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

841–850 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#841

Post by fouc »

mvkel wrote: post #617
al_borland wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest thing for me, from the Verge review, was the limited field of view. Apple sold it as filling the users entire field of view and it sounds like that isn’t the case. When I first saw the reality of the Microsoft HoloLens, that was my disappointment there as well… Google Glass as well. I don’t want to feel like I’m wearing an AR device, as so far, that’s what everything has looked like. Limits of the technol…

That was the surprise to me too. Lower FOV than a Quest 3? Inexcusable.

Not when text is vastly sharper than Quest 3.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#842

Post by singularity2001 »

ls612 wrote: post #490
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…

This was always going to happen. The human eye has a field of view and dynamic range no display technology can hope to match anytime soon. The future of AR is not reprojecting the outside world on a screen; it is screens which can become transparent.

Dynamic transparency is the path to the future, and it's physically perfectly doable. Any news from the ray ben smart glasses?

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#844

Post by j45 »

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…

It’s first generation

First Gen is usually awful

This is not awful and maybe even closer to 2nd gen

Everything starts somewhere

Most things are ready for the masses by the 3rd or 4th gen.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#845

Post by ben_w »

gpxyz wrote: post #763
tsunamifury wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple used to excel at making the right trade off here. Choosing what feels right over numbers.

I remember when the first Android phones with 4-inch screens hit the market, I saw someone comment online that if a 4-inch screen was better Apple would have figured that out during R&D for the iPhone and made the original iPhone 4 inches.

I hope somebody at the time replied with a picture of the original iMac's hockey puck mouse.

Apple can do amazing things, but they do also fairly regularly make terrible things.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#846

Post by ragazzina »

wharvle wrote: post #231
delfinom wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I await the day that Apple adds authentication chips to lenses and locks out 3rd parties. Basically it wouldn't be them to pass up a accessory sell opportunity.

Looks around desk at non-Apple monitor, keyboard, mouse, USB hub, and cables Yeah, uh, they definitely always do that. It "wouldn't be them" to ever not. (Hell, the monitor even supports True Tone—and it didn't at first, that arrived in an OS update, from Apple )

You know there's already a QR code-based way of authenticating your lenses?

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#847

Post by stephc_int13 »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #399
stephc_int13 wrote: post #259

I quite often have buyer impulse when seeing the newest high-end Apple products. Even if I don't like the brand monopoly, even if I find their design language mostly boring and bland, there is often something weirdly appealing in their marketing. But in this case, I would probably try this device during half a day if someone gave it to me, but I feel zero desire to own or use one. It does not enable anything that I c…

> I quite often have buyer impulse when seeing the newest high-end Apple products. Even if I don't like the brand monopoly, even if I find their design language mostly boring and bland, there is often something weirdly appealing in their marketing. This is an utterly bizarre stance. I can't possibly imagine buying a product, any product, let alone a $1,000+ product, purely based on their marketing, when you admit tha…

Buyer impulse, a feeling, not an action, I don’t own Apple products except for an old iPhone ES.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#848

Post by ben_w »

ActorNightly wrote: post #592
nvarsj wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This iPhone trope has gotta die. I worked at Motorola when the iPhone came out. Every single engineer knew this thing would blow everything else out of the water. It was one of the largest leaps in consumer tech devices ever. I assure you the Vision Pro is nowhere close to that.

I love how people just rewrite history on the internet lol. Iphone 1 was a collosal PoC. Slow, most of web didnt work. Its only appeal was the full touchscreen, which of course sucked to type on, but looked cool (which is the reason people bought it mostly). Everyone that needed mobile compute functionality was still on Blackberry and some other devices. There was a time during early 2010s where the iphone was better…

> Its only appeal was the full touchscreen, which of course sucked to type on

I could've sworn that "it's easy to type on" was the one weird trick it did right? Though perhaps I'm just misremembering the media; my first iOS device of any kind was the iPod touch with retina display.

Something about Apple having a temporary monopoly (or possibly monopsony) on capacitive touch screens, where everyone else was stuck with resistive ones?

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#849

Post by ben_w »

khazhoux wrote: post #587
throwaway2037 wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anyone does not understand the reference, "CmdrTaco" was the editor of Slashdot many years ago. Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Malda

If anyone does not understand the reference, "Slashdot" is a link-sharing site oriented at tech news, that was popular many years ago as HN is today. https://slashdot.org

Ah, memories from 20 years ago. How time flies.

I wonder what new site, and what new euphemism, will replace the "hug of death" and "the orange site" in 2044?

(Hopefully not robots that go around actually hugging people to death…)

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#850

Post by makeitdouble »

nicbou wrote: post #802
makeitdouble wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To set a comparison point, a bike helmet is around 3 times that weight. Less weight would be better, but there's ways to embrace that and aleviate the issues ("have the product be true to its nature" to channel my inner Jony Ive). This time Apple chose not to, while Varjo tends to care a lot more about these ergonomic aspects. Looking at the XR-4 strap, it looks like a solid design to me.

A bike helmet is around 400 grams. I just bought one. A motorbike helmet is heavier (3kg), but the weight is wrapped around your head, not hanging in front of it.

> the weight is wrapped around your head, not hanging in front of it

Yes, that's what makes the weight bearable.

Same way the Quest Pro for instance splits the weight around the head to achieve a good balance. Better bands will also help.

At this point we have none of that for the Vision Pro, which is a choice Apple made.

Post reply on HN