Live data from Hacker News

Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

theverge.com

721–730 of 1001 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#721
post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but buying things on the internet wasn't laughed at, if anything people were worried about it cause of their credit card numbers. It was that basis of the dot com boom of the late 90s. Everyone saw the potential and lashed money into it. It didn't deliver at the time, but that dynamic is totally different to vr headsets. Think smart phones, they weren't pushed, people wanted them in a serious way

The simplest contrast is ChatGPT vs VR right now. OpenAI is up to over a billion of users and hundreds of millions of subscribers in There is no demand for VR outside gaming. Efforts to try and create that demand are failing.

For most of the past two decades Chatbots were pushed by enterprises and hated by consumers.

ChatGPT was the first chatbot to cross the magic threshold, after which point consumers enthusiastically adopted it.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#722
post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook is not in panic, they're relieved that they're not the only fools betting on VR anymore. None of this will be relevant soon to consumers, except maybe games, and then it will be console makers who will push it and cash in. For Facebook and Apple it's just shareholder porn.

Apple’s implementation appears years ahead of anyone else. Just the way iPhone was when introduced. Back in the day Nokia, Siemens, Blackberry, Palm and Ericsson had smartphones that you could do everything that iPhone could do or even more. These were devices that only those who have to use it or those who are techno nerds used it. When Apple introduced their implementation of smartphone, those who were using the de…

Typical tech nerd way of thinking things.

"Implementation appears year ahead" does not mean anything. What matters is whether the product can gain enough attraction to be a successful business, which we don't know yet.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#723

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody gave a shit about smart phones before the iphone. 2 out of 3 isn't bad, but this is revisionist history, and simply wrong. Nokia dominated the pre-iPhone smartphone market with Symbian phones, which supported 3G for years before the first iPhone, which didn't even have 3G. And are we assuming that Blackberries aren't "smartphones"? Because I think they probably are.

Blackberries are very borderline. They could do some things but really they were just an extension of regular phones with a big keyboard. There wasn’t really anything “smart” about them. Sure you could browse the web but with a keyboard so it was trash.

Read some Wikipedia pages instead of coming up your own version of the world history.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#724

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Quest 3 will outsell Vision Pro by 10x because of this. Which is perfectly fine and why Apple will eventually win - they don't need to sell a ton of units right now. Apple is going about it the right way, the same way that Tesla did with their electric cars. Eventually there will be a model 3 of the vision pro - and all that R&D they put into making it the best will pay dividends down the line. Meta simply won'…

> Meta simply won't have that experience because they just did the cheap thing targeted a small market. Don't you see how Toyota succeeded? There are some ways to succeeding.

Toyota was in a well established industry with a huge market. This is not comparable.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#725

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was laughed at by consumers. There was a time not long ago when buying anything from internet was considered taboo because, you said it, fear of losing your credit card information to scammers.

Not just this, but you couldn't see the product. In a store you can look at the product, see how it feels, try it on, test it out, etc. Early online shopping was a big gamble with different stores having different rules. It was often a frustrating experience. Distance selling regulations helped with it a lot. I can buy a product online and if I'm not happy with it, for any reason, I can send it back for a refund. Thi…

I worked in retail electronics and this is exactly what happens, there is no procedure than put it back in the box and sell it again.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#726
post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So far at least, this is a tech that is being pushed onto people rather than being pulled. I think it's very hard to tell the difference between these things ex ante. Everything that succeeds looks like it was pulled. But many things were pushed before they were pulled. Buying things on the internet, for instance. This was laughed at for quite a while, while a few people and companies were committed to the idea tha…

> The promise of VR is to unlock a world free of the constraints of physics. Where physical distance prevents certain styles of communication and interaction - where physical real estate is finite and therefore rivalrous, etc. There are many things that VR, in principle, could solve... See. You just did the exact same thing that Op is talking about. You didn't describe a single actual use case. You just talked about…

iPhones didn't solve any "problems", but they unquestionably ushered in a new era in smartphone user interfaces. The public wasn't clamoring for a touchscreen phone, Apple just made one up and told everyone it was the best thing ever. And it was. The touchscreen is, for nearly 99% of uses, just better. In the same vein, you'd have to be pretty bereft of imagination to not see how AR/VR promises an incredibly useful and exciting approach to interfaces.

Instead of staring down at a tiny device or simply wracking your brain in desperation any time you need information about something in the world around you (driving/walking direction, business hours, the history of a sculpture in an art gallery, the name of an acquaintance approaching you down the sidewalk, etc.), imagine that the information is just... there. In the environment with you. That is incredibly useful, and is an incredible way to interact with information. Imagine cooking along to a recipe laid out on the countertop in front of you, with generative AI guiding you through different techniques (or even helping you change a tire on a busy roadside).

Instead of needing bunches of different tiny screens for bunches of different use cases (I wake up and sit at my medium work screen, sometimes scroll my tiny screen, go home and sit on the couch and watch my large screen, maybe over the weekend I'll catch a movie on the extra large screen), you just need a single device that produces exactly the screen and environment you want. That's the promise of VR. I could be on a cramped flight watching a movie on an Imax screen or writing code with 3 separate monitors in front of me.

We could go on and on and on just imagining excited scenarios where AR/VR would provide an incredible way to interact with tech. It all just hinges on how well it can be done. Apple has now laid out the requirements needed for a truly satisfying UX with these devices, so the next step will be to see if the industry can make devices small enough, powerful enough, with enough battery life, etc. to make these viable for the average consumer. If that happens, I predict that in 10 years flat-screen based (TVs, smartphones, desktop PCs, laptops) devices will all but disappear.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#727
I think people are missing the point of these “mixed reality” headsets. They’re really prototypes for AR glasses. Basically in the future they want to replace your phone with glasses with some kind of waveguide that can composite 3d objects into the real world. We have the waveguide tech and 3000nit lcos micro led displays already but just don’t have the processing power in a package small enough to fit in a pair of glasses.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#728
post #719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re constrained by price: they haven’t trained the market to accept a $3500 piece of hardware from Facebook. Apple has. The “people with $3500 to spare” market knows that it’ll be polished and likely worth the price tag due to the “sparks joy” factor that Apple regularly delivers.

Apple "has"? Hey the device is not even released and there is nothing like a preorder number that can tell a story. Please just be more mindful of the facts here. Your own speculation is simply meaningless.

The comment:

> "They’re constrained by price: they haven’t trained the market to accept a $3500 piece of hardware from Facebook. Apple has."

Can be justified by a lot of the Mac range costing >$3500, especially when you consider non-basic configurations.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#729

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…

>There is a missing aha moment around this type of interface that would justify the major behavioral adjustment that is required for it to be adopted as a general purpose interface rather than a gimmick.

Quick question, have you used the HTC Vive?

I have used tons of VR, and they are all cool for about 2 minutes, except the Vive. The Vive was the game changer. Walking around a room, interacting, etc..

The other versions either look bad, have bad controls, etc... Quality VR isnt accessible for $100 despite companies offering you a box for your cellphone. You do need to spend over $1000 to participate in good VR. It prices out lots of people, and the low cost version pushes people away.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#730
post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So far at least, this is a tech that is being pushed onto people rather than being pulled. I think it's very hard to tell the difference between these things ex ante. Everything that succeeds looks like it was pulled. But many things were pushed before they were pulled. Buying things on the internet, for instance. This was laughed at for quite a while, while a few people and companies were committed to the idea tha…

> The promise of VR is to unlock a world free of the constraints of physics. Where physical distance prevents certain styles of communication and interaction - where physical real estate is finite and therefore rivalrous, etc. There are many things that VR, in principle, could solve... See. You just did the exact same thing that Op is talking about. You didn't describe a single actual use case. You just talked about…

Watch movies, play tabletop games, exercise, play existing video games, visualize interior design, attend a virtual concert, etc etc

All of those are use cases, and obvious ones.

Your argument is “none of these seem compelling to me” (you’re not pulling) which is fine, but don’t ignore the comment’s point that they could soon be compelling to you (which is why they’re being pushed).

This is especially true for network effect based use cases like Oculus is shooting for - even Facebook was useless until “everybody” was on it

Post reply on HN