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

841–850 of 1001 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#841

Post by m_mueller »

coffeebeqn wrote: post #833
djtango wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

one of their main goals was making the latency imperceptible, and from the initial hands-on reviews they've achieved it, by integrating it right down on hardware level using an RTOS for the graphics & display part. and since Apple is all about SoC's nowadays, it doesn't really make sense for them to use half of an iPhone's chip if they can as well use the CPU already next to their GPU on the same chip.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#842

Post by zyang »

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…

So far no one has mass produced microleds. There are no chips on the market that can match M2 to drive these duel 4k displays. Then there’s the R1 chip. And a smooth as butter OS. Meta’s only viable strategy is to flood the market with low end devices.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#843

Post by ethbr0 »

scheeseman486 wrote: post #798
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…

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 pe…

> ...anywhere in your home... Anywhere in the world... on a flight...

See my comment down below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36257804

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#844

Post by ethbr0 »

pohl wrote: post #806
coffeebeqn wrote: post #746

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why would you want to bring your desk into the kitchen or to the basket of laundry?

Not being flippant -- I really think that's the big question.

Current AR/VR (Vision Pro included) lets us do desk things at not-desk places, but why would I want to do that?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#845

Post by spacemadness »

spaceman_2020 wrote: post #630
trotro wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Porn. What you're missing is porn. Or generally, anything that's much better experienced directly than through a screen. Think about virtually hiking Mt Everest, diving the Mariana Trench, walking on Mars, etc. The technology certainly isn't there yet, but I can imagine a future where for a majority of the population, especially those with lower income, VR provides the only affordable* escape from reality. * In a few…

Honestly, at what point will you need regulators to step in? It’s pretty clear that we have a little porn addiction epidemic. And there’s increasing evidence of the harmful effects of porn. And that’s happening with the current state of porn - often viewed on small phone screens in less than even HD quality. I can’t imagine what would happen to young people once porn is viewable in a lifelike virtual reality. I can i…

I love that we’ve gone from “is anyone going to buy this?” to “would someone think of the children, this is going to destroy society.”

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#846

Post by pavlov »

zyang wrote: post #842
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…

So far no one has mass produced microleds. There are no chips on the market that can match M2 to drive these duel 4k displays. Then there’s the R1 chip. And a smooth as butter OS. Meta’s only viable strategy is to flood the market with low end devices.

The past Windows and Android waves show that this is a great strategy if demand is really there.

When the mass market exists, multiple vendors will race to design competitive semiconductors, and even clunky UX will satisfy 90% of users. Windows 3.0 and Android 2.0 weren’t awesome in any sense. They were still good enough to surpass Apple’s sales in terms of units.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#847

Post by scheeseman486 »

pr0zac wrote: post #819
scheeseman486 wrote: post #798

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pe…

> You can't get an IMAX screen for cheap > What if you could take the 30" display or multimonitor setup The issue is VR doesn’t provide this either. Yes, it can provide screens the same size or larger, but IMAX currently provides 8K or higher resolution, my three monitors are each 4K, and even the screens in the Vision Pro can’t match that level of detail or fidelity regardless of how big the virtual screens are. It’…

Vision Pro might not be able to match 8K but based on the specifications it should be able to hit a level of pixel fidelity close to 4K with an IMAX sized screen. The vast majority of movies exist with only 2K digital masters available, with quite a lot of "4K" content being upscaled. This is the case even with new releases. My local cinema, a rather big chain, still has 2K projectors in the vast majority of their theaters. For film and TV content I don't see the resolution of the Vision Pro to be problem. For desktop use where screens are usually smaller I guess we'll see how close it gets, but even if it doesn't hit full 4K fidelity, ~1440p at ~32" inches is still plenty usable, particularly if desktop real estate is unlimited.

There were plenty of large format standard definition sets, they were just either way too big (CRTs) or rear projection (worse picture quality, which is saying something for 480i). DVD is SD and was a dominant format for a significant amount of time after the rapid rise of HD flatscreens. TVs got big because the technology allowed for it without requiring TVs to be installed via forklift or crane, not because people didn't want a big picture.

I've used a bunch of headsets too and it baffles me when people with plenty of time wearing these bricks can't extrapolate those experiences out, it doesn't require a whole lot of imagination. The Quest 2/Pro aren't cutting edge and their UI is jank, but even with the shitty passthrough it's pretty clear (to me at least) how virtual screens can be useful based on my experience with them.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#848

Post by mrguyorama »

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

Beat saber is not fundamentally different from DDR. I love both.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#849

Post by xenolith234 »

coffeebeqn wrote: post #833
djtango wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm a bit surprised that the Vision Pro doesn't utilize the iPhone in some respect to offload processing, storage, battery, etc.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg on Apple’s Vision Pro headset

#850

Post by johnnykree »

Xenoamorphous wrote: post #336
johnnykree wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a middle school teacher in Europe. None of my students use Facebook. They even don't use Whatsapp that much anymore. FB has a big problem.

What do they use instead of Whatsapp?

Snapchat, Discord and Instagram. Mostly Snapchat. It's really strange for me. I'm 41 years old. Seeing the birth of the Internet and all, I always assumed that kids will grow up with stuff and be great with everything. But most of them don't even know how to create an email account. (or they don't want to invest time into it) They don't watch movies. Or Netflix. Most of them just use Snapchat and Instagram and Tictoc.
Post reply on HN