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

Apple Vision Pro review

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

811–820 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#811

Post by IggleSniggle »

kevindamm wrote: post #659
IggleSniggle wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember being angry that my Moto Razr V3 had the power to run awesome software but as a teenager I didn't have an easy way to boot stuff up on it. IMHO it was a perfect phone, except there was no way to run what I wanted. The best I could do was program text messaging services and use those. They discontinued the phone rather than give consumers the freedom to just use the hardware. I thought the iPhone was dumb,…

IIRC, moto X was the first phone made by the Google-owned Motorola. The devices were made and assembled in the US. I was hopeful for the post-acquisition Motorola but it didn't quite pan out. The IP salvaged from the purchase was always a big part of the deal so it wasn't really a loss, just not really much of a win either.

Moto X (2013) was the device I intended to describe. You are right on both counts. I think I conflated the second gen closure of the US-based plant with the acquisition in my memory. And I'm now remembering that the real reason I was so disappointed is that the Moto X (2013) was a phone that you could operate the entirety of the screen one handed. With the Moto X (2014) you could not.

I have an iPhone mini now, but it's still not small enough to 100% operate one-handed, at least not without grip adjustments. The Moto X wasn't quite a flagship phone, but it came close enough. I can't even find a properly one-handed phone anymore

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#812

Post by saagarjha »

kemayo wrote: post #305
Fauntleroy wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire screen sharing setup they demo'd in the original Vision Pro demo reels always made me laugh. They've had years to get Sidecar right, and have failed miserably every time. How am I going to believe that they'll get wireless display transmission to work perfectly for this thing?

I haven't used the Vision Pro, so I can't say how well it works in practice... but with macOS 14 this year they redid their screen sharing app to, presumably, use whatever technology is underlying the Vision Pro display-sharing. It's really good. Vast improvement over the previous tech (presumably VNC?). Assuming the Vision Pro screen sharing works using the same stuff, I have high hopes.

It does use the same stack; I assume it was redone precisely to support this feature.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#813

Post by AdamN »

brtkdotse wrote: post #785
zmmmmm wrote: post #276

Lots of surprises on the downside from all the reviews. Pass through much more limited in quality with motion blur, pixelation, distortions, limited color and dynamic range. The eye tracking driven input method which was seen as holy grail turns out to be annoying after a while because people don't naturally always look at what they want to click on. Personas straight up aren't ready. The lack of AR features is the b…

> The eye tracking driven input method which was seen as holy grail turns out to be annoying after a while because people don't naturally always look at what they want to click on. This has been know for at least 30 years in the eye tracking business and it even has a name - The Midas Touch problem.

It doesn't seem like a 'problem'. For new tech, the emphasis should always be on pro users first (even if they don't initially adopt it because of the long lead times for those industries). So if you're designing an oil rig with these, a pro user would probably want to be able to independently interact with an element while looking for the next element since that's more time-efficient. Seems like a better term might be the 'Midas Touch Axiom'.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#814

Post by saagarjha »

theshackleford wrote: post #213
MegaDeKay wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worse than that would be when you fry something and the front of your $3500 headset gets splattered in grease. No thanks.

It’s called a cloth and they cost almost nothing.

In fact the box comes with one.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#815

Post by masfoobar »

The technology of what we see with Meta/Vive/etc VR headsets, as well as what with see with Apple Vision, will be nothing more than a pair of glasses so light you will hardly notice it

This is what it will be like in 10 years. The current generation (teens and adulets) wondering around the streets with their head sinked to their phones, will be replaced wearing "specs" 24/7.

In the next 20-25, I would not be surprised if it becomes no more than contact lenses.

Monitors will likely be a thing of the past.. even giant TVs in the living room. Same for (physical) keyboard and mouse, being replaced by IR equiverlants being as good/responsive.

The technology is not there, yet. This is a glimpse of what our everyday will be, and in the working office.

Interesting to see where it goes.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#817

Post by saagarjha »

whartung wrote: post #108
ghaff wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean the front cabin where they have big screens for every seat? I couldn't see carrying one of these instead of just an iPad for movies. (But then I'm a very light packer.)

Back in the day I was flying back east and had some movies loaded on my iPod Touch. And I was casually watching one in my seat, the movie was “Blackhawk Down”. And it occurred to me how a neighbor might not enjoy watching blood, guns, and violence out of the corner of their eye. So, I can absolutely see value in a headset style movie experience in public places.

Thankfully, most newer planes have those polarizing privacy filters on their screens that make it hard to see what the person next to you is watching.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#819

Post by tsimionescu »

posix86 wrote: post #447
zmmmmm wrote: post #276

Lots of surprises on the downside from all the reviews. Pass through much more limited in quality with motion blur, pixelation, distortions, limited color and dynamic range. The eye tracking driven input method which was seen as holy grail turns out to be annoying after a while because people don't naturally always look at what they want to click on. Personas straight up aren't ready. The lack of AR features is the b…

What do you mean, it can't run multiple monitors? I thought it lets you pop out windows free standing, no concept of monitor at all.

It does for apps running on the goggles themselves, but the Mac integration feature just shows the Mac's screen as one window, kinda like Remote Desktop on Windows.

And this is a quite hard limitation, since the Mac has to actually render those windows and then stream them to the goggles over radio. So, without quite a bit of magic, you have a limited amount of pixels the Mac can draw and send.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#820

Post by sph »

saagarjha wrote: post #776
zmmmmm wrote: post #634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they are paying the price for their obsession with super high resolution. I think it's a mistake, from my perception Quest 3 at 25ppd is nearly good enough, and its panels are nearly half the resolution. They should have traded 20% resolution for 10 deg FOV either side. In fact, with appropriate optics the effective resolutions sacrifice could be even less than that.

How is it to read text on the Quest 3? How would you compare it to a high-density display (such as what is on your phone)?

Well, it's no Retina screen. I'd say it's bit like reading text on a 1080p CRT at 96 dpi.

It's perfectly doable, but there's still a hint of fuzziness and we're still a couple generations away from crisp LCD text.

I care about my eyes, so I use a 4k screen at 2x scaling for coding, and will not use the Quest 3 for work, unless that involves playing games and watching videos.

Post reply on HN