" - no. "Killer app " implies that this is the reason people buy them. If this statement was true then people would buy cheap feature phones.

It's worth repeating the original statement here:

> smartphones didn't have "a" killer app per sè I don't think, but they became part of everyone's daily lives in a really short timeframe. [...]

to which alach11 replied:

> The killer app for smartphones is being a phone.

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

#560

Post by amoss »

lhl wrote: post #505
amoss wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Based on your followup post, I think you're confused. Binocular overlap doesn't magically give you double the perceived resolution. If it worked that way, everyone would have a way higher PPD, but it doesn't and they don't. For a naive calculation on resolution you should just use the per eye resolution. As mentioned resolution on the centroid may be higher depending on the lens design, but there's so much dependent…

Ha, significantly more complex than I realised. Thanks for the collection of links, very interesting reading.
Post reply on HN