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

801–810 of 1001 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#801

Post by eloisant »

psychphysic wrote: post #593
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 key for me will be if it can meet it's core proposition of making a virtual world as good as the real one. At a basic level of I'd be willing to binge netflix on it rather than a TV. That would be the start. What if I preferred it to going to the cinema? Already a win. What if it can make it feel like you're having lunch in a restaurant? Perfect. It doesn't really do any of these things. More like having wallpape…

There are already applications on the Quest to use your physical keyboard, and either see it (AR) or see a representation of your keyboard as well as your hands.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#802

Post by mcphage »

Hamuko wrote: post #379
mcphage wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Wii lost its novelty pretty quickly. It really didn’t. Ring Fit Adventure, a successor to the Wii Fit titles, sold 15 million copies for the Switch. Nintendo Switch Sports sold almost 9 million. Those are solid numbers. The kind of motion control the Wii used is still used for those titles, and they’re still popular.

Just because it sold a bunch of copies doesn't mean that it wasn't a novelty and got actively used. Fidget spinners sold like hot cakes. 15 million copies is also less than half of what Wii Fit pulled, so it sounds like people did in fact lose interest in Nintendo exercise games.

> Fidget spinners sold like hot cakes.

Fidget spinners sold like hotcakes for a very brief window of time. Nintendo motion games are continuing to sell millions of titles even 15 years after they first debuted.

> less than half of what Wii Fit pulled

Hmm, what numbers are you looking at? I see 22 million for Wii Fit, and 21 million for Wii Fit Plus (a separate title).

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#803

Post by cloverich »

eloisant wrote: post #787
twoodfin wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another example: Video-on-demand was pushed for decades and essentially laughed at outside of a narrow niche where it found purchase… until one day it ate the world.

The issues with video-on-demand were network connectivity, image quality, etc. It wasn't hard to imagine a future where all issues were fixes, and see all the benefits over the brick and mortar video rental. You take an existing common use case, add significant benefits without drawbacks and it becomes a no-brainer. For VR/AR however? Are we going to get to Black Mirror level of a weightless device that projects a hu…

> compared to driving to Blockbuster during opening hours for a much smaller selection

And the best movies all being rented out! That's a concept that doesn't even exist anymore. A bit tangential, but good technology has that effect, of making scarcity disappear.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#804

Post by lumb63 »

EnragedParrot wrote: post #726
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…

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 a…

I see the vision you’ve laid out. The idea of “the information is just… there” sounds useful to me, too. Maybe it’s even the next step in computing.

The hurdle to overcome in my opinion is the form factor. Everyone walking around wearing ski goggles is a deal breaker to me. Glasses, maybe; or even better, contacts. Right now that size technology is more sci-fi than reality, and I suspect it will be a very long time before we reach that (if we ever do).

It’s also important to keep in mind that information availability isn’t the end goal. The purpose of having more information is to improve other aspects of our lives so we can reach our goals more effectively. We want big data so we can optimize for outcomes of our choosing. We want to understand the natural world so we can use it for our benefit.

Connectedness to information does not benefit us if it comes at the cost of having face-to-face interactions with each other, IMO. A lot of people think in-person conversation has gotten worse since the advent of smartphones because they steal peoples’ attentions. Imagine the extent of that dynamic when everyone is always-connected and it is impossible to discern who is paying attention.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#805

Post by ethbr0 »

pr0zac wrote: post #783
curiousllama wrote: post #756

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea I mean the point is that all of those already existed in other (worse) forms or were added later Fwiw, I’m a VR bear overall, but the idea that it’s somehow “not new” feels wild to me, like saying ChatGPT isn’t new because we’ve had chatbots for ages. Like, yea man but the preexisting stuff sucked lmao

The difference is ChatGPT is objectively better in every possible measure compared to what was available in the past with zero downsides to using it instead of old stuff. It’s also a lot better. VR so far only offers experiences that are moderately better in some ways (bigger screen, more immersive experience) while being objectively worse in others (heavy sweaty headset, lower resolution, nausea/headaches, high cost…

Exactly. Revolutions usually happen because the friction to adoption is near-zero. If so, your benefits can even be modest!

The cost of using ChatGPT vs older chatbots was... nothing.

Once there are downsides, people weigh them and you lose chunks of your potential adoption base.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#806

Post by pohl »

coffeebeqn wrote: post #746
kasey_junk wrote: post #706

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a set of vr hardware can make it so I can work as ergonomically from my patio as from my desk I will throw money at it.

Doesn’t strapping on a VR helmet kind of counteract the fun of being outside? Might as well just load up a nice outdoor scene as your background environment

One wouldn’t even need to go outside to want it. This could be the ultimate standing desk — one that you can bring with you to the kitchen or to the basket of laundry.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#807

Post by curiousllama »

pr0zac wrote: post #783
curiousllama wrote: post #756

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea I mean the point is that all of those already existed in other (worse) forms or were added later Fwiw, I’m a VR bear overall, but the idea that it’s somehow “not new” feels wild to me, like saying ChatGPT isn’t new because we’ve had chatbots for ages. Like, yea man but the preexisting stuff sucked lmao

The difference is ChatGPT is objectively better in every possible measure compared to what was available in the past with zero downsides to using it instead of old stuff. It’s also a lot better. VR so far only offers experiences that are moderately better in some ways (bigger screen, more immersive experience) while being objectively worse in others (heavy sweaty headset, lower resolution, nausea/headaches, high cost…

You’re using 2 different measuring sticks.

Oculus Pro is objectively better in all possible ways than other VR headsets (but has trade offs vs substitutes, like regular screens).

ChatGPT is objectively better in all possible ways than other chatbots (but has trade offs vs substitutes, like google search).

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#808

Post by Jeff_Brown »

adverbly wrote: post #698
darawk wrote: 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…

The use case I want is showing me someone's name and s few notes I wrote previously about them. I'd be so much more comfortable at parties. Creepier, too.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#809

Post by watmough »

domatic1 wrote: post #525
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…

According to some people who have tested it, it is amazing to use it to watch a movie, watch a big screen and the 3D effect, the Vision Pro is just a television from the future.

Interesting that on that basis, $3500 is probably about on a par with a really nice OLED big-screen TV and surround sound system.

One person only though, not a shareable experience.

Like others, I'm waiting for this to come to a spectacles / sunglasses formfactor. An external box would be fine, I just wouldn't be able to bear wearing what looks like metal ski-goggles for any significant period of time.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#810

Post by dgellow »

henrikschroder wrote: post #682
bushbaba wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People said the same about the first iPhone. Give it time. They shipped basically the foundation. The house has yet to be built.

> People said the same about the first iPhone. That must have been an extremely tiny minority of people who wrote off the first iPhone. Apple solved an actual problem in an actually existing huge market, i.e. how to maximize screen space while having a full keyboard in a tiny phone-size device. Everyone and their mother already had a cellphone, and then they switched to iPhone, or Android when they made the switch to…

> That must have been an extremely tiny minority of people who wrote off the first iPhone.

Not really, it was really, really expensive at the time. And didn’t have an App Store, the bet was on web applications but front end web technologies were still quite bad for any interactive experience.

Edit: cellular internet was already terribly slow and expensive

Post reply on HN