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

921–930 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#921

Post by jonhohle »

joshspankit wrote: post #280
gorkish wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They just haven’t done it. Literally nobody has done it. It's beyond ridiculous that you can't already show or duplicate an application window on any display you want and allow it to be controlled from anywhere it is visible. Searching for ways to do this lead one into extremely niche software ecosystems. Please is there any collaboration app out there that makes it seamless to toss windows around like everyone act…

I feel like multiple people did it back in the original X11 days, and almost certainly when compiz was the new hotness

Nearly 20 years ago there was an OS X screensaver that would capture all the window buffers and then float them around the screen as they rotated various ways. Another app would save a snapshot of all windows as Photoshop layers with appropriate transparency (before blur was added). X11 was always network transparent, though I don’t think windows could easily be moved from one client to another.

Even classic Mac OS, which wasn’t designed to be “rootless” could be run that way could have its windows mixed with OS X windows in the classic days.

As others have pointed out, there is already a PoC app that is doing it, so it seems if Apple wants to, it’s completely in their power. However, does this match their vision? (pun intended) Time will tell.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#922

Post by Solvency »

bjacobel wrote: post #910
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…

The end goal here - multiple people who are isolated by the technology they're wearing experiencing a simulacrum of human interaction mediated by that technology - is not only unbelievably depressing but also honestly just really boring. We've already built this. It was called the "metaverse" and it sucked. Everyone left.

The idea of wearing a VR headset so I can "enjoy photos with friends" is absolutely hilarious and so deeply disconnected from what human beings want and need as a species.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#923

Post by Damogran6 »

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…

AR Passthrough is the big v 1.0 feature for this generation of headsets...I'm sure Apple and Meta were developing in tandem without knowing what the competition was doing. It's a really need addition that brings significant improvements...and I could see Apple developing it as 'this is streets ahead' where Meta was just improving tech they already had.

At the end of the day, this is Apple testing the waters and trying to get a positive cash flow to help offset significant R&D...what they're showing is pretty impressive in a number of ways, even as it's lacking in others.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#924

Post by ggrelet »

Flatcircle wrote: post #397

Apple seems to do well with products that are essential. Phones, computers, iPads, airpods, even iPods were essential to walk around the city and listen to music. The Vision Pro is like Google Glass, a none essential luxury item that seems cumbersome. I don't think this will make it TBH. But perhaps it does. And if so, seems a bit dystopian.

I think your comment is pure hindsight. I don’t get how you’d tag the iPad as essential when we already had the iPhone?

You also seem to forget the huge success of not-so-essential AirPods and to a lesser extent, Apple Watches.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#925

Post by Lendal »

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.

Seems like you could just implement a simple delay to solve this.

Let's say I want to click on the "reply" button below this text box. If I'm perfectly honest, I DO look at the button for a moment, then I move the mouse pointer over to it. But then right before clicking, my eyes switch back to the content I've created to observe that my click is having the desired effect on it.

I'm not actually looking at the button at the moment I click on it, but I DID look at it just a few milliseconds prior to the click. Why can't the UI just keep track of what I looked at a few milliseconds ago, to figure out that I actually wanted to click on the button, and not in the center of some text box?

One issue could be maybe I thought for a moment about replying but then changed my mind and decided to edit the content some more. But the UI has decided that I meant to click the "reply" button and so now it's been submitted prematurely. Yeah, I can see the problem now. The position of the mouse cursor is meaningful when clicking, and the Vision OS doesn't have a cursor. Cursors are important.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#926

Post by adrianN »

bjacobel wrote: post #910
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…

The end goal here - multiple people who are isolated by the technology they're wearing experiencing a simulacrum of human interaction mediated by that technology - is not only unbelievably depressing but also honestly just really boring. We've already built this. It was called the "metaverse" and it sucked. Everyone left.

The people could also be isolated by being a few time zones away from each other.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#927

Post by Damogran6 »

jojobas wrote: post #787
saagarjha wrote: post #775

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did you get those numbers? They seem quite low, considering that they do 4K mirroring and all.

They don't do 4k mirroring. A 4k monitor has 8 million pixels while the googles have about 11 million pixels per eye. True 4k is only possible if you use 85% of vertical and 85% of horizontal FoV, like when staring at a 24" monitor from 15cm.

I don't think it's an apples to apples comparison (heh), I think at this point 'good enough' is going to be better than anything my eyes can resolve. On a Quest 3 with Zenni lenses, pixel visibilty as a concern is way down on my list. It works REALLY well.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#928

Post by Lendal »

huytersd wrote: post #701
hamburglar wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My guess is that people actually do look in order to aim their mouse but by the time they click, their eyes have already moved onto wherever they’re looking next.

Yep, focused on the play button on a YouTube video to get my mouse there and then my eyes immediately went back to the center of the video a fraction before I clicked the mouse button.

Maybe they could "remember" where your eyes were looking at a few milliseconds ago and click on that, but then they wouldn't know the difference between that or maybe you actually did mean to click in the center of the content area.

The problem is the Vision OS has no cursor. Cursor position is critical. Your eyes move around a lot more than your cursor moves, but in Vision OS, cursor position and eye position are the same. Very annoying. Maybe they could put a little cursor in the center of the screen that you could move around with another gesture.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#929

Post by al_borland »

Solvency wrote: post #922
bjacobel wrote: post #910

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The end goal here - multiple people who are isolated by the technology they're wearing experiencing a simulacrum of human interaction mediated by that technology - is not only unbelievably depressing but also honestly just really boring. We've already built this. It was called the "metaverse" and it sucked. Everyone left.

The idea of wearing a VR headset so I can "enjoy photos with friends" is absolutely hilarious and so deeply disconnected from what human beings want and need as a species.

Every time I see the spatial photos and spatial videos, I always view it as someone putting on their VR headset to reliving a memory of someone who died. Then they take the headset off and realize they are alone and the loss broke them. I have a lot of trouble not seeing those videos from a very depressing place.

Re: Apple Vision Pro review

#930

Post by spogbiper »

ben_w wrote: post #848
ActorNightly wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't think Apple had a monopoly on capacitive screens. There were a couple other mobile devices that used them and came out around the same time. Maybe they tied up all/most the available production capacity for a bit?

Typing on the original iphone wasn't perfect, but it was generally better than tiny physical keyboards in many cases

Post reply on HN