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

Meta Horizon OS

meta.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

701–710 of 813 posts

Re: Meta Horizon OS

#701

Post by lostmsu »

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #622
bobsomers wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How is it demonstrable that they aren't worth $1m per year? Probably because of this: > How does any company burn $36 billion on a headset they got handed a prototype for?

That's confusing the decision to work on something with the quality of the folks working on it. Brilliant engineers often work on things which are risky from a market perspective. It doesn't make them less brilliant at engineering when it turns out there isn't a market for the thing. John Carmack appears to be brilliant. I'd guess he would admit the VR market didn't turn out as hoped.

> he would admit the VR market didn't turn out as hoped

That's not what he said though. What he said is that Meta is basically incompetent.

Re: Meta Horizon OS

#702

Post by classified »

ThinkBeat wrote: post #542

As usual I get quite hopeful when I hear about a new operating system. We so absolutely need paths to move away from what we have today. I didn't even know what "mixed reality operating system" was so that made me hopeful. May include some nifty quantum processing. Alas, it is just stuff built on top of Android, which is built on top of the Linux kernel. Perhaps "Meta Horizon SDK for Android" would be a better label?…

And you seriously expect an ad company to improve anything? What's Google missing?

Re: Meta Horizon OS

#703

Post by pjmlp »

ThinkBeat wrote: post #542

As usual I get quite hopeful when I hear about a new operating system. We so absolutely need paths to move away from what we have today. I didn't even know what "mixed reality operating system" was so that made me hopeful. May include some nifty quantum processing. Alas, it is just stuff built on top of Android, which is built on top of the Linux kernel. Perhaps "Meta Horizon SDK for Android" would be a better label?…

Android is already quite cool compared with what traditional OSes happen to be.

For starters it is what Microsoft has failed to do with Longhorn, because contrary to having internal sabotage from the kernel team, the Android team doubled down on their efforts to make a managed userspace actually work in a mainstream product.

Dalvik sucked balls against Sony and Nokia J2ME implementations, with its DEX interpreter, yet they managed to create ART with quite cool mix of JIT/AOT/PGO, and a very modern GC.

Then it follows up, that for all the praise Plan 9 gets on hacker circles, Android's approach to user space closely follows on Inferno with Limbo, Plan 9's successor that many of its praisers tend to forget.

Followed by being able to encapsulate Linux kernel into a micro-kernel like stack, where most drivers are process based using Android IPC to talk to the kernel, and can be written in a mix of Java, C++, and now Rust.

If only they handn't screw Sun, and stepped away when the ship went down, maybe they could have saved themselves some headaches, however Google isn't really a language designer company, so maybe that was for the greater good nontheless.

Ah, and using AIDL is so much better developer experience than dealing with the primitive COM tooling on Windows.

Re: Meta Horizon OS

#704

Post by pjmlp »

boomlinde wrote: post #698
pjmlp wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is open in the sense of POSIX Open Group.

So it's publishing standards I can implement to make my own compatible OS?

Actually some of the Open Group standards, are pay to play, they are open in the sense they are available, in some form.

Re: Meta Horizon OS

#705

Post by bemmu »

juliendorra wrote: post #654

'Pivot to software' has been done several times in computing history: Go Corporation, SGI, Sun, Blackberry, Palm, Sega, and oh, NeXT. These are interesting precedents. I don't know of a 'pivot to software' that actually worked (NeXT ended up going back to hardware, thanks to the reverse acquisition!) There's also the question of the licensees: so they choose Meta’s OS as the base for their hardware, maybe because the…

Promoting App Lab apps was the most exciting part of this announcement.

I had been put off porting anything to Quest since I'd need to get official Meta blessing to actually get store presence to have enough users to pay for such an effort, but now if you can publish in App Lab and actually get some in-store promotion, it starts to sound way more compelling.

I do agree with their initial approach to keep the perceived quality of the first apps high. But reality is that people want to play what they find fun/funny, even if less polished, and this change might open up some store promotion for such apps that solo devs like me are more likely to be able to make.

Re: Meta Horizon OS

#707

Post by TiredOfLife »

hooloovoo_zoo wrote: post #627
w10-1 wrote: post #549

If hardware manufacturers actually wanted this, Meta would be announcing a licensing deal. This is a threat to Apple: if Apple doesn't relent on advertising/privacy in VisionOS, then Meta will do to VR what Google did for smartphone's: sell the market to maintain advertising access. Meta doesn't care about money or mindshare on VR. They just want ad access.

Apple and to a lesser extent Google have high trust. Nobody trusts Meta at all. So who would adopt their OS?

And that is weird. Apple gives Chinese government direct access to user data. Apple obeys every demand from China and Russia. Meanwhile Meta communications director Andy Stone just got 6 years in russian prison for allowing people to say mean things about russia.

Re: Meta Horizon OS

#708

Post by boomlinde »

pjmlp wrote: post #704
boomlinde wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it's publishing standards I can implement to make my own compatible OS?

Actually some of the Open Group standards, are pay to play, they are open in the sense they are available, in some form.

So are Meta publishing standards, gratis or not, which I can implement to create a compatible operating system?

I'm asking because it seems to me from this press release that they're just letting a handful of hardware partners use their software, which is not open in the sense of POSIX Open Group.

Re: Meta Horizon OS

#709

Post by simondotau »

m463 wrote: post #676
hooloovoo_zoo wrote: post #627

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple and to a lesser extent Google have high trust. Nobody trusts Meta at all. So who would adopt their OS?

I think apple has high trust only because they repeat their message all the time. However, just buy an apple device and try to use it. You cannot use it without apple allowing it. You must connect to apple and activate your device. And as part of activation, you get a chance to read apple's privacy policy. Literally thousands of pages of privacy policy without the ability to DO anything, like say "No". And everything…

[flagged]

Re: Meta Horizon OS

#710

Post by TiredOfLife »

modeless wrote: post #164

> And we encourage the Google Play 2D app store to come to Meta Horizon OS, where it can operate with the same economic model it does on other platforms. It sounds like they are specifically not open to third party app stores selling native AR/VR ("3D") apps. I can see why Google might not want to participate if they're not allowed to compete. This feels like a response to complaints that Meta is hypocritical when co…

https://sidequestvr.com/ exists. Also Google is pushing their new AndroidXR os behind the scenes (after they killed Daydreams).
Post reply on HN