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

Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right

hugo.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

821–830 of 863 posts

Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right

#821

Post by jsjohnst »

goosedragons wrote: post #798
jsjohnst wrote: post #731

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1st Iphone did extremely well Citation needed. The 1st gen iPhone sold 6 million units over two years. The Nokia N95 (not a super mainstream device, but in a similarish price category) sold 10M. Other Nokia phones of the time period sold 100+ million devices. BlackBerry, LG, and Sony/Ericcson was in the tens of millions per device model. Let’s not forget: 1. The iPhone didn’t support 3G, which essentially all other…

How many countries was the Nokia N95 available in VS. the 2G iPhone? I don't think it launched in Asia or most of Europe.

> How many countries was the Nokia N95 available in VS. the 2G iPhone?

Way more, especially since the original iPhone was only available in the US for the first 5 months. It was available across Europe, North America, South America, China, and Australia at minimum.

> I don't think it launched in Asia or most of Europe.

The N95 was heavily across Europe, that was the primary market for it in fact.

Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right

#822

Post by thefz »

tw04 wrote: post #747
ericmcer wrote: post #716

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn’t really what the parent is talking about at all… If your issue is with the device requiring connection with an external account, Vision Pro requires an AppleID which will tie it to way more of your digital things than a Facebook login.

Apple’s business model isn’t selling your personal information. In fact they go out of their way to protect your personal info. Requiring an AppleID is significantly less concerning than requiring a Facebook account.

They are in PRISM just like any other, stop believing this lie.

Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right

#823

Post by wkat4242 »

dTal wrote: post #769
jandrese wrote: post #713

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like the best passthrough was a fairly easy goal to achieve since nobody else was even really trying. Heck, the Quest applies quality degrading filters to passthrough video (add noise, remove chroma) to discourage using it.

Filters to discourage use? Do you have a source for this? Surely they are just low-res, infrared cameras.

They probably mean the quest 3 which has RGB cams unlike the prior quests 1 and 2. I also disagree it would have been artificially muddled to discourage usage. If that were the case they'd not have presented it so proudly. It's just the kind of cam setup that $500 buys (in fact it probably is a bit subsidised)

Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right

#824

Post by TylerE »

uxcolumbo wrote: post #796
TylerE wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s the entire crux. What exactly the hell is “the object”, and how does your target program DO anything to it, to include manipulating it, or getting it out to a GPU for rendering in some even vaguely terrible way - and you’re probably trying to render it 120 times (or more) a second with a decent level of resolution. 3D is not like tabular data. There isn’t some default resting state it naturally wants to exist…

Isn't this already a solved problem? See 3D apps, i.e. Blender, Unity, Unreal etc. You can copy objects easily. I don't think the intention is to copy an object with the baked in lighting at the time of making a copy. I can imagine you just want to copy the object and the behavior how it reacts to whatever environment it's placed in.

Not between them.

Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right

#825

Post by wkat4242 »

ramesh31 wrote: post #533
zmmmmm wrote: post #481

Coming from a senior Oculus lead, the most interesting thing about this write up for me, is what it lacks: it says almost nothing about the software stack / operating system. Still 100% talking about hardware at the bottom and end user applications at the other end. But there is no discussion of the platform which to me is actually the highest value proposition Apple is bringing here. In short: Apple has made a fully…

This was my immediate takeway from using Quest 3 as well. Zuck has stated forever that he wants a platform, yet when it comes time to do the hard work, we just end up with an Android distro running a React app.

Could be part of Qualcomm too. I wonder if they're willing to release source code for their drivers if you want to get really low level.

Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right

#826

Post by wkat4242 »

SergeAx wrote: post #636
zmmmmm wrote: post #481

Coming from a senior Oculus lead, the most interesting thing about this write up for me, is what it lacks: it says almost nothing about the software stack / operating system. Still 100% talking about hardware at the bottom and end user applications at the other end. But there is no discussion of the platform which to me is actually the highest value proposition Apple is bringing here. In short: Apple has made a fully…

Oculus is a gaming device and doesn't have a "productivity" ambition. I believe it is because 3D glasses has very limited productivity application. But who knows, for people who think that 13" laptop is okay for work, Vision Pro may become something better for comparable price.

So horizons workspace is for... ?

Or the quest pro for that matter, even though it flopped.

Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right

#827

Post by wkat4242 »

noneeeed wrote: post #160
ryandrake wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My question is why does it seem like only Apple can do this, over and over? Why are they the only ones who seem to be able to knock a product category out of the park and legitimize it? Is it just the vast amount of money? Are they the only ones who can create products? Is everyone else that bad? Competitors work for ages and ages fighting each other, refining v1, v2, v2.1, v2.2, v2.25, and then suddenly Apple comes…

They seem prepared to go in at higher price points. Most other manufacturers seem to take the approach of getting as many features on the side of the box and then compete on price. They cost engineer the crap out of everything and it ends up being somewhat disappointing. I often maintain that so much technology is 80% of the way to being amazing, but is stymied by commercial concerns that cause companies to cut corne…

The price thing isn't just about competition. Meta and oculus before it has a stated goal to bring it to the masses. That's not going to work at a $3500 price point.

You need to get Devs interested too and that won't work if only the top 1% of the western world can afford it.

Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right

#828

Post by wkat4242 »

Nevermark wrote: post #509
cyberpunk wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuine question, what are you doing for 10 hours a day in there? Can you comfortable code all day in that? If you don't mind my asking, is it purely novelty or is it genuinely better than coding on a 5k monitor?

For me it is not a novelty, it has completely stuck. Yes, on comfort for 10 hours. I have even worked 12 hours, then watched a long 3D movie (Blade Runner 2049, Dune I, etc.) without hesitation. I cannot imagine going back to only physical screens. I have a 98" monitor with two 55" monitors in portrait angled towards me on either side (heights all match), all wall mounted. Truly wonderful! But this has replaced that…

> • Being able to tune out 180 degrees of my space with a natural scene so I am completely undistracted. Wish I could go 360 degrees, and still leave keyboard visible. (Either by having an unobstructed low circle, or having the keyboard "punch through" like hands do.

Oculus quests have had this feature for a while now so I guess it'll come to AVP too. It only supports a handful of models but that's no big deal for Apple users as they mostly will use Apple keyboards anyway.

Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right

#829

Post by Wowfunhappy »

Nevermark wrote: post #813
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is, coincidentally, one of my biggest issues with the Vision Pro. I never got used to it. I'd very frequently want to select one thing while also moving my eyes around to look at other things.

New addition to the wish list: • The pinching focus remains on the control you just looked at for a fraction of a second as your eyes zoom off it. That would be killer. In retrospect, it would have been vintage Apple to have realized this was an important detail and resolved it already. Also widely spreading fingers within a moment of looking at a control could act as "hovering" with a mouse pointer. Add some kind of…

> • The pinching focus remains on the control you just looked at for a fraction of a second as your eyes zoom off it.

I'm not convinced this would solve it. What if I really do want to select a different button quickly? Certainly, when I use traditional computers I hate mouse latency. You could add additional pinch controls like you said, but I think it would all continue to be finicky.

I think the problem is that eye tracking is bad, at least as a primary input mechanism.

If I were Apple, I would focus more on hand gestures. The Vision Pro lets you move application windows around with your hands (although you need to initially select them with your eyes), and this always felt much more natural to me than. I can imagine a system where you use your hands to manipulate a cursor in space, possibly even a 3D cursor.

Re: Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right

#830

Post by wkat4242 »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #173
whynotminot wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has many of the problems, but it also has crucial improvements (mostly nails the user interface, vastly better pass-through, massively better screens). Did you read the article or just immediately come here to drop comments?

The author is also delusional, having pushed Oculus before VR was ready for the masses. It wasn't then. It isn't now. The technology won't be good enough for a decade.

The Commodore 64 (or, staying on-brand, the Apple II) wasn't ready for the masses. Still if we hadn't had that, the computers that followed would have been worse due to not benefiting from lessons learned, built up user affinity etc.

And being there it was hella interesting to see it develop. Most tech isn't born right for the masses. And without the pioneers it likely won't get there.

Post reply on HN