Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset • Hacker News Board

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#831

Post by newscracker » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 2:41 PM UTC

pavlov wrote: post #766

From a purely technology point of view, Meta is well placed. There isn't an enormous gap between what their hardware does vs. Apple. Display resolution, eye tracking and hand tracking are problems that can be solved today with a more expensive device. (The Quest Pro is a weird compromise because it's not that much of an upgrade from the base Quest. It has powerful eye tracking, yet the software doesn't use it. The wh…

> Display resolution, eye tracking and hand tracking are problems that can be solved today with a more expensive device.

I don’t think Meta really wants its devices to be out of reach for billions of people, limiting its data collection and the future it imagines with vast amounts of behavioral data collected from all those people.

If Meta were able to create an independent company that doesn’t have to have tracking or profiling or advertising or connected to its surveillance properties like Facebook and Instagram, it could create good devices at high enough prices to compete with Apple on the experience and quality. But its not in Meta’s DNA to leave such things alone.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#832

Post by adverbly » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 2:43 PM UTC

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…

Ding ding!

You didn't mention it, but same thing is true for remote surgery applicatons.

Telepresence for subject matter experts is a fundamentally new application that is unlocked by AR/VR tech. To nitpick, its more of an industry application rather than a consumer one(apple/meta releasing consumer-targeted products because the market is bigger) - but you're right that it's a good use case. Particularly in time-sensitive cases where industry would have to wait days to fly someone out when they need help immediately. To be fair though... a cell phone video call can already get you maybe half of the way there I'd say(where VR still might only get you to 80% given you cant smell/touch).

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#833

Post by coffeebeqn » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 2:44 PM UTC

djtango wrote: post #596

Root_Denied wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Augmented Reality (AR, or I guess "spatial computing" now) has always been what I thought would push the whole thing over the edge, and not VR. The "killer app" for VR is immersive experiences - while there's a niche for them, and I think we'll see more and better iterations, I don't think it has the growth potential that AR does. The killer app for AR is the pair of glasses that pops up information as an overlay on…

Had to scroll down surprisingly far to find this comment. The iPhone moment for this space IMO is... the iPhone (sans phone) Imagine something of google glass form factor tethered to a personal computing device (the size of an iPhone) for external battery and CPU. Basically Iron Man glasses. IMO glasses that can do everything a phone can, with baked in Google Lens is already a killer feature. Imagine having everythin…

The phone already has all that minus the heads up display. I wonder if anyone’s working on a glasses display that uses your phones considerable compute, networking, etc resources.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#834

Post by coffeebeqn » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 2:46 PM UTC

sudhirj wrote: post #731

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…

Will try to take a crack at this. Two underlying principles I think will drive the Vision pro are: 1. The need to live vicariously / voyeuristically: it’s possible for me to at least a two-sense experience of sky diving, bungee jumping, F1 / motor cross racing, and many others, including some darker more voyeuristic experiences like sex with someone out of my league, or unfortunately even extremes like murder / suici…

We are quite far from producing that kind of video at scale. The current 360 degree videos are horrible quality fishbowl looking experiences.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#835

Post by pr0zac » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 2:50 PM UTC

curiousllama wrote: post #807

pr0zac wrote: post #783

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

That comparison is wrong too though, the importance isn’t the “things” it’s the experiences and use cases those things provide.

VR headsets provide “large scale 2D experiences” and “immersive 3D experiences”. The resolutions on all VR headsets means for the first it’s objectively worse in a lot of ways, namely fidelity and detail. I agree the second one is a new experience and use case (I really like VR and have two different headsets I use regularly), but the only actual new thing is the “3D” part. People find plenty of other stuff immersive. Heck books provide that for a lot of people. That 3D part just isn’t enough, you can ask all of my friends and family that have tried my Index, said “wow that’s really cool” and then never buy a headset themselves.

ChatGPT provides a bunch of new use cases with regard to chat, text editing/manipulation/analysis, and knowledge recall/generation while also being significantly better and faster than Google with regard to finding answers or information. Meanwhile AI image generation has completely changed art and image creation to a ridiculous degree. I have friends and family asking me how concerned they should be about AI taking their jobs in fields as varied as writing, art/design, law, and medicine.

I do think in the future VR could reach the point where it’s that revolutionary, I just don’t feel like the two compare well now. VR is currently more like those old chatbots mentioned.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#836

Post by alexsereno » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 2:50 PM UTC

rob74 wrote: post #829

pavlov wrote: post #766

From a purely technology point of view, Meta is well placed. There isn't an enormous gap between what their hardware does vs. Apple. Display resolution, eye tracking and hand tracking are problems that can be solved today with a more expensive device. (The Quest Pro is a weird compromise because it's not that much of an upgrade from the base Quest. It has powerful eye tracking, yet the software doesn't use it. The wh…

I would argue that the whole "IBM PC clone" phenomenon came about more by chance than by design: IBM certainly didn't want it to happen, but since they cobbled their PC together from standard off-the-shelf parts, and outsourced the OS to a third party (Microsoft) who was more than happy to license it to others too, there wasn't much they could do to stop it either. The other platforms you mentioned were ultimately un…

That non exclusive licensing deal with Microsoft was absolutely bananas on IBMs part

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#837

Post by bick_nyers » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 2:58 PM UTC

veidr wrote: post #101

I use the Quest Pro right now, because my interest in spatial computing (I like Apple's new term so trying to use it, haha) is greater than my misgivings about Meta (even though those are significant). I will buy the Apple thing, too. There are a lot of interesting differences between them (obviously, the biggest one being the price, and deriving from that) but the one I find interesting is Apple's decision not to ha…

Relevant video from The Onion: https://youtu.be/9BnLbv6QYcA

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#838

Post by ethbr0 » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 3:01 PM UTC

curiousllama wrote: post #811

ethbr0 wrote: post #790

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a difference between "infinite percent better" (because it was non-existent before) and "some percent better." The fitness use case is a red herring and a software problem. Instilling motivation in people to do things they know are good but don't want to isn't traditionally a money-maker. You're building a better shame-er: how's Peloton doing these days? https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/PTON/financials?p=PTON…

I’m gonna be honest, I just sincerely have no idea what you mean by “fundamentally different.” Like, Peloton is an exercise bike. A cool one! A great brand and experience! But it’s an exercise bike. And it’s somehow more “fundamentally different” than this device that is trying to materialize sci fi? I guess I just don’t get it

I'd say Peloton is as fundamentally different... as you can get within the fitness category. Absolutely agreed: its an exercise bike with adjustable resistance and integrated, network-connected stats. In objective terms, not fundamentally different.

But if even it's having trouble financially, fitness isn't a great category to win with technology. Branding and advertising, absolutely! (Nike?) But not tech.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#839

Post by pavlov » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 3:01 PM UTC

newscracker wrote: post #831

pavlov wrote: post #766

From a purely technology point of view, Meta is well placed. There isn't an enormous gap between what their hardware does vs. Apple. Display resolution, eye tracking and hand tracking are problems that can be solved today with a more expensive device. (The Quest Pro is a weird compromise because it's not that much of an upgrade from the base Quest. It has powerful eye tracking, yet the software doesn't use it. The wh…

> Display resolution, eye tracking and hand tracking are problems that can be solved today with a more expensive device. I don’t think Meta really wants its devices to be out of reach for billions of people, limiting its data collection and the future it imagines with vast amounts of behavioral data collected from all those people. If Meta were able to create an independent company that doesn’t have to have tracking…

The price problem will solve itself over time, as it always does for electronics components with enough mass demand.

The $500 Quest of 2028 will have OLED screens that rival the Vision Pro that ships next year. Just like cheap Android phones took a few years to catch up to the iPhone 4 display spec, but they did, and now DPI is not an interesting spec on phones at all.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#840

Post by cloverich » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 3:02 PM UTC

AmericanChopper wrote: post #434

NBJack wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure Mark was actually counting on it. It doesn't make it a good idea, but Apple tends to set the bar for status symbols. Smartphones existed before the iPhone. PC laptops existed before MacBooks. Portable digital music players existed before iPods. While not always successful, they actually add legitimacy to many of the markets they get into. Time will tell if it happens here; I'm not holding my breath.

I don’t think smartphone adoption was held back by the lack of a sufficient status symbol. Apple didn’t bring a revolutionary status symbol to market to make smartphone adoption explode. It brought a really good product that was valued because of how useful it was. Apple’s headset will take off if it proves to be actually useful, otherwise it won’t.

While true, Apple has long made products people view as stylish and mainstream. VR advertised by Zuck isn't taken seriously (by most), but Apple will be. At the end of the day, there will be more consumer eyeballs on the devices now that Apple has entered the fray, and likely consumers that weren't even looking at VR devices before. That's probably a net win for everyone in the space.