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

Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

791–800 of 1001 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#791

Post by monk_e_boy »

askafriend wrote: post #424
nologic01 wrote: post #393

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…

Why can't more immersive entertainment be an exciting goal and vision? That alone is amazing. To have an entire movie theater in any room in your house or in an airplane. Or gaming.

part if it is to extend my house - I have tiny rooms, in VR I am in a giant open world.

Same on the plane or train. I can wonder a beach or sail the ocean.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#793

Post by trey-jones »

nologic01 wrote: post #393

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…

I was talking to my daughter about sort of a tangential issue the other day. I want to say it's related because some of these "better" technologies get pushed onto public schools. Some idiot in her class had managed to completely disable (destroy?) a Smart Board by throwing some tiny object and striking it.

I have to admit that I don't actually know exactly what a Smart Board is or exactly what its capabilities are, but I get the impression that the replacement cost of such a device is multiple orders of magnitude greater than that of a simpler device, the Overhead Projector, so common in classrooms thirty years ago. And I have to ask the question, is the educational value multiple orders of magnitude greater? Also consider that you don't need a degree in electrical engineering (and other domain/manufacturer specific knowledge) to understand how the mirrors and light bulbs make the older device function, and to repair it.

I fear this attitude comes off as crotchety old man get-off-my-lawn a little bit, but I think if we take a step back and make objective comparisons we might find that we've been had by the marketing department quite a few times in recent years. And I just hate to see public schools (which I think are so desperately important, and don't have the disposable cash) taken advantage of by the marketing departments with budgets larger than the engineering department of their firm. I would be dismayed to see my kids' schools investing into VR/AR any time soon, but I could see it happening.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#794

Post by saiya-jin »

brookst wrote: post #762
nologic01 wrote: post #393

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…

An interesting comment because it’s so contrary to my lived experience as a backer of Oculus DK1, among many other VR attempts going back to the VFX1 in 1995. > for the pursuit of. . . What exactly? Experience. Fun. Productivity. Emotion. All of the same things we look at screens for. I’m surprised that’s not clear. People (homo sapiens) have sought these things in many mediums for as long as we’ve been sapiens. Ther…

You are an enthusiast, that's pretty clear. OP gives sober perspective of regular Joe, who didn't have VR as a wet dream since early childhood. That's perspective of vast majority in this world.

If you connect only with people in same echo chambers, you will invariably have very skewed perspective on real world, and you will not grok similar opinions.

Personal viewpoint - I was VR enthusiast since 90s. Then I sobered up when I grew up, and that seamless trouble-free experience that would make me want to spend time in VR instead of big screen never came. Still waiting for it.

Also people change, and thus markets change. I have much less free time, thus I value it massively. I am not going to spend it (on top of ridiculous amount of cash) on some geeky almost-there-in-next-5-years tech. But who knows, maybe Apple will finally make breakthrough on society and tech level. Maybe in 5 years. Or next 5. Till then, my cashflow will be pointed to matter actually important in life, and mighty useful right now, like new climbing shoes.

Also, where is actual content worthy of such investments?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#795

Post by elif »

IMO the question really is: will meta's $500 experience cause sweating and nausea, or does it really take $3.5k of hardware to get over that hurdle (if, in fact it even does).

Until putting on VR has the same non-reaction of putting on headphones, it will remain a novelty.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#796

Post by tuatoru »

red-iron-pine wrote: post #784
adverbly wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Alright well then I'll bite. I'm in operational technology and deal with a lot of on-site tech, such as SCADA, factories, even stuff on trains or planes. We have 3D lidar mapped files of factories that are scaled in such a way that users can throw on VR and "walk" through the facility and figure things out. It's not completely mature but it's pretty good, and there have been talks about putting a camera on a scooter…

Telepresence devices have been a thing for years. No VR or AR needed.

Still waiting for a Visicalc for AR.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#797

Post by cloverich »

curiousllama wrote: post #751
ethbr0 wrote: post #739

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are all things you can already do! And big, nice screens are already very cheap. The Vision Pro's problem is that it lets you do something you can already do "some percent better." But "some percent better" isn't what any of the companies pushing this need, because that doesn't translate into the volumes they need to sell. "Fundamentally different" does, but no one has described any use case like that. Examples…

All things can be described as “some percent better” For what it’s worth, the fitness use case is 0 to 1 because a million people are saying “I didn’t exercise; now I do; Oculus is why” No fitness > fitness is 0 to 1 In what way was the iPhone “fundamentally different,” by your definition? Its functionality all existed in a blackberry / mp3 player. It was just “some percent better” at everything - especially interact…

But that "some percent better" has a tipping point. MP3 players and Camera's in a mobile phone only matter to most when the capacity, quality, and battery life were good enough. Once they were, they were everywhere, and that was revolutionary. (The iPhone as such was just a better version)

The Apple Vision Pro is an impressive improvement. But I'm skeptical its at that tipping point. Making the tech work in a pair of regularly sized glasses, that don't need plugged in or a heavy battery, yet has similar functionality, would push it much closer to reality. No regular person is strapping one of these on to interact with the world as is. IMHO its current stage is: a very impressive toy. Which is totally fine -- with what's at stake and Apple's market position and cash, it makes total sense to try and be the leader here, until it materializes into the next thing or fizzles out. Either position is likely acceptable to Apple.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#798

Post by scheeseman486 »

ethbr0 wrote: post #739
curiousllama wrote: post #730

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 networ…

Those are all things you can already do! And big, nice screens are already very cheap. The Vision Pro's problem is that it lets you do something you can already do "some percent better." But "some percent better" isn't what any of the companies pushing this need, because that doesn't translate into the volumes they need to sell. "Fundamentally different" does, but no one has described any use case like that. Examples…

You can't get an IMAX screen for cheap, nor can you easily extend rooms to fit bigger TVs. Often the view from a couch isn't particularly optimal because so many living rooms have been built to accommodate dinky 20" sets of 30 years ago. It's also not easy to take a big screen TV from your living room and mount it to your bedroom ceiling, or watch something out on the balcony.

Laptops screens are small not because people want small screens, but that the form factor requires it. What if you could take the 30" display or multimonitor setup you have set up at your home office anywhere in your home? Anywhere in the world? Why bother with an iPad to watch movies on a flight when you can have a full cinema experience?

Because the HMD is heavy, the battery sucks and you look like an idiot when using it. All true, but the one stupid bet to make on computing technology is that it won't get smaller, faster and more efficient over time.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#799

Post by ethbr0 »

brookst wrote: post #770
ethbr0 wrote: post #739

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are all things you can already do! And big, nice screens are already very cheap. The Vision Pro's problem is that it lets you do something you can already do "some percent better." But "some percent better" isn't what any of the companies pushing this need, because that doesn't translate into the volumes they need to sell. "Fundamentally different" does, but no one has described any use case like that. Examples…

I strongly disagree that only 100% novel uses are meaningful, and I disagree even more that “phone calls anywhere” or “web anywhere” are meaningful — nobody care about phone calls or the web. They care about what those enable : talking to people or doing research or shopping or whatever. But, sure, fundamentally different: being able to surround yourself with any environment you want. Being able to navigate that envi…

That's the catch though: existing, screen-based solutions let your surround yourself with any environment you want. ("Some percent worse")

What's fundamentally different about AR/VR is that it lets you do that... while being anywhere.

But! The cost of doing it (putting on the goggles) is a direct and serious degradation of your physical experience of wherever you physically are.

So we have a device that's key value proposition is -- it lets you have your nice home media experience, out in the world, at the cost of losing the sensation of the world.

... but then why do I want to do that out in the world, instead of at home, on the couch, like Apple's demos are?

... and if I'm doing it on the couch, it has to compete directly with high fidelity existing solutions.

The mobile component is effectively worthless, until the hardware is capable of augmenting physical reality instead of muffling it. (Read: magic AR eyeglasses)

There does exists one very particular type of user for whom the above is valuable: the business traveler.

But that's not enough volume (especially now) to meaningfully contribute to Apple's revenue.

If I were Apple, I would have taken a page out of Blackberry/Bloomberg's success book and made a flagship launch app a very polished "Vision Pro iMessage, with 3d presence" and worked the social network angle. Call any important person during business hours, with presence, instantly, would be fundamentally different. (Especially with an AI agent if they're unavailable)

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#800

Post by callmeloonely »

nologic01 wrote: post #393

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…

> the right combination of hardware and software > this is actually an empowering piece of tech

People wear sunglasses to avoid eye contact, Roddy Pipers character wore one in the movie "They Live" to see the real message - I would love one that blocks irl ads. Perhaps when they're small and hackable enough.

Post reply on HN