[HN Gopher] Apple Vision Pro: Apple's first spatial computer
___________________________________________________________________
Apple Vision Pro: Apple's first spatial computer
Author : samwillis
Score : 1276 points
Date : 2023-06-05 19:04 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.apple.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.apple.com)
| fnord77 wrote:
| I imagine the tone of the comments would be a lot different if
| this thing were $500
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| namuol wrote:
| It seems like Apple knows this first generation hardware isn't
| going to sell much but they're going forward anyway. Should be
| interesting to see what the next couple generations looks like.
| anonzzzies wrote:
| I have been trying a lot of these helmets/glasses for work the
| past years. I didn't expect Apple to go for something that still
| needs so much work, but more is more. The Quest 2 is my favourite
| for meetings, some gaming, movie watching etc, but for work, I
| just use the nreal air. It really did become the replacement for
| my laptop the past 6 months. There isn't a lot of software for
| it, but I don't take my laptop anymore for coding. I do see when
| these things all fall in place, monitors, tvs etc could just fall
| away. Phones seems not very real now, but it depends on how fast
| the developments go.
|
| I had expected Apple to wait 5 or so years more with this until
| it's a market they can really take on; currently this is quite
| bold imho.
|
| But it's good; huge corps going in means hopefully someone will
| solve the battery usage of these things; even in this
| presentation, there was a battery connected. That's why I like
| the nreal; for all it's faults (mostly; just open source the
| thing so people can dig in!), it is very light and has the
| battery life of my phone, which is 15 hours. So I can wear it all
| days, there is no irritation or fatigue, and when I take it off,
| it has a lot of time left.
| Oddskar wrote:
| It takes a lot of time for people to warm up to a new device
| type. Probably makes sense to get a premium version out to make
| people yearn for it and build an ecosystem, and then create a
| more palatable version for mainstream use.
| dottjt wrote:
| I think a big limitation with VR headsets in general, is that if
| you have a morning facial routine (moisturiser, sunscreen etc.),
| it smears all of the headset. In fact, it's probably the primary
| reason why I stopped using my Quest 2.
|
| It's like, I used to use it religiously, and then the moment I
| started a facial routine I stopped using it immediately.
| consultSKI wrote:
| Not happening. Where is my new iPhone like the AR units used in
| "The Expanse?"
|
| Oh yea, the great SciFy series about the future of outer space is
| on Amazon Prime.
|
| Tim Cook: Stop by and I will show what you should have released.
| #justSayin
| Dudester230602 wrote:
| Congrats Microsoft and Meta! Great work on Holo Quest Vision Pro!
| jsisto wrote:
| I don't see this taking off until there is a killer app that
| sells these things
| treesciencebot wrote:
| Up until to the point they announced the price, apple was doing
| nice on the street but seems like $3,499 for a brand new platform
| is a bit too much risk than market was anticipating. Almost 60
| billion $s went from the market cap (maybe not much for a giant
| in Apple's scale but still interesting).
| gmm1990 wrote:
| Could have been that it'll be out next year too
| ojbyrne wrote:
| I think the price was expected, what was disappointing (at
| least to me) was "available early next year."
| teaearlgraycold wrote:
| Honestly I think they'll sell a ton to businesses and wealthy
| people looking to get into the new tech. The high price should
| raise the stock value if anything.
| epolanski wrote:
| That still is not nearly enough to cover all the research,
| development, legal and manufacturing cost.
| giantrobot wrote:
| > Almost 60 billion $s went from the market cap (maybe not much
| for a giant in Apple's scale but still interesting).
|
| This is the same exact thing that happens with every Apple
| event. I can't think of a time their stock went up _after_ an
| announcement event.
| samwillis wrote:
| The promo site is here: https://www.apple.com/apple-vision-pro/
| saovq wrote:
| Apple really just obsoleted Meta's entire product vision, this is
| scary good.
| masto wrote:
| Doesn't seem that way to me. I'm generally not opposed to
| jumping on the latest and greatest toy from Cupertino the
| second it comes out. And I'm a big fan of VR: I own two
| headsets now, but I was waiting for this announcement before
| deciding whether or not to buy a Quest 3.
|
| I've decided to buy a Quest 3.
|
| I could elaborate on why, but to each their own. I just don't
| see this thing fitting _any_ use case for me. I know people who
| like to watch videos in VR. I hate it. I 'm aware that
| accessing your computer screen through "virtual desktops" is a
| moderately popular application. Can't stand it. I have never
| used FaceTime, and certainly wouldn't have anybody with another
| one of these to call.
|
| We live in a world where forum comments have to be either "this
| is stupid and anyone who likes it is stupid" or "this is the
| greatest thing ever and anyone who doesn't like it is stupid".
| I'm not saying either of those things. I'm saying this is _not
| for me_ , and furthermore, now that I know that, it has
| unlocked the purchase of a competing product.
|
| I'm sure there are people who do see their use cases in this
| product, and also can afford it or its non-pro successor. But
| my take on it is that the real market will continue to be in
| games, not putting on a helmet so you can virtually type on a
| computer.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| Seems outlandish ... a $3500 product can't obsolete a $299 one.
| It doesn't look like Apple has any intention of attacking the
| low end here.
|
| I'd almost say that Apple is doing Meta a favour because they
| are doing a much better job at making the case for devices like
| the Quest Pro and Quest 3 than Meta seems to be able to do. A
| lot of people will turn to these when they find they want in on
| the hype but they can't afford the Apple version.
| impulser_ wrote:
| I don't think Meta is worried with the price tag of Vision Pro.
| Meta will be happy to be the Android of AR/VR. The Quest 3 will
| probably out sell this by over 10x.
| ra7 wrote:
| On the contrary, they might expand Meta's market by giving
| "legitimacy" to AR/VR headsets. Not everyone will want to buy a
| $3500 Apple headset, but might try out a cheaper Meta Quest.
| epolanski wrote:
| While everyone might benefit from it, as many have from
| tablets or smart watches, the Meta play to be the first of
| owning groundbreaking hardware has failed.
| ra7 wrote:
| Probably. But I don't think many were expecting Meta to
| dominate this space because it was always obvious that they
| don't have a multi-device ecosystem like Apple does.
| Juicyy wrote:
| they have almost 50% marketshare on steam... they did not
| fail at VR accessibility
| https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-
| Softw...
| BizarreByte wrote:
| Or it could be the public really isn't interested in VR/AR.
|
| I get we're no longer allowed to be critical of the tech
| now that Apple has directly entered the market, but some
| tech never takes off despite repeated attempts and I'm
| convinced this is one such situation.
| qumpis wrote:
| Can you elaborate on "this"? How is this better than Meta's
| product line?
| LegitShady wrote:
| nah they're not competing for the same customers.
|
| Metas headsets are affordable enough that people buy them for
| their kids. Apple's headset isn't competing with that.
|
| It's like saying "That bugatti obsoleted all the affordable
| cars" - not really.
| saovq wrote:
| I see it more as tackling the core product they're trying to
| deliver. Meta is trying to deliver "Virtual Reality." Apple
| is delivering "Augmented Reality." Meta will be able to pivot
| quite well, but Apple's execution here has disrupted 10 years
| of vision and development furthered towards creating a
| virtual reality rather than augmenting it
| LegitShady wrote:
| meta has consistently been releasing affordable products
| only. They've been on a mission to drive the price of VR
| down to widen potential audience, because for them the VR
| metaworld is the actual platform they want to own and sell.
|
| Apple showed a headset that does what most headsets do, but
| better, with a lot of nonsense features ("it shows your
| eyes!") and a stable of mobile ios apps for launch, at a
| price thats unreachable to most buyers.
|
| People buy quests for their kids, they aren't going to be
| doing that with apple vision anytime soon.
|
| So its actually not that apple disrupted 10 years of vision
| at all. Apple's vision is totally different from metas, and
| meta continues. You have an imaginary view of what meta is
| trying to accomplish because meta isn't interested in $3500
| unicorn headsets.
|
| If meta could figure out $100 headsets that gave a decent
| experience theyd be doing that. This apple vision isn't
| related to meta's vision at all, and hasn't disrupted it.
| Meta wants to run the metaworld to control what you see. If
| they could get there without VR headsets they'd do that
| first.
| jhatemyjob wrote:
| EDIT: Please delete this comment
| b800h wrote:
| But both these and Bugattis are Veblen goods.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| So if I get this thing I don't need to return to the office
| right? /s
| seatac76 wrote:
| Lot of potential.Beautifully designed. I can see it selling a
| million a year. Questioned that before but I can see enough
| demand for 1M units a year. Could be an iPad level business if
| they keep miniaturizing it.
| GNOMES wrote:
| With the M2 chip they should have called it the "eye mac"
| preseinger wrote:
| Honest question: will this play any subset of existing VR games?
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| evan_ wrote:
| None of them. The only games they mentioned are essentially iOS
| games in little floating windows.
|
| Beat Saber is the only VR game most people know and Meta owns
| that so I think they're just ignoring games until some third
| party developer comes out with something that catches on. I
| don't think they expect anyone to pay $3,500 strictly for Apple
| Arcade.
| preseinger wrote:
| Oof. Thanks for the reply. Yeah, good luck, Apple.
| nabla9 wrote:
| how many degrees field of vision?
| mgkimsal wrote:
| Was sort of expecting a demo of interacting with a real object in
| your field of vision. And... maybe 'interacting with' isn't the
| right phrase. But the idea of looking at a table and being able
| to call up info about the table, or a dog, or a couch, or
| mountain, or whatever... I suspect that may come later, but was a
| little surprised to not see it out of the gate.
| GiorgioG wrote:
| Amazing tech, can't wait for it to get smaller and cheaper in the
| next few iterations.
| AHOHA wrote:
| For the facetime part, you are seeing people WITHOUT the VR
| headset, what will they/you see if all is using it!?
| JustSomeNobody wrote:
| Nope.
|
| I get it, it's Apple and it's great and all that.
|
| I'm just not going to wear that on my face.
|
| I'm not.
| slushh wrote:
| The front screen is brilliant. If you commute by train it will be
| socially acceptable to wear the headset. Apart from frequent
| flyers, millions of people will by the headset for the illusion
| of private space.
| mindvirus wrote:
| Assuming that test is crisp and usable, and it's more of a Mac
| than an iPad, this looks very promising. If pass through works
| well, I could see this replacing a laptop for a bunch of use
| cases.
| samuell wrote:
| It seems they waited for the Metaverse to tank before unveiling
| this?
| ttul wrote:
| It looks as though it can replace a laptop. Unlike the iPad,
| assuming the display really delivers on text fidelity, it may be
| a more comfortable working environment than the old paradigm.
|
| If that's the case, the effective cost falls considerably because
| you don't need the laptop anymore. And get rid of the iPad too.
| nehal3m wrote:
| Except battery life is 2 hours.
| jasonjamerson wrote:
| Swap batteries with a click. Granted, I'm sure they'll cost
| $1,000.
| nehal3m wrote:
| Yeah, they probably won't be cheap. I wonder if swapping
| the battery would require turning the device off. Maybe
| they've put in a small internal battery to facilitate a
| swap.
| tornato7 wrote:
| However, unlike a Macbook, you could own a few external
| batteries and swap between them. You'll probably also see
| aftermarket batteries for this pretty quickly with even more
| power.
|
| I'm wondering if they're including a small battery on the
| headset for ~5mins of juice, just enough to swap batteries or
| from external power to AC power. It would be frustrating to
| have to shut down completely every 1.5 hours to recharge or
| swap packs.
| bobivl wrote:
| To replace a laptop (for me), I need to be able to type. It
| does not look easily possible from what I have seen, but missed
| the first part.
| bergie wrote:
| They said that you can pair it with Bluetooth mice,
| keyboards, and game controllers.
| numpad0 wrote:
| /s, work is not supposed to involve too much hand
| manipulations, you are suppose to create and add value
| through fabrication and theft by showing happy faces in as
| many boy's club meetings as possible
| joshbert wrote:
| It was part of the keynote how it can integrate with Magic
| Mouse/Keyboard and presumably other bluetooth accessories
| b_d98 wrote:
| This seems like incredible hardware from apple, but I'm really
| hoping for root access to be more prevalent in the mixed-reality
| space. I really don't want to see another ios and android walled
| garden with so much creative potential on these devices,
| especially considering Meta seems to be taking the android
| position in the space.
| ncr100 wrote:
| it may serve in the same way the ipad / tablet adoption did -
| though this is more limited as it's single-user & ipads can be
| shared easily multi-user
| [deleted]
| robotburrito wrote:
| I wonder if we will be able to connect this to a PC for use with
| steam VR. All of the best things in VR happen in the PC realm
| where you don't have to jump through hoops to get your
| experiments out to others.
| ok_dad wrote:
| The only question I have is: can I use this as a SteamVR headset?
| If not, then Apple will only sell this generation to Apple
| consumers who can afford this sort of thing. If so, I'll buy one
| tomorrow, because an OLED ~5k-per-eye VR headset made by Apple
| would be worth that price, because I know it would work and be
| supported for a while. Oh, and I just noticed they seem to also
| support some sort of hand tracking, so knowing Apple that feature
| alone will be pretty revolutionary, maybe you won't even need
| controllers to play VR games anymore?
| siva7 wrote:
| Loneliness Accelerating Device is what i would call that thing.
| Hope i will be proven wrong.
| jarym wrote:
| So where does this leave Meta with the billions poured into the
| metaverse?
| msie wrote:
| Meta can still create the Metaverse for the device.
| LegitShady wrote:
| meta is fine, for now. Apple's $3500 headset isn't something
| most parents are going to buy their kids, while I know a bunch
| of people who have bought quest 2s for their kids because
| they're cheap af.
|
| If apple can lower the price to something reasonable or even
| twice the quest's price, maybe they can threaten them.
|
| They're not looking at the same customers.
| EatingWithForks wrote:
| 3.5k? Who would reasonably go outside with that thing-- its
| asking to be robbed off your body.
| gbear605 wrote:
| People go work at Starbucks with more expensive laptops.
| [deleted]
| pyrophane wrote:
| I was a bit surprised to see the "virtual monitor/TV" use case
| featured so heavily here.
|
| A bigger TV/more monitors is neat, but I doesn't feel
| particularly revolutionary. Also, if that is what you are after,
| you don't need a $3,500 device.
|
| I imagine that is just where they are at with the device right
| now, rather than an indication of where they are going.
| amoss wrote:
| Two hours of battery life is a joke. They did not mention FoV,
| which seems to be the biggest limitation on other headsets.
|
| The technology looks nice: foveated rendering, eye tracking
| controls and geature recognition. The image quality could be
| amazing and the battery life is still bad enough that it will be
| v2 or v3 before it is worth looking at.
| [deleted]
| alexb_ wrote:
| >capable of running for two hours on a single charge.
|
| hahahahahahahahahaha
|
| This is absurdly awful. Nobody, absolutely nobody, is going to
| use this if it can't even survive _two hours_ on a single charge.
| stiltzkin wrote:
| Saved comment, like the Slashdot user mocking the iPod: "No
| wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."
| [deleted]
| roughly wrote:
| The optics will make or break this, but I came in extremely
| skeptical, but it's clear they've put a lot of thought into the
| possibilities landscape, the interaction modes, and the human
| aspects of it. It looks a whole lot more interesting than I was
| expecting - it's the best shot I've seen at AR so far. It's also
| clearly the "First" in the line - similar to the first iPhone and
| iPad, it's expensive and a bit unwieldy, but you can start to see
| the potential.
| bovermyer wrote:
| It's really, really expensive. But after watching that video, I
| might have to get one.
|
| The appeal of having a portable display of arbitrary size but
| great resolution anywhere I go... that's pretty worthwhile.
| annexrichmond wrote:
| It's hard to be excited about a device that will supposedly be
| released early next year yet had no live demos. How do we know
| that anything they announced will work as expected?
|
| I recall that with the original iPhone and Apple Watch, they even
| had live demos 6+ months ahead of their release.
| djake wrote:
| If I want to try developing an app for this, should I just wait
| for the thing to be generally available and try to buy one? Would
| Apple ever offer some kind of developer preview device?
| lukko wrote:
| I think they will probably offer some kind of developer
| program? Developers apply for early access to a device.
|
| I wonder if it will also be possible to preview Vision apps on
| Xcode via the simulator... Very interested to see how much
| access they give to the hardware and sensors via APIs.
| jeppester wrote:
| VR screens eliminate the eyes' ability to focus naturally. Unless
| this devices solves that problem, I find it hard to believe it
| will be comfortable to wear for many hours per day.
|
| And if the device is not comfortable to wear for longer
| durations, then it doesn't make sense that it's priced as premium
| work equipment.
| ChildOfChaos wrote:
| It seems to me that Apple is going for a very different direction
| than Meta, I see a lot of comments online by people that don't
| seem to understand this or perhaps didn't see Apple's
| presentation, they were very clear and careful about how they
| presented it.
|
| Even when showing gaming, it wasn't VR games, it was a screen
| playing a traditional game.
|
| It seems to me this is also in the name and the branding, it was
| heavily rumoured that it would be named Reality Pro, but naming
| it Vision Pro seems to set what they are aiming for more clearly
| or at least how they are marketing it, it's about vision and
| essentially a replacement for screens, not a metaverse or virtual
| reality.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| yes, it's a very interesting reset on the marketing for AR/VR.
| Quite interested to see how it plays out - it looks very boring
| to VR enthusiasts (really, you're making a big deal that I can
| look at a photo?!), but Apple is so good at this - they may
| very well be laser focused on what they really know will sell.
| wiremine wrote:
| Random thought: I'll be able to see what I look like in 3D... I'm
| both dreading it, and am also extremely curious. I'm guessing it
| will be hearing myself on tape. "I _look like that?" ...
| [deleted]
| idk1 wrote:
| Now I see why they never made a tv! Why make a tv if you can
| replace it!
| Melatonic wrote:
| So the hardware looks amazing.......
|
| can we hook it to a PC so I can play some real VR games?!
| herval wrote:
| Anyone have any idea of what the FOV will be?
| karowana wrote:
| $3500 is insanity
| lukko wrote:
| This is the first time I have been excited about XR - it feels
| right. Seeing it makes me feel like how I saw technology as a
| kid, sort of like a magic parallel world.
|
| I think a spatial UI will sit much better with people, our brain
| obviously evolved to manipulate stuff in 3-dimensions. It's very
| exciting to see where this will go.
| lowbloodsugar wrote:
| If this can replace the four screens attached to my corporate M2
| Max by acting as virtual displays for it, then I'm buying one.
| xnx wrote:
| The product looks really good. Hope someone also starts selling a
| "dumb" version (no cameras, sensors, speakers, external display,
| etc.) with the same quality internal display. It would be great
| to have a large high-quality display that can be used in a
| reclined position.
| activitypea wrote:
| How do you sell this without the cameras and sensors?
| jdprgm wrote:
| No tech specs available on https://www.apple.com/apple-vision-
| pro/ and no release date "early next year". Both are unusual for
| apple. I wonder why they didn't hold off to announce it when
| actually ready.
| jhatemyjob wrote:
| Kuo says supply chain issues.
| cududa wrote:
| What do you mean "no tech specs" are "unusual for apple"?
| That's like their ethos. It has an M2, 2x "over 4k" display
| panels, and 2 hour battery life. Has Apple ever announced the
| amount of RAM in an iPhone?
| jdminhbg wrote:
| > I wonder why they didn't hold off to announce it when
| actually ready.
|
| Apple has always pre-announced new product categories. No
| worries about Osborne-ing their own sales, time for developers
| to build before launch day, etc.
| richardw wrote:
| First one of these things I've wanted. They're honestly the only
| company that could pull this off. Meta has been doing some draft
| devices and Google will follow as hard as they can, but the UX,
| ecosystem integration and leverage with partners makes this a
| whole new animal.
| tkanarsky wrote:
| This really is technology wrapped up in an experience that feels
| magical. I'm decently familiar with the state of the HMD industry
| and I reckon they're a solid 5 to 7 years ahead of Meta in terms
| of processing power and display tech, not to mention all the
| ancillary details you _have to_ get right to deliver a convincing
| AR experience like lens adjustment (they demonstrated a crazy 2D
| motor controlled carriage for centering the screens, no doubt
| automatically driven by the eye tracker without user
| intervention)
|
| I guess the only real bummer is the high price -- all those
| optical components can't be cheap at this scale -- and the short
| battery life which really can't be solved without either a
| serious breakthrough in power efficiency (which apple is on the
| frontier of), battery density (likely same) or sacrificing visual
| fidelity (not in Apple's ethos). I don't mind the external
| battery pack, actually; hopefully it results in a well balanced
| headset.
|
| I wonder if they're going to do in-person demos at the Apple
| store. I might have to go check it out.
| nikolay wrote:
| I will never buy something like this and put it on my head.
| Sorry, Apple is way too late into this gimmick!
| gtirloni wrote:
| Did he really say this?
|
| """"Just as the Mac introduced us to personal computing, and
| iPhone introduced us to mobile computing, Apple Vision Pro
| introduces us to spatial computing. Built upon decades of Apple
| innovation, Vision Pro is years ahead and unlike anything created
| before"
| jzombie wrote:
| Curious to hear anyone's experience playing non-VR-optimized
| games on a VR headset, as I have a lot of those types of games
| and am working on a WebRTC project that streams those types of
| games.
| justinator wrote:
| I'd rather take a vacation for $3500 than buy this.
| enos_feedler wrote:
| Funny I had the same comparison for $3500. We are 10+ years
| from a virtual vacation or augmented staycation could deliver
| similar benefits.
| justinator wrote:
| We're not 10+ years from traveling a foreign country, meeting
| people completely different from yourself, becoming enmeshed
| socialy in their lives, developing relationships with them
| (if only for a brief time), etc.
|
| Give me a break.
|
| What these will do is safe us from the dystopia we're
| creating outside our own doors, which isn't solving the
| problem, just ignoring it.
| Dudester230602 wrote:
| Vacations in 10+ years... It will be hard for AR to beat an
| actual beach holiday in Finland to be honest.
| debacle wrote:
| > Apple Vision Pro starts at $3,499
|
| Insane.
| Pxtl wrote:
| I always figured Apple would target Glass before going into full
| AR. I mean, the "smartwatch for your face" accessory for your
| phone seems more up their alley, something lightweight and
| fashionable that just sends you notifications and turn-by-turn
| directions and stuff like that.
|
| Going instead for this huge bulky thing is really surprising,
| since it's so far outside their normal wheelhouse. It seems like
| the real things it would bring to the table would be gaming and
| 3D viewing/modeling applications, which were barely considered in
| the demo.
| pazimzadeh wrote:
| Seems strange to make a point about myopia being caused by
| screens being too close to your face minutes before announcing
| this.
| browningstreet wrote:
| My two warm takes, as a non-gamer and "never VR" guy who wears
| glasses and is old enough that I need new prescriptions every
| year and I don't see trying to keep up with yet more annual
| prescription lens purchases:
|
| In 5+ years will it be glasses and we can dump the iPhone? That'd
| be good (I realize it'll surely take longer). I might pay $2K for
| that but I like taking my glasses off and sitting in front of my
| big 4K TV without anything on my face. So take that use case away
| unless I'm on a plane.
|
| Mark Zuckerberg must realize how unserious his efforts have been.
| He probably can't ever do anything this ambitious, coordinated,
| and platform integration dependent. Even with his Brewsters
| Billions.
|
| It's about as refined and impressive and futuristic as I could've
| expected a v1 product to be, but while I enjoy gawking at it I
| don't really want to take one home.
|
| No one's going to say, "Where'd you leave the vision pro's?"
| It'll be goggles or mask or something else. Not well named.
| Except they won't be shareable (with lenses in), because they'll
| be too personal, like a hat.
|
| I maxed out the new Mac Pro on the Apple Store site and it came
| to $10K even. With full memory. That's really blowing my mind.
| [deleted]
| gtop3 wrote:
| > No one's going to say, "Where'd you leave the vision pro's?"
| It'll be goggles or mask or something else. Not well named.
| Except they won't be shareable (with lenses in), because
| they'll be too personal, like a hat.
|
| I could see Vision sticking as a name in colloquial use. Vision
| Pro is a signal there is room for a lower price headset in the
| future. No one ever called their iPad an "iPad Pro" in
| colloquial use. This name is least as good as Quest.
| browningstreet wrote:
| Fair. Probably. We'll grow into it. Vision feels slightly too
| generic and off product. Kinda like how they spell it "Apple
| silicon" and not "Apple Silicon".
| givemeethekeys wrote:
| I think it was Bill Gates who once said that you're not a
| platform until the things built using your service are worth more
| than the service.
|
| This feels like it is going to be a platform.
|
| Before the Vision Pro part of the presentation, it already felt
| like the best WWDC presentation in years!
|
| For those experiencing sticker shock - think of the real estate
| you can free up in your bedroom-office.
| patothon wrote:
| You'll still have all the stuff in your bedroom-office
| givemeethekeys wrote:
| I'll be selling the monitor, desk and office chair and
| replacing them with a nice chair with a footrest, and a
| keyboard attachment.
| peplee wrote:
| Does this help or hurt someone like Magic Leap?
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Hurt because if I buy this, I won't buy the other.
| fullshark wrote:
| I am skeptical but applaud anyone trying to introduce a new
| computing form factor. All the use cases in the presentation
| seemed like they could be done already with a computer, and much
| better.
| [deleted]
| curiousgal wrote:
| Has anyone pitching these products actually worked with a
| computer all day? I can't imagine the state my eyes would be in
| after staring through this thing on a workday.
| tobr wrote:
| They should have called it the Reality Distortion Field.
| nrabulinski wrote:
| In classic modern Apple fashion they show no professional use-
| cases for their "pro" product
| nehal3m wrote:
| Were you watching the same keynote as I was? I saw classic
| office work (Keynote, FaceTime) as well as 3D representations
| of manufacturing equipment.
| timbit42 wrote:
| Where is the killer app?
| nehal3m wrote:
| That's shifting the goal posts, OP claimed there were no
| "pro" use cases shown in the keynote and I replied there
| were.
| codq wrote:
| Did you miss the massive Final Cut Pro project window in VR, or
| does that not count?
| Oddskar wrote:
| Writing emails and compiling documents in Word seems like very
| "professional use-cases" to me.
| [deleted]
| donbongo wrote:
| The only thing I dread is having my expensive ass monitor and
| speaker setup made obsolete by this.
| jdlyga wrote:
| I used up all of my interest in VR with the Oculus Quest. It's
| cool for a month to watch Netflix on your ceiling on a giant
| screen, until you get tired of the poor quality video. The same
| goes with having 5 monitors surrounding you. This is stuff we
| were all doing pre-covid. So the ideas aren't really new.
|
| The real deciding factor is implementation. Oculus / Meta Quest
| remains on the cusp of "having potential, but not being there
| yet" for the past X years. What will this actually be like when
| you try it yourself? That's to be determined.
| adelarsq wrote:
| Its safe for people that uses glasses like me? How this works?
| IceHegel wrote:
| 2024 release date is disappointing. I wonder if they are waiting
| for 3nm chips?
|
| They didn't announce any tech specs so I guess it's all subject
| to change.
| turingfeel wrote:
| They announced all the tech specs. As for the chips, an M2 and
| a new dedicated chip for sensor processing called R1.
| d_burfoot wrote:
| Feels like the marketing department at Apple has gone down hill:
| is "Apple Vision Pro" really the best name they could come up
| with? How about something like "iView" or "iWorld" or "iSight"?
| codq wrote:
| iSight was the name they used for their webcam a decade ago,
| and when was the last time they used the 'iDevice' naming
| convention? Seems they've been getting away from that for a
| long time.
| dangus wrote:
| Okay since you just stepped out of the time machine, I can get
| you up to speed. A global viral pandemic happened, America
| elected a Black president, and Taylor Swift replaced Britney
| Spears as the most popular female pop star. Also, Apple stopped
| putting "i" before every product name and that whole thing
| isn't cool anymore.
| mellosouls wrote:
| There is not one mention in the Apple Press Release of any of the
| terms associated with the product's market:
|
| virtual
|
| augmented
|
| reality
|
| Etc
|
| It's a _Spatial Computer_ don 't you know.
|
| Very arrogant but clever marketing I guess.
|
| Anyway, as somebody who would normally by default scoff at the
| Apple tax, I'm pleased to see them taking the tech seriously, it
| definitely needs to advance to fulfill the non-gaming promise
| pointed to by Meta/Oculus.
|
| Perhaps the huge price is justified by the significant specs
| here.
| kjreact wrote:
| Why should Apple use existing technology words to describe
| their new product? They are trying to create a "new" product
| category and come up with their own vernacular for this
| segment.
|
| I can just see the patent trolls salivating over this new
| opportunity. At least now Apple can use each of these lawsuits
| to promote their product with their own terminology (ads via
| news articles, Apple Marketing 101).
| jFriedensreich wrote:
| this thing is so feature complete the only thing left i was kind
| of hoping to see is innovative use of the apple watch as HID. For
| example using the taptic engine as feedback provider and the
| apple watch sensors for improved microgestures similar to what
| google Project Soli was researching. i am very sure this will
| come in a future version if this prevails.
| ambyra wrote:
| The oculus 3 will be most people's choice for games. This will
| cover "the rest"? Oof.
| uejfiweun wrote:
| It looks sweet. I want one, for sure. But I have to say, it's a
| little concerning that they haven't publicly stated the FOV. FOV
| is an absolutely CRUCIAL issue in modern XR, and I have a feeling
| if Apple had actually solved it, they would be bragging about it
| just like how they're bragging about "23 million pixels" or
| whatever.
| gregmfoster wrote:
| I wonder if folks can trade in dev kits for the first version
| when it's released next year. That was the case for me with the
| Apple TV dev kit.
| jedberg wrote:
| This device will revolutionize movie making. Given that this is
| cheaper than most 3D rigs used today, 3D movies just became way
| easier to make. With the ability to record 3D videos and then
| play them back, you can expect a whole new breed of consumer made
| 3D videos to hit the market.
|
| Also, no one else is saying it, but this will revolutionize the
| pornography industry, for all the reasons above. It'll be super
| easy for OF creators to make custom 3D videos for big bucks for
| example.
| donohoe wrote:
| Honestly, I just want a headset that's so slimline I don't look
| like a weirdo on an airplane, and to achieve that all I want is
| for it to be able to play movies in the 3d cinema experience.
| Doesn't need to be optimized for games or interactivity. I get
| that I'm likely minority but my VR needs are very simple.
| kumarvvr wrote:
| Looks incredible. The cinema experience itself feels amazing.
|
| Wonder what the long term effects of using this will be?
|
| Apple does not mention how usage metrics, or testing for harmful
| effects on vision, etc.
| shrimpx wrote:
| I could see this being revolutionary for in-computer music
| production, because currently that space is heavily modal and
| arcane to use with a mouse and tons of deeply buried UIs.
|
| Imagine organizing digital instruments spatially in your office
| and composing music with a spatial feel similar to using a
| hardware setup. Then you can flip between various setups. For
| example you might bring up the mixing environment when you're
| ready to mix, which fills your office with a mixing board, amps,
| compressors and whatnot instead of synths and drum machines.
|
| Could make digital modular synthesis a lot of fun, too, as you
| could move digital wires around in physical space.
| rockmeamedee wrote:
| Like a non-toy version of this:
| https://artsandculture.google.com/story/ar-synth/7AUBadCIL5T...
| codq wrote:
| I feel like announcing/releasing Logic Pro X for iPad just
| prior to the Apple Vision announcement was not a coincidence.
| awesomelvin wrote:
| [dead]
| wankerrific wrote:
| What's up with Apple touting this headset for remote work while
| they were one of the first to force people back to office.
|
| And now Facebook/meta too.
|
| Marketing hypocrisy.
| [deleted]
| throwaway4good wrote:
| Looks amazing and wild full of possibilities but the price tag
| and perhaps the clunkiness of the device (size and external
| battery) indicates that the technology is not quite there for
| mass adoption.
| contemporary343 wrote:
| The micro-OLED displays alone explain a lot of the price point..
| along with apple silicon, really hard to see how Meta can compete
| at the high end.
| anonymouse008 wrote:
| This is the first inverse of Apple. It's the first device that
| doesn't live with you on the journey... everything from "the
| throw it out the window macintosh," iPod, iPhone, Air, iPad...
| you name it, was about going with you where you went.
|
| It's striking... This is a shift of epic proportions.
| peddling-brink wrote:
| What are you talking about you strap it to your face.
| drno123 wrote:
| If it can run stable diffusion in real time, and "augment" people
| walking around you to appear naked, it will be a hit
| denimnerd42 wrote:
| RSI inducing machine. No way I could wear that more than 20m.
| gervwyk wrote:
| I'm due for a new mac, going to wait it out and give this VR
| thing a proper try. Remember those first cell phones.. we've just
| past the "dude why would you carry a brick in your pocket"
| situation.
| nappy wrote:
| > "starting at $3,499"
|
| I wonder what the model that you actually want to buy will cost
| and what average sales price will be.
|
| From the looks of it, I wouldn't be surprised if they sell a
| "pro" headband like Meta does for the Quest that has a battery
| pack that does better than the 2 hours of charge with the brick.
| TheAceOfHearts wrote:
| Just commenting to leave my footprint for when people look back
| on the discussion a few years from now.
|
| The high price seems like it'll be a barrier to adoption, which
| will limit the amount of developers willing to invest time in
| developing for a closed platform.
|
| It'll probably take off in the furry / kink scene. The real
| killer app will have something to do with sex or porn, and Apple
| will try to kill it off or refuse to acknowledge it.
|
| On release day some couple will record a first-person POV sex
| video and upload it to a major porn site. If the spatial video
| recording experience is really good it might take off in the porn
| space.
| activitypea wrote:
| You thought about leaving a comment for people 10 years from
| now, and decided to open with "this will be big for furries"?
| TheAceOfHearts wrote:
| Furries have a lot of money and are often technologically
| proficient. It probably won't take long after release before
| it's possible to transpose an avatar or fursona over someone,
| a mix of VR Chat and IRL.
| 0xr0kk3r wrote:
| Eager to see how it works with +6.00 glasses. That's been a
| problem with headsets for me.
| mjamesaustin wrote:
| They're offering magnetic clip-in prescription lenses to use
| with the headset. I assume the experience will be pretty good,
| though obviously it comes with an added price...
| bullen wrote:
| This is pretty bad for VR.
|
| It will most likely flop because it has no reliable input.
|
| So far FrankenQuest 2/3 is on top:
| http://move.rupy.se/file/FrankenQuest.png
|
| Let's see what Valve can do...
| luis_cho wrote:
| All the other people that are attending the facetime call should
| also be using the glasses and why not an apple headphone. That
| way instead of talking to my brother I could talk to a Daft Punk
| member.
|
| We could change the name of the app to robottime.
| nunez wrote:
| Is anyone else terrified that this is the beginning of the end of
| "outside"?
|
| Like, I can see people wearing these full-time, everywhere, to
| "enhance" life at first with the ultimate goal of these
| _replacing_ life (i.e. why go outside, where you have to spend
| money and deal with people, when you can just wear these and be
| in a world that you control without leaving your couch?)
|
| Or am I just becoming a curmudgeon? If I am, I didn't expect it
| to happen at 35!
| ncr100 wrote:
| No - may I still reply to your question?
|
| I think MORE efficient indoor-tech, that allows you to get your
| stuff done MORE QUICKLY so you can go outside, is a goal we all
| should seek, as technologists.
|
| Not forcing users outside in order to get their work done . .
| (not that is what you were saying).
| fnordsensei wrote:
| It's highly custom, and clearly engineered not to compromise on
| the vision they have for it.
|
| Early adopters will foot the bill for the R&D required to create
| the non-"Pro" version of this, hence the price. But there's
| always going to be a Pro version of this, that pushes what "no
| compromise" looks like, as there is for the rest of their
| products.
| dougb5 wrote:
| Did they intend to make their 50+ demographic nostalgic for
| "Apple-Vision", the BASIC demo program that shipped with the
| Apple II? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqPe7pE_5uQ,
| https://apple.fandom.com/wiki/Apple-Vision). Boy, that takes me
| back.
| ryanianian wrote:
| New hardware advancements often prompt us to anticipate
| corresponding strides in accessibility research.
|
| > Navigate visionOS simply by looking at apps, buttons, and text
| fields. App icons and buttons subtly come to life when you look
| at them.
|
| I will defer to experts for a more in-depth discussion on
| accessibility, but this feature does raise a concern for me.
|
| I have a condition that causes my eyes to rapidly move back and
| forth. My visual processing compensates. I see like normal, but
| my eyes do not stay still for long even when looking in one spot.
|
| Initially, I assumed that this condition would prove problematic
| for VR use, but I've found that I can see quite clearly inside
| current VR headsets, although I've never tried anything that has
| eye-tracking. The prism component of my prescription does reduce
| the area of optimal focus. In addition, certain degenerative and
| congenital conditions cause individuals to rely very heavily on
| peripheral vision if central vision is impaired.
|
| If visionOS can tailor its visuals to the user's specific visual
| abilities, it could provide a profoundly useful tool for these
| users.
| evan_ wrote:
| Seems obvious there will eventually be a Vision Air that cuts
| some of the premium fit & finish and drops the price. They
| wouldn't have launched it with the "Pro" moniker unless they were
| planning to drop it later.
| mmastrac wrote:
| Ski goggles, mixed reality, less storage than a Nomad. I don't
| see what this brings to the table over other VR systems.
| MatekCopatek wrote:
| Interesting, I thought they would come out with some kind of
| radical new use case that would change how VR is percieved.
|
| But it seems like they decided the main barrier to wider adoption
| is hardware quality.
| dandongus wrote:
| For those of us who can't be bothered to watch through the whole
| announcement to find where they say it, what's the refresh rate
| of this thing?
| denysvitali wrote:
| I think they mentioned 12ms (~ 83fps?), but don't quote me on
| that.
| heynk wrote:
| Incredible.
|
| The biggest downside is that it looks like you can only use a
| single display from your Mac. If I could run 3+ screens from my
| mac, this would become a no-brainer.
| evgen wrote:
| I am expecting a lot of apps to be able to cast a window
| directly to visionOS devices by the time this thing actually
| launches or possibly a way to split out spaces into their own
| screens by the time this launches.
| rl1987 wrote:
| But you will be able to to have 3+ screens in your field of
| vision _without_ needing a Mac...
| ftio wrote:
| The current price of this first-gen product will make it a niche,
| early-adopter kind of thing -- just like the original iPhone --
| but the Vision Pro is going to absolutely slay over the next five
| years. Which isn't to say that this won't sell out.
|
| It's going to get a lot smaller, lighter, more comfortable, and
| more capable (with better battery life) and be years ahead of the
| next best competitor.
|
| They're also setting this up as the "Pro" version, which means a
| lower-priced model is already planned, maybe in two years.
|
| In ten years, these'll be regular ole glasses, maybe even a
| contact lens.
|
| Amazing launch.
| moultano wrote:
| No tether. Worse tracking than an index. Lame.
| lopkeny12ko wrote:
| $3500??? What a complete joke
| [deleted]
| ripvanwinkle wrote:
| IMO what makes Apple different and more likely to succeed than
| Meta is that they are pursuing more concrete scenarios like
| viewing content in a more immersive environment or spinning up a
| large viewing surface where you may have none .
|
| Meta's problem is this focus around social interactions which
| just isn't taking hold apart from a niche audience of
| enthusiasts. Having tried the Quest Pro, if Meta pursued the
| remote office collaboration scenario more vigorously which is
| really quite promising and multiple desktop monitor replacement
| they would do a lot better
|
| The obvious drawback with the Apple device is price and it's
| going to have challenges with traction. The enterprise would be a
| good place to start but that doesn't seem to be Apple's forte
| joewadcan wrote:
| Exactly ! The social stuff requires a network effect...
| hilarious that the makers of Facebook bet their chips on the
| same bet as their existing products. Apple knows it doesn't
| need groups of people to use this together, just enough early
| adopters to help pay for (and more importantly help guide) the
| user research and material advancement.
| wombat-man wrote:
| I think the big differentiators are:
|
| 1. The avatar and face scanning for video chat 2. Screen
| quality, pixels shouldn't be viewable.
|
| Meta could copy both with time but the 2nd just requires more
| expensive hardware. I never liked the meta avatars and it looks
| like the apple ones could work with any chat app?
| jdlyga wrote:
| It's a much better version of the Oculus Quest, basically. The
| reason why AirPods took off is because they were immediately,
| 100% useful in your day to day life. The same with Apple Watch
| (notifications, fitness). What is the day 1, must have use for
| this?
| shp0ngle wrote:
| I will say this is not for me, but the presentation makes it look
| like it makes more _sense_ than anything Meta has produced so
| far.
|
| I don't want it, but I understand why someone might. I don't care
| about metaverse or gaming, but they made it look actually useful.
| rtsao wrote:
| The demonstrated software doesn't look too compelling (mostly
| floating 2D app windows), but I could see this becoming the
| ultimate learning/training tool. Interactive, step-by-step
| guides/instruction on how to do literally anything would be
| incredibly useful (play an instrument, vehicle maintenance,
| cooking, etc.)
|
| If the hardware is sufficiently good, eventually the software
| will come, which is probably why this initially targeting the pro
| market. I'm skeptical the current frameworks make it easy enough
| to build quality AR apps, but hopefully the difficulty will go
| down eventually (maybe with the help of AI).
| firefoxkekw wrote:
| If this device delivers 80% of what they showed, this is insane.
|
| Like with iOS, the devs that adopted early where able to make a
| lot of profit, 3.5k looks way too cheap for what they showed.
|
| Legit makes me want to work for apple.
| FredPret wrote:
| I have a sweet setup - huge screens, stand-up desk, mouse and
| keyboard at home.
|
| But when I go on holiday / a long trip / a weekend away, I have
| to hunch over my laptop.
|
| Now I can pack this thing and have 15 massive monitors. Heck, I
| can set up a little bridge-of-the-enterprise situation where I
| know where to turn my head to get the status of system x. This
| could really change how I work once it's all ironed out.
| johndhi wrote:
| You know why phones are so addictive and VR isn't? Phones make us
| feel like we have control over how and when we use them. We can
| just set them down.
|
| With something you strap to your head that illusion of you
| controlling it goes away. We don't want to strap something to our
| head because it means admitting we want our life ruled by
| technology.
| divan wrote:
| Can anyone help to orient in the current VR/AR/XR programming
| landscape in a light of this announcement?
|
| My goal is just to learn programming in VR/AR for myself.
| Assuming this is gonna be a leading XR platform in the coming
| years, does it make sense to focus exclusively on learning
| ARKit/RealityKit? Or there are some "true cross-platform XR"
| stacks are being actively developed?
|
| I vaguely remember some initiatives from Kronos group, but have
| no idea how this landscape currently looks like. Would really
| appreciate some elif5 brief into current state of XR programming.
| 0xDEF wrote:
| Everything serious in VR/AR is being done using either Unity or
| Unreal Engine.
| turbo_fart wrote:
| No controllers mean that people will get bored of this very
| quick. It's already tiring using a headset even if you can just
| let your arms flop. Also very out of date strap design that has
| the device resting on your face instead of using a builders hat
| type of harness system. Massively disappointing
| wg0 wrote:
| Seems like another collector's item. Something later to be looked
| at "Why X didn't take off?" sort of.
| fossuser wrote:
| I can at least cash in a called shot for this one:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27583456
|
| Fun to see the incredulity in replies two years ago for what
| seems like was inevitably leading to this.
|
| Still really curious what it'll be like to use in person.
| retrocryptid wrote:
| [flagged]
| jumploops wrote:
| As a child I used to read books with just one eye open. This
| device will be revolutionary for me, but not because of the
| immersion.
|
| My excitement is tied to the two high resolution displays,
| entirely independent for each eye. I asked Brendan Iribe about
| this for Oculus back in Fall of 2014 and he told me they were two
| generations away.
|
| As a programmer, I'm staring at a screen all day long, and the
| effect has not been great. Having both eyes focused 1-2 ft in
| front of me has caused strain on my eyes, headaches, and
| seemingly permanent loss of far-sighted vision (my prescription
| gets worse every year).
|
| It's not proven yet, but hopefully the estimated 20ft focal
| length can help alleviate my eyes for my day-to-day work!
| dcchambers wrote:
| Incredibly impressive technology with a price that is simply
| unreachable to almost everyone.
|
| Maybe if Apple can bring the price down in a few years we'll see
| widespread adoption, but until then I don't see how this is
| anything but a toy for the wealthy. Maybe it will have some
| commercial/industry adoption.
| jansan wrote:
| I already hate those people who think they must walk around in
| the streets wearing these AR masks.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| I pickture Mark Zuckerberg, in the fetal position in a running
| shower wailing "I'm not crying, you're crying."
| b_d98 wrote:
| I really
| wb14123 wrote:
| I don't see lots of AR/VR techs in the intro: there is no
| interaction with real world, there is no 3D object other than
| virtual screen and virtual controls. It seems to be just a
| traditional portable computer with bigger screens. I can see the
| potential of it. But at the current stage, it's hard to justify
| the price.
| zwieback wrote:
| I still wonder what the TAM for these kinds of headsets is, even
| if they are Apple quality. Nausea and dork factor might limit to
| a fairly small clientele.
| UI_at_80x24 wrote:
| While I don't think this has yet shown 'the killer app' that will
| make everybody want VR; I do think that this has a killer feature
| that will revolutionize the segment.
|
| Facial expression matching on your avatar.
|
| The ability to make an avatar of yourself is kinda cool, but
| match the eye-tracking and other internal cameras you now have a
| way to have your avatar facial expression match your real-life
| expression. And THAT is what flattens the uncanny valley.
|
| Regardless of a 2D 'Teams/Zoom' meeting or a special 3D Facetime,
| you will (A) always be looking directly at the camera, and (B)
| your facial expressions will convey all the hidden subtext that
| missing in communication done via voice-only.
|
| This is a WIN over having a webcam pointed at your (messy) room
| too.
|
| I am not an Apple fan. I do hope that this can inspire the spark
| that gives us the VR killer app.
| drumhead wrote:
| Vision Pro implies a non-pro version could be possible. Cheaper
| and less funcionality. Either way its an interesting new product
| and knowing apple they wont ditch it after a couple of years. At
| this price its just going to be the pro users and richer people
| that buy it, but hopefully its going to spawn competitors from
| Samsung and the Chinese companies, at a much lower price but with
| less functionality.
| preseinger wrote:
| Honest question: can I play Elite Dangerous or No Man's Sky on
| this thing?
| pipeline_peak wrote:
| This won' be successful
|
| No one wants a serious product strapped to their face hours on
| ends, idc if it's $1200.
|
| VR is a 1980s pipe dream that will be as "revolutionary" as the
| wiimote was (which we all thought would be)
|
| Steve Jobs would think this is stupid and you all know it.
|
| Sorry to come off as pessimistic, would rather tell it like it is
| than pretend this thing taking off.
| billychuck21st wrote:
| This is the "pro" verison, maybe eventually Apple will sell non-
| pro version that can connect with the pro one, but at a much
| lower price, then you can create experience for the whole
| familiar, if the set of 4 can cost <$6000, then it will be the
| same as a 8K tv + sound bar + a couple of work monitors.
| Uptrenda wrote:
| I'm really surprised that Apple chose to work on this. Think
| about the track record of companies of similar products (in no
| particular order):
|
| - Google Glass -- tried and failed
|
| - Facebook's 'meta' -- slashed development
|
| - Metas space glasses -- now defunct, idk if they even even
| shipped
|
| - Magic leap -- did they end up shipping?
|
| - Microsoft surface -- looks like it was rolled out to
| 'enterprise' but does anyone actually use it?
|
| - Numerous headsets on the market causing nausea, eye strain,
| head aches, and social ridicule (lmao)
|
| Many big companies tried to do this but didn't really get past
| the gimmick stage. So yeah, it seems like a massive risk that
| Apple took or is taking to do this. Hopefully they've done enough
| to push the concept past these usability hurdles. I mean: as a
| tech guy this would be awesome if it delivers.
| iamthepieman wrote:
| I just can't imagine buying one of these for every person in my
| household so we can watch TV together or game together. My kids
| have friends over and they take turns playing on the switch. Even
| the kids who aren't playing get involved because they can see the
| screen and shout encouragement/advice/heckle.
|
| Even if they come down in price by an order of magnitude, that's
| still too pricey to buy one for everyone in my house and an extra
| or two for a friend.
|
| Totally see the value for certain specific business and industry
| uses though. My company has a product that help keep line and
| construction workers keep utility information up to date in real
| time by scanning poles, cabinets, transformers etc and
| identifying them along with positional information. This could be
| amazing for something like that and the price tag will just be a
| business expense.
| emoII wrote:
| "The kids are playing, better record a spacial moment" was one of
| the most dystopic things I've seen in a long time. Same with the
| ad at the end, with the father wearing it around his kids. I feel
| like the interface demands strapping something this futuristic
| over your head is just... wrong. Perhaps a few years of refining
| the tech can lead to something that feels more natural
| w-m wrote:
| They'll just slap two cameras spaced an eye distance apart on
| the back of the next iPhone Pro and bam, you can record your
| kids with your socially acceptable handheld device. Still won't
| need to play with them though.
| meghan_rain wrote:
| 100% confident this will happen, would bet my life on it
| TehCorwiz wrote:
| Are you old enough to remember the big VHS video recorders? The
| shoulder mounted ones? This is minuscule and unobtrusive
| comparatively. Nothing dystopian about it.
| abracadaniel wrote:
| I hope we'll see Neal Stephenson's term Gargoyle come into use
| as wearable computing becomes more common
| corysama wrote:
| Stephenson's joke with the Gargoyles is that the Protagonist
| looked down on them throughout the story, but eventually
| became one.
| speby wrote:
| You mean like how crowds of people at live music events ALL
| have their stupid smartphones up recording the same damn
| recording which they should be paying attention to and
| absorbing the experience and living in the moment?
|
| Forget what people _should_ do, look at what people _actually_
| do.
| valcron1000 wrote:
| > Forget what people should do, look at what people actually
| do
|
| I'm going to borrow that one mate.
| sample2 wrote:
| I think the issue for me was how "real life" and "digital life"
| are basically on equal footing when looking through this
| device. So your kids are now competing with whatever youtube
| video you are watching and it's harder to look away from the
| digital distraction. The same is true today when you are
| watching a video on your phone, but it's way easier to get
| someone to look away from their phone when it's not life-size,
| constantly in view, and always on
| asdff wrote:
| The ads I see on billboards for apple have been getting very
| dystopian over the years. One was just a humongous iPhone being
| held in hand, completely blocking the actors face, with the
| wrist cocked at this very uncomfortably looking angle such that
| the apple watch face was perfectly squared to the phone. It
| felt like something out of _Black Mirror_ , like if I moved the
| phone there would be no face or some sick grin. A far cry from
| the cute dancing earpod silhouettes.
| nipponese wrote:
| The alternative is me sitting at my desk, with my back to the
| kids, while I tell them to stop bumping into my chair.
|
| Which one seems more engaged with their kid?
| nazgulsenpai wrote:
| Neither?
| jayd16 wrote:
| Home movies are dystopian to you?
| sekai wrote:
| "Don't blow the candles yet! I need to grab my VISION PRO"
| Longhanks wrote:
| To be fair, that is already the case with "I need to grab my
| phone", which is equally _wrong_ , imho. But a lot of people
| don't see it that way.
| rcarr wrote:
| Really, what we need is a little 360 spatial drone that
| records important events like birthdays and what not and
| then you can relive them on a device like the Vision Pro.
| That's the best of both worlds and I think that's where
| things will head eventually. I think Google or Amazon or
| someone has made a security camera drone that flies around
| your house so it can't be far off.
| spaceman_2020 wrote:
| On the contrary, it would be wrong for a parent to _not_
| pause a special moment to take a picture.
|
| Sure, memories are great, but I have scant memories of my
| early years. Whatever memories I do have are tied to the
| rare few pictures my family took. I cherish them because
| they're a little time travel capsule.
|
| When my child is 35, I'd much rather give him high quality
| images of his 4th birthday instead of asking him to rely on
| the memorization capabilities of his still-forming brain.
| cloverich wrote:
| This is where there's a notable disparity in this new
| product. "I need to grab my phone" behavior isn't any
| different than what people did with cameras for decades
| before that. The thing that changed is the technology
| became much more available, pervasive, and convenient. The
| use cases were immediately apparent and unlike this device,
| nobody was scratching their head around how they might
| actually use it in practice.
| [deleted]
| redeux wrote:
| Would it be equally wrong if they said "camera" instead?
| no_butterscotch wrote:
| This is the new version of parents holding phones up in front
| of their faces to record moments.
|
| Now generations of kids will grow up staring at their
| parents' eyes through a VISION PRO instead of seeing the back
| of a phone in front of their face. Progress?
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| The trick with a phone is recording while holding at chest
| level and keeping it still pointing at the subject while
| you still enjoy the moment.
| EForEndeavour wrote:
| Which was the new version of parents fiddling with bulky
| camcorders as they squint through the eyepiece to record
| moments.
| stingrae wrote:
| It's the equivalent of people going around and taking photos
| with an iPad.
| PascLeRasc wrote:
| Can't wait to see these at high school graduations
| crazygringo wrote:
| I'm sure people said the same things when cameras were
| invented. "The kids are playing, better grab my camera! -- what
| a dystopic thing to say!"
|
| This thing is no bulkier or harder to use than the film cameras
| I grew up with. They covered the photographer's face too.
| thewebcount wrote:
| It was the same thing in the 80s with camcorders. There was a
| stereotype of the crazy neighbor who followed his kids around
| with his camcorder recording every second of their lives. Then
| it was smart phones. Now it's this. People want to take photos
| and videos of stuff and it's more important to them than
| looking dorky for a few minutes. I don't like it very much,
| either, but I understand it, and it's pretty much human nature.
| drewbeck wrote:
| Very weird, but I can definitely see this becoming something
| you can capture on your phone eventually (and view on your
| VisionThing). If these take off then I'll bet money that
| capturing things for AR/VR on your phone will be a priority for
| Apple
| [deleted]
| shippintoboston wrote:
| Agreed for some reason I had a really repulsive reaction to
| seeing that as well. Feels like this is the next step in people
| turning more inward. A screen strapped to our face at all
| times.
| wtetzner wrote:
| If they can get it into a pair of glasses, it might help a
| lot. Yes, the screen will be there all the time, but people
| won't be staring down at their phones all the time either.
| ElongatedMusket wrote:
| Oh good, they'll be staring directly at/through me from
| across the room instead. Can't wait!
| tantalor wrote:
| Minority Report (2002)
|
| https://youtu.be/arTIRgdEb1g?t=80
| dmazin wrote:
| i think the angle they are going for is that it's exactly as
| isolating (airplane, the experience you MOST want to get away
| from), or un-isolating (being with kids, the experience you
| LEAST want to get away from), as you want. and it flubbed
| cromka wrote:
| To me the dystopian moment was when they revealed that an AI-
| generated rendition of one's face will be presented during
| video conversations. We were worried already about the
| photographs taken with phones no longer being real, this brings
| the issue to a whole new level.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| The neural implant episode of Black Mirror has a much better
| UX. You can help the mass and micro surveillance effort without
| the uncomfortable headset and be present with the kids.
| adamrezich wrote:
| we just finished conditioning everyone to cover the bottom half
| of their face--suggesting now that one keep the _top_ half of
| their face covered, around the home, around their _children_ ,
| is nothing short of horrifying, both in terms of brazen anti-
| human dystopia, but more importantly, in terms of childhood
| development. if this, or something like it, takes off in the
| "iPhone" way that many here predict, future generations are
| going to be so completely fucked from the perspective of
| anything resembling traditional social development--which, of
| course, the iPhone, by way of the iPad, has already fucked up
| pretty significantly!
| sandoze wrote:
| I've read a lot of comments but yours is by far the winner. I
| bet you're a blast at Thanksgiving dinners and family
| gatherings.
| adamrezich wrote:
| face-detection is fundamentally important to interpersonal
| interaction in the baseline human experience (are you aware
| of the phenomenon of pareidolia?)--fuck with it at your own
| peril, both for children learning how to read expressions
| by observing adults, but also, for adults interacting with
| virtual "AI" simulacra, instead of real human faces!
| ignoring these basic observations is naive as hell,
| regardless of Thanksgiving dinner conversation palatability
| (always a high watermark for intellectual discourse)!
|
| thankfully, I don't see any reason to believe this will
| take off "iPhone-style".
| the_overseer wrote:
| Wrong, wrong and wrong again. This looks absolutely great I
| hope they make a kid size version so everyone can wear one.
| Anytime a grandpa complains that 'kids these days are fucked'
| they are demonstrated time and time again that they were
| wrong. Thousands of years ago people said the same things and
| they never came true. Have you not learned your lesson yet?
|
| In a few years we will laugh at people not wearing these
| things just like today you are a weirdo if you do not have a
| smartphone in your pocket. Kids will be just fine. It's the
| grandpas screaming at the clouds who will not be fine and
| excluded even more.
|
| The train is leaving the station. You either board it or
| remain in the darkness and cold. Forward, forward always
| forward. Anybody against progress will be trampled under our
| feet.
| adamrezich wrote:
| can't tell if this is satire or not, but assuming it's not,
| have you seen young children with their rubber-bumpered
| iPads these days? parents let them take them out in public
| just to shut them up, and they're always on the damn
| things, learning to tap and swipe to consume mindless
| content from well before their brains have fully formed.
| this is where personal computers have gone: from being
| useful devices that can be used (and programmed!) to
| produce _or_ consume content, to being no-brain-required
| content pumps that you can use to turn your brain off and
| fill it full of inane drivel.
|
| but I'm at least half-certain your post is satire, so...
| the_overseer wrote:
| I have. Those kids will grow up just fine. It's all in
| your head. Those kids will grow up to invent/innovate on
| levels you can't even imagine today. Like it has always
| been. Might as well just stop complaining about the
| "weird new generation" just because that "back in my day"
| it was better. It wasn't. It's just rose tinted glasses.
| adamrezich wrote:
| how is this possible, when all of the devices the "kids
| these days" are using are entirely geared toward content
| _consumption_ , with the only "content" "creation" they
| permit is that of the most vapid and useless pointing-a-
| camera-at-my-face variety? The Youth do not know how to
| use computers to create new good things, they only know
| how to consume what is already out there. the only
| creation they aspire to do is that of insipid Content,
| built atop the foundations of others' platforms, for
| others to mindlessly consume.
|
| in decades past, one would be forgiven for supposing
| that, once devices that could ostensibly be considered to
| be Personal Computers became pocket-sized and nearly
| universally ubiquitous, complete with access to a global
| network of information, that we would've reached the
| culmination of the technological _empowerment_ that the
| personal computer revolution promised--but instead, we
| got TikTok, and kids who aspire to be Famous On TikTok.
| that 's what all of this marvelous technology has
| wrought: brain-numbing _slop_ piped right into your
| retinas, in exquisitely high definition, practically from
| birth, judging by the age at which I 've seen kids on
| tablets in public alone!
| the_overseer wrote:
| It is absolutely possible and it's exactly what will
| happen. Back in my day parents and grandpas were
| horrified with these things called video games which
| sucked the lives out of their kids. And how repetitive
| and mind numbing it all was and how humanity was doomed.
| Guess what? Didn't happen. It didn't happen back then it
| won't happen now. Chillax and go watch a few tik tok
| videos. Not everything there is garbage. You just need to
| give it time in order to see the value.
| Chamix wrote:
| Agriculture > Manufacturing -> Service -> Content based
| economy, turns out youth have the head start, as always.
| sixstringtheory wrote:
| It also seems like more and more people are unable to
| start their own life until later, living with parents
| longer, starting work later, etc. I assume there's a
| correlation.
|
| The people I know that are addicted to video games into
| their twenties and thirties certainly fit the bill.
| They're going nowhere fast.
| hyperthesis wrote:
| Shadows help ground images (e.g. characters in games seem to
| float without contact shadows). Seems simple, but requires a 3D
| model of the room to work properly. LiDAR
|
| Lag between reality and virtual would be noticable side-by-side,
| no matter how much the "R1" chip reduces lag (12ms)... Ah! they
| might do the Guitar Hero trick, and delay the reality feed by the
| same amount, so they are exactly syncronized... see-through AR
| (like google glasses) can't delay reality.
|
| The outward display of reverse faux-transparency is a nice touch,
| displaying a fuzzy image of the wearer's eye on the front.
| (Though not sure what to make of the back-side of the displayed
| image - could a user ever see it?)
|
| I think this is the first major Apple developmemt without Jobs'
| involvement?
| ncr100 wrote:
| "lag" of 12ms is good enough - less than one frame of 60fps.
| it's 1 frame of 83 per second. should be good enough.
| nforgerit wrote:
| Finally I got a clue to how the next Ted Lasso season is going to
| look like: He's going to coach remotely having everyone happily
| wearing a VP.
|
| Joke aside: It's mind-boggling how Apple uses product placement
| to hammer pictures in our heads and get us to consider not
| looking like a jerk anymore when wearing AirPods just because
| some "icons" are wearing them.
| MrJagil wrote:
| just a point on my comment yesterday on Metas trailer[0]. I
| wrote:
|
| > I think [Meta] missed the mark with that trailer. They promote
| it like it's a skateboard: cool tricks, fast paced, hip and
| happy. I don't think that's why you want a VR headset at all,
| it's actually the opposite: immersion, sinking into a another
| world, it's concious dreaming. The D&D pitch could be perfect.
| I'd love to play a VR/AR d&d game. But in the video, the first
| thing he does is take off the headset and smile? It makes no
| sense. He should be totally enraptured, not happy to take it off.
|
| Compare this to Apples trailer. The guy sits down, with the
| headset _on_ and a bowl of popcorn, enlarges the screen, ready to
| delve in. Sitting in an airplane, but just have it all meld away.
| A guy playing ball with his kid, _while_ wearing the headset.
|
| I can't afford it at all but Apple made me want the product just
| for a bit.
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36152725
| mk_stjames wrote:
| Your comment about the Meta commercial is exactly what I was
| thinking after watching it yesterday. The last shot is the guy
| taking the headset off and smiling. And the first thing I
| thought was: "Is he happy to be getting it off his head?
| Because it looks like he's fucking relieved it's over."
|
| I love the idea of VR but the fast paced, cool games world is
| NOT for me. I dislike most modern 3d gaming in general. I'm
| much more interested in either passive viewing experiences,
| desktop computing augmentation, and creative applications.
| TiltBrush is still the most amazing thing I think I've come
| across in VR. TiltBrush in an AR envrionment, surrounded by
| multiple displays of other conent, work apps, dragging and
| dropping my 3D work into 2D powerpoint, etc...
|
| There is so much more potential than the hyperactive-chic-
| gaming metaverse world that the Quest and Meta is pushing.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Apple just started the AR/VR era, thank you very much. Every
| other company will use this as the new benchmark for VR/AR, every
| other device feels like prototypes compared to this.
| billychuck21st wrote:
| This is the "pro" verison, maybe eventually Apple will sell less
| powerful non-pro version that can connect with the pro one, but
| at a much lower price, then you can create experience for the
| whole familiar, if the set of 4 can cost <$6000, then it will be
| the same as a 8K tv + sound bar + a couple of work monitors.
| nemo44x wrote:
| If the price is a concern to you then this product isn't for you.
| Watch the video and look at the spaces the people were in. Every
| single one of them was in a high end space that has been
| maintained by maids (no clutter, sparkling clean) and
| professionally painted and styled and their spaces were large.
|
| At least initially, this is for the high end market. For people
| that want an object others can't really obtain yet. For those
| that want to be the first.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| Long ago in the Avatar (2009) movie there was a scene when a guy
| was walking with a tablet-like device displaying some info, then
| grabbed that info with some kind of hand gesture and threw that
| info on a wall-mounted screen.
|
| This AR demo was the first thing I ever saw that did something
| comparable by taking the app off mac and opening it in VR. Now, I
| don't really want an AR glasses, but I absolutely want to grab
| things from my smartphone and display it on any nearby screen,
| and not in (clunky) Chromecast / Airplay way, but seamlessly.
| ncr100 wrote:
| Wearing a personal sensor-net without it being also a VR
| headset might be nice - to control fixed screens around the
| room.
| jspaetzel wrote:
| Wait for consumer reviews?
| hgl wrote:
| This seems to be another iPhone moment, but I wonder what's its
| killer feature? iPhone had the killer feature of phone calls, so
| everyone has a reason to buy one, I can't come up with any for
| AR.
|
| Don't get me wrong, I'm actually incredibly excited about AR, I
| just can't imagine how it becomes mainstream. It can of course be
| mainstream if it's just like glasses and has all day battery, but
| it still seems pretty far away.
| strictnein wrote:
| I really wonder how much that "creepy eyes" tech adds to the
| cost. It would be great if they had a model without that, because
| for my use case its completely unnecessary and probably adds
| ~$500 to the price tag, plus additional weight and battery usage.
| drewbeck wrote:
| This made me think that they may have put everything into v1 so
| they can really learn what is necessary for a successful
| experience - ie v2 may come with a cheaper version without the
| external display because they discover that the display isn't
| necessary for the experiences that prove most successful on the
| platform.
| vvilliamperez wrote:
| Apple is taking small but important steps here. Notice how most
| of the content is 2d rendered onto a plane in 3d space.
|
| Meta and previously Magicleap perhaps bit off more processing
| than they could chew with 3d models in a 3d world mesh.
| contemporary343 wrote:
| Those micro-OLED displays alone will drive the cost that high.
| Still kinda shocked to see them at this scale and in a product!
| dboreham wrote:
| Zuckerberg was right then.
| bgribble wrote:
| The Simula One (https://simulavr.com) has been targeting similar
| productivity use cases for a while. I've been following it from a
| distance; I have to wear reading glasses for computer work now,
| and I would love to be able to focus on a virtual screen 2 meters
| or so away for coding etc. Whether I could stand wearing the
| headset all day is another question.
|
| The Simula folks think that there's a lower limit of about 30
| pixels per degree for something to be useful as a low-eye-fatigue
| virtual desktop. Their device meets that threshold but really
| nothing else currently on the market does. I haven't seen PPD
| info for the Apple device yet but I am interested to see where it
| falls.
|
| The Simula is at a pretty similar price point ($2700 for the
| preorder, but it's not shipping yet and has a way to go before
| it's a reality).
| JakaJancar wrote:
| $3500 is perceived as expensive, but a MacBook Pro can easily
| exceed that.
|
| Both have an M2, and while a MacBook has a display, more RAM,
| larger SSD, ... it's still a bunch of standard-ish components,
| while Vision Pro has a ton of really innovative never-seen-before
| hardware.
| ripvanwinkle wrote:
| IMO what makes Apple different and more likely to succeed than
| Meta is that they are pursuing more concrete scenarios like
| viewing content in a more immersive environment or spinning up a
| large viewing surface where you may have none .
|
| Meta's problem is this focus around social interactions which
| just isn't taking hold apart from a niche audience of
| enthusiasts. Having tried the Quest Pro, if Meta pursued the
| remote office collaboration scenario more vigorously which is
| really quite promising and multiple desktop monitor replacement
| they would do a lot better
|
| The obvious drawback with the Apple device is price and it's
| going to have challenges with traction. The enterprise would be a
| good place to start but that doesn't seem to be Apple's forte
| dangus wrote:
| No matter what they try, Meta can't really implement a vision
| of an enterprise collaboration OS because they don't make a
| widely adopted desktop OS.
|
| More generally, the whole "productivity computer" market will
| also have to convince thrifty companies that they should spend
| thousands of dollars per employee on a headset for remote work
| when they already spent thousands per employee on a laptop that
| has a webcam.
|
| Nobody's going to be able to demonstrate ROI on these devices
| for making employees more productive. Buying your employees two
| or three $150 monitors has the same effect.
|
| This is why Apple's strategy of marketing directly to the
| consumer can work. It forced companies to support the iPhone on
| corporate networks, because everyone wanted an iPhone. It
| didn't matter that all these companies were Microsoft shops
| with Blackberry phones.
|
| Apple's still not going to get far with this thing until they
| can bring the price down to three digits.
| d3nj4l wrote:
| The weird price fixation and doomerism here is weird. People said
| the AirPods were overpriced; half my uni has one. People said the
| AirPods Max were overpriced, and I see it all the time in co-work
| spaces and libraries. People said the M1 Pros were overpriced;
| they're literally everywhere, used by almost all of the
| professionals I know. People said the Pro Display XDR is
| excessively overpriced; more than a few _consumers_ I know bought
| it. $3500 is high but considering it is a phone, laptop and
| massive display bundled into I 'm pretty sure there's a more than
| sustainable market for it.
|
| That aside, I'm curious whether it will be more like the mac or
| more like the iPhone. Will we be able to "sideload", i.e. install
| things without papa apple's approval? Can we use a web engine
| that's not WebKit? Things like that will make the difference for
| me, not the price.
| matsemann wrote:
| The AirPods you see all the time is because wearing them is a
| fashion statement. You're "hip" or "rich" or whatever you want
| it to signal. Airpods are advertising themselves by people
| wearing them and influencing others to buy them. That's what
| driving the sales.
|
| No one will be wearing this in public. And if anything, the
| person in the office using this first will look dorky. So I
| can't see it having the same appeal/free advertising.
| [deleted]
| elijaht wrote:
| I don't know about that. My AirPods just work in a way that
| no other wireless headphones do with my iPhone. Using them is
| delightful. I still rock a Gen 1 pair which would no longer
| be "cool"
| pdabbadabba wrote:
| > The AirPods you see all the time is because wearing them is
| a fashion statement. You're "hip" or "rich" or whatever you
| want it to signal. That's what driving the sales.
|
| Exactly the opposite is true among the people I know. People
| feel like dorks wearing AirPods in public, but often find
| themselves doing it anyway because they're convenient. (I
| know this, because it still comes up in conversation all the
| time.)
|
| Not sure this tells us anything much about the Vision Pro,
| though--except, perhaps, that some people will happily use
| the product even if it looks dorky, if the user experience is
| on point.
| pdabbadabba wrote:
| > The AirPods you see all the time is because wearing them is
| a fashion statement. You're "hip" or "rich" or whatever you
| want it to signal. That's what driving the sales.
|
| Exactly the opposite is true among the people I know, FWIW.
| People feel like dorks wearing AirPods in public, but often
| find themselves doing it anyway because they're convenient.
| (I know this, because it still comes up in conversation all
| the time.)
| jbverschoor wrote:
| Ok.. please you probably can "build such a system yourself
| quite trivially by getting an FTP account, mounting it
| locally with curlftpfs, and then using SVN or CVS on the
| mounted filesystem. From Windows or Mac, this FTP account
| could be accessed through built-in software."
| matsemann wrote:
| How is the old dropbox dismissal relevant for my comment..?
|
| What I'm saying is that airpods are advertising themselves
| by people wearing them and influencing others to buy them.
| This headset will not have that effect.
| jbverschoor wrote:
| Well, not the same, but people like to bash anything
| Apple. The Apple naysayers. usually they are heavy
| windows/linux users (there's not much else)
|
| I bought the AirPods because I wanted exactly that. Sadly
| the batteries died in 1.5 years, so I'm boycotting the
| AirPods for now.
|
| Nobody I know bought AirPods because they look cool or
| because they want to show off they're rich. AirPods are
| very affordable.. they just work really really well. Why
| is that so hard to believe?
|
| And yes, people are more aware of items which are
| visible.. but that's a different story.
|
| WRT the vision pro, sure you won't walk around outside
| with them, but if they work as advertised, they don't
| have to.
|
| The M1 air didn't sell a gazillion times because of its
| looks. In fact, you couldn't tell it from the older
| models, so that point simply is not valid.
|
| People talk, people ask opinions, if the majority of the
| opinion from experience is positive yes it will result in
| more sales.
| uw_rob wrote:
| Do you own a pair of AirPods? My Gen2 AirPod Pros are what I
| consider to be the best purchase I have made in the last 10
| years. The small package and ANC is fantastic. Before
| purchasing AirPods I would walk around with ATH M50X (Great
| headphones; not fashionable) and these have replaced that.
| jocaal wrote:
| i'm leaning more to the iphone side, theres not a chance apple
| is gonna allow webxr and have developers distribute products
| without apples cut.
| atkailash wrote:
| Given you can use your mac's screen on it, it's almost moot
| depending on the app or latency involved. But knowing Apple
| it'll probably be more iPhone since they've even been pushing
| App Store on Macs more too
| mikenew wrote:
| I'm wondering that too, but from the presentation it looked a
| lot more "iPhone" than "mac". The only thing they demo'd that
| looked like a real desktop was an actual mac being mirrored in
| the display. Everything else seemed like an app you had to
| install through a new app store.
| LegitShady wrote:
| in the "technology" section of the presentation where they
| talk about the operating system, the graphic explicitly shows
| ios not mac.
| asimpletune wrote:
| I think this is where the unification of Mac/iPhone/iPad
| has all been leading.
| Tiktaalik wrote:
| There's overpriced and then there's the next level above that
| of simply being unimaginably unaffordable.
|
| With the former well, its something for enthusiasts and
| something for regular people to save up for.
|
| With the latter it's dismissed as something for another class
| of people and out of sight and mind.
|
| Apple may have ventured into the latter category here.
|
| Not a great space to be if you want to build a platform and
| lure developers to build on it. Developers want to have a big
| market.
| lopkeny12ko wrote:
| There's a ton of hidden bias in this assessment. Have you
| considered that you either live in a wealthy area or are
| surrounded by people who are more prone to seeing having
| iDevices as a status symbol? Because
|
| > People said the AirPods Max were overpriced, and I see it all
| the time in co-work spaces and libraries.
|
| Is absolutely not true in my experience.
|
| > People said the M1 Pros were overpriced; they're literally
| everywhere, used by almost all of the professionals I know.
|
| And how many of those laptops are corporate assets that were
| provided by their employer? How many of those professionals
| _actually_ use Macs anywhere outside of work?
| m3kw9 wrote:
| AirPods are not a status product for most, the quality and
| the way it works is why it's selling like hot cakes. It does
| show people you know about quality stuff by wearing one. The
| AirPod Max I would agree it is in the show off territory
| ethanbond wrote:
| What's the hidden bias? It's a premium/borderline luxury
| brand and GP is saying "yes people do pay for premium/luxury
| goods."
|
| Another great proof point is their annual revenue approaching
| $400B, selling devices that apparently no one can afford.
| michaelt wrote:
| The measure "I see it all the time" depends on both where
| you're looking, and whether you're paying attention.
|
| 1% of people have a PhD - but if you work at a university,
| you'll see people with a PhD all the time.
| d3nj4l wrote:
| Yes, but that also means that a statement like "nobody
| gets a PhD" is absolutely untrue.
| stocknoob wrote:
| Apple makes money by not targeting products to people without
| money. I'd say it's worked out pretty well for them.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| >There's a ton of hidden bias in this assessment. Have you
| considered that you either live in a wealthy area or are
| surrounded by people who are more prone to seeing having
| iDevices as a status symbol?
|
| Obviously those people are going to be the ones buying this
| product, like all Apple products.
| TigeriusKirk wrote:
| It's neither a phone nor a laptop. It can provide some of their
| functionality in limited situations, but it's considerably less
| flexible or portable than either.
| justin66 wrote:
| > People said the AirPods were overpriced; half my uni has one.
| People said the AirPods Max were overpriced, and I see it all
| the time in co-work spaces and libraries. People said the M1
| Pros were overpriced; they're literally everywhere, used by
| almost all of the professionals I know. People said the Pro
| Display XDR is excessively overpriced; more than a few
| consumers I know bought it.
|
| The salient difference between those devices and this one is:
| none of those require software developers to do anything
| special to support them.
|
| Granted, Apple had some success in the past telling developers
| considering a Mac port of their software "these are not the
| droids you are looking for."
| pathartl wrote:
| There's a huge difference between the lifetime of a pair of
| headphones and a VR/AR headset (or at least there should be).
| Bluetooth will be around for a while. This the second
| generation Vision Pro is going to absolutely kill the first
| generation... so why even bother getting the first if it's at
| such a high price?
| shhsshs wrote:
| In theory this does not require software developers (other
| than Apple's) to do anything special to support it either.
| visionOS has windows and kb/mouse support which means there
| is potentially no barrier to entry.
|
| I'm guessing "full-screen" or similar deep integrations with
| visionOS will require some custom code. But it seems like
| most sites + apps could potentially "just work".
| alaskamiller wrote:
| Emphasis on progressive web apps in macOS is a good hint with
| the first wave of apps this will have. Similar to how iPhone
| first didn't allow for third party apps, this will take the
| first year to sort out all the HCI before allowing for app
| store uploads.
|
| This is very much nReal but polished, and those goggles are dim
| and not as immersive as this. Magic Leap went with the wrong
| direction it turned out.
| ztrww wrote:
| > Will we be able to "sideload", i.e. install things without
| papa apple's approval?
|
| I'm sure we all know the answer to this.
|
| > web engine that's not WebKit?
|
| rofl
|
| The AirPods, Pro Display XDR, even the iPhone were just
| improved and streamlined improvements of a established products
| with clear use cases. This is something completely different..
| At this point this is just an expensive gimmick. That might
| change when people figure what they can do with it or it might
| not.
|
| > it is a phone, laptop and massive display bundled
|
| And the iPad is a general purpose computer..
| whimsicalism wrote:
| You live in a wealthy area, I rarely see Airpods Max in San
| Francisco.
| hyperbovine wrote:
| But there were already tons of people using earbuds,
| headphones, laptops, and monitors. They brought a high-end
| product to an already mature market. Whereas here, they are
| introducing a very expensive device into a segment, VR goggles,
| that has flopped over and over again with consumers everywhere.
| Apple might be able to pull off their magic, who knows, but
| it's way more dubious than with the other things you mentioned.
| paxys wrote:
| AirPods are popular, sure, but I have quite literally never
| seen AirPods Max in the wild. People in the market for premium
| noise cancelling headsets are all buying Sony or Bose.
|
| And it isn't just about price. There are plenty of AR/VR
| headsets out there that have the same feature set and are far
| cheaper, and they still haven't found product market fit. The
| problem isn't that they need more polish.
|
| With Meta winding down its reality investments Vision Pro is
| pretty much the last shot this entire sector has. If this
| device fails then we have no choice but to accept that VR/AR is
| at best a niche hobby, not the world-changing technology that
| we so desperately want it to be.
| throw74775 wrote:
| > There are plenty of AR/VR headsets out there that have the
| same feature set and are far cheaper
|
| Can you list some of these far cheaper products that have the
| same feature set?
| bagels wrote:
| Where did you get the idea that Meta is "winding down its
| reality investments"?
| woah wrote:
| Lol what if they had to change their name again. Maybe
| something about having to come to terms with their revenue
| and expenses... face their books... Facebook?
| drewbeck wrote:
| Definitely going to be anecdotal here - around my
| neighborhood (brooklyn NY) I'm floored by how many Airpod
| Max's I see. It's by far the most common over-head wireless
| earphones I see.
| zamadatix wrote:
| I think this is more in the "Pro Display XDR" overpriced
| territory of "it costs more than many can afford to buy on a
| whim" instead of "it costs more than it should" of things like
| AirPods. Where the Pro Display XDR gets away with that is, at
| the end of the day, it's just a display for content the same as
| any other. Where the Vision Pro will need to do some fighting
| is traditional content is a much harder sell for a AR/VR
| device. I think Apple is trying their best to tackle that
| software problem head on trying to improve integrations and
| offer day 1 native options, which is what they always aim for,
| but it's still clearly going to have some penetration
| difficulty due to price and small target audience at first. Of
| course, Vision "Pro" suggests maybe they have a non-pro plan
| for that in the works already, in which case it would help the
| ecosystem sustain even more.
| spaceman_2020 wrote:
| Someone in my coworking space bought a Pro Display XDR. He's
| a movie maker who is shopping around a documentary to some
| major OTT players in my country. He said his work pretty much
| demands a really good screen and Pro Display XDR is the best
| he can buy as an independent filmmaker - his previous
| employer, a large studio, had screens that were _slightly_
| better but cost $20k+
| mountainofdeath wrote:
| I agree that it isn't in the "everyone and their grandmother
| will have it" pricing territory. It will definitely sell well
| at least within a niche but won't have the deep penetration
| other products have.
|
| If you recall, for many years, an iPhone was a luxury status
| symbol; the equivalent of a mid-range hand bag or a low-end
| luxury automobile. Expensive, but still within the reach of
| the an average person with at least some disposable income.
| It's why everyone seems to have an iPhone and EarPods.
|
| The pro display, like many VR headsets before it, is really a
| niche product that will be limited to a standard deviation of
| what I would call "enthusiasts" or "power users".
|
| (1). Even pre-iPhone, having an iPod, especially a premium
| one, was a status symbol. (2). Non-iPhone devices are
| generally scoffed at in many circles, green text message
| bubbles being associated with budget Android devices and not
| the expensive Android flagships.
| zamadatix wrote:
| n.b. "Pro Display" is a monitor, "Vision Pro" is the VR/AR
| headset.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| Pro Display XDR is also in a market segment where it's the
| last step before getting a calibrated display that's 10x the
| price. When looking at the specs it's actually a great
| display at a good price point.
|
| > Of course, Vision "Pro" suggests maybe they have a non-pro
| plan for that in the works already, in which case it would
| help the ecosystem sustain even more.
|
| Like every other platform products, the V1's audience is...
| developers. Once there are a few killer apps, Apple will
| commoditize and unleash a much cheaper version.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| > I think this is more in the "Pro Display XDR" overpriced
| territory
|
| It's the same price as Microsoft's Hololens 2, but the tech
| looks much more impressive, and Microsoft seems to have laid
| off most of the Hololens development team.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Apple also provides a credit card with no interest on Apple
| products. They could "hide" the price as cellphone providers
| hide the price, by rolling it into a monthly payment.
| practice9 wrote:
| > phone, laptop and massive display
|
| Including 3d video recording, which is under-appreciated in
| many of the threads. Two GoPro Hero cameras + rig would cost
| minimum $500, and you might have to edit photos and videos in
| post. And Apple does this automagically for you.
| stirlo wrote:
| I'm not taking my $3500 headset with a massive screen on the
| exterior anywhere near where I'd be taking a GoPro.
| tqi wrote:
| Did people really say that the original Airpods were
| overpriced?[1] IIRC back in 2016 BT earbuds (that weren't
| connected by a band) were mostly pretty shitty, which I think
| was the root of most people's skepticism, not the price?
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12446094
| francisduvivier wrote:
| Since the space/weight for batteries is limited, I bet it will
| be more like iphone, so only WebKit and tight control to
| optimize battery usage.
| joking wrote:
| there's no doubt that with is onw appstore and os is more like
| the iphone and you will not be able to install anything that
| Apple has not approved, neither buy anything without Apple
| taking its cut
| orangecat wrote:
| Yes, and that's really obnoxious. But the ability to use it
| as a display for your Mac (and presumably PC via VNC or
| similar) should mitigate that to some extent.
| acchow wrote:
| It also captures a new kind of content: spatial video. Upper
| middle class families with toddlers are going to want this. To
| relive the children's childhood forever.
| lm28469 wrote:
| The weird thing to me is that people forget every failed Apple
| product and live in a bubble in which every new Apple toy is a
| hit.
|
| They had as many fails as success, we just forgot about them
| entierly
| ign0ramus wrote:
| I realize that they have had many failures in their long
| history but it seems like they have been on a roll since the
| iPod release 22 years ago. Do you know of any product flop
| from Apple in the last two decades? I'm genuinely curious.
| pathartl wrote:
| - AirPower. That was straight-up cancelled. - The larger
| HomePod was pretty crap. - Butterfly switch failures -
| Apple Maps was garbage upon first release - Ping was 13
| years ago, but it was one of those things that everyone
| knew was doomed to fail - The trashcan Mac Pro was not
| really made for professionals. I don't remember many
| selling.
| ign0ramus wrote:
| Thanks for replying! I hadn't heard of half of the items
| on this list which I think kind of proves GP's point.
| stirlo wrote:
| Sales flops:
|
| iPod HiFi iPhone 5C HomePod
|
| And engineering failures:
|
| Trashcan Mac Pro Airpower
|
| There's not many but there are a few.
|
| I don't see this as one of them. The only thing thats an
| issue is the price. The tech looks streets ahead of
| everyone else. With time the price will come down and the
| features will grow like all Apple products.
| canadianfella wrote:
| [dead]
| xu_ituairo wrote:
| Have there really been many failed Apple products since
| Steve's return? As many failures as wins?
|
| There were failures during Apple's 80s/90s struggles but not
| many come to mind in recent decades.
| [deleted]
| captainbland wrote:
| Probably be a little wary on just doing a casual visual
| inspection. There's a wide range of airpod knockoffs at this
| point which are much cheaper but look almost identical at least
| at first glance.
| Oddskar wrote:
| > People said the M1 Pros were overpriced
|
| Yeah but most _people_ aren 't paying for those: their
| employers are.
|
| I don't think many employers are going to buy such an expensive
| tool.
| ajkjk wrote:
| What? Millions of people have personal laptops that are M1+
| Macbooks. For people who can afford it and aren't Linux
| people, why would you buy anything else?
|
| (well some people have issues with buying things from Apple
| and I don't blame them but Microsoft is busy making Windows
| as unappealing as possible so Apple wins for me)
| sportslife wrote:
| I can't get over how badly MacOS works with external
| monitors; I have a fiddly 5ish minute Mac boot cycle
| process somedays because there it just refuses to output
| anything.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| FWIW, that's really not the usual macOS experience with
| external monitors, and you should try doing standard
| connectivity troubleshooting like replacing the cable,
| etc.
|
| I've been using multiple monitors (more than 1
| simultaneously) with Macs forever; the experience has
| gotten smoother with the Apple Silicon Macs, but it
| worked OK on Intel, and PowerPC before that, and the old
| classic Macs before that.
| dilyevsky wrote:
| Something is wrong with your monitor or your mac port or
| hopefully the cable. My m1 pro and air work perfectly
| with lg 5k display
| zebnyc wrote:
| The pace of renewal / refurbishment for work related and
| personal may not have the same frequency for most folks.
| Work laptops updated every 3 years approximately (at least
| in tech). Personal use may be 5-12 years. I bought a
| Macbook Pro in 2012 for myself. The next personal purchase
| I made was 2022 when I bought the mac mini. For everything
| else I used the computer which was given to me at work.
| swores wrote:
| Depends very much on the person and the company, I've
| known many people in similar situations as you, but also
| many people (in business, rarely roles like developers)
| stuck on old, slow work laptops - even managers in
| companies like Dell - while having shiny new personal
| devices they'd bought themselves (and would, if their
| company allowed them, use those for work where possible -
| ofc companies like Dell that's a no-go, but many smaller
| companies are happy when their employees work on their
| own more expensive and more productive computer).
| Oddskar wrote:
| Do you really need me to spell it out for you?
| * Can't afford it * Don't like MacOS * Don't
| like the hardware * Want a repairable device *
| Want a upgradeable device
|
| Etc, etc. Plenty of reasons.
| the_mar wrote:
| Who doesn't like macos? Like it is objectively better
| than windows, and is able to actually work decently
| without set up pain (like linux)
|
| Who doesn't like the hardware? Now that the butterfly
| keyboard and dongles are gone, what is there to hate?
|
| What is unrepairable about macbooks? It's not an iphone,
| i ve replaced hard drives, fans and other components on a
| macbook countless times.
|
| Who really wants an upgradable laptop? I'd give you
| desktop perhaps, but with laptops i struggle to see the
| usecase
|
| The things you don't actually mention, that certain
| software doesn't run on mac (ironically used by mechies
| and industrial designers).
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| I don't like Macos. Windows without games and Linux
| without deep customisation, variety of choice, and
| visibility. It's not bad, just useless to me. It only
| runs well on very specific, overpriced, unrepairable
| hardware too. Lame.
|
| The hardware is okay, but overrated, there are far
| sturdier laptops, especially for protecting the display.
|
| The only macbook I ever had had soldered on RAM. Even the
| PS4 has a replaceable HDD. Being able to replace the
| storage is not impressive, it's table stakes. I want a
| laptop for which every sub-board is replacable(without
| soldering or a heat gun) so I can repair it indefinitely.
| Apple also have more expensive parts. This counts as less
| repairability to me.
|
| I want an upgradable laptop because I like laptops. And I
| like fast laptops even more. Upgrading the laptop instead
| of replacing it means less money spent on parts I don't
| need to replace, meaning I can either save money or spend
| more on performance.
| dboreham wrote:
| Raising my hand because I detest macos.
| [deleted]
| sureglymop wrote:
| Consider that there are also many people who won't even
| consider that. I'm saying having that opinion or knowing
| those differences about operating system and devices is
| already a specific somewhat invested subset of people.
| Many people literally only know windows and office and
| haven't even used a Mac.
| matsemann wrote:
| I hate MacOS. I've used it as my daily OS for over three
| years, and never "grew to like it" (as everyone said,
| "just give it time"). I feel like a kid when using it,
| everything is hidden away to look fancy instead of
| usable.
|
| The hardware is okay, I guess. I envy the M1 chips. But I
| don't like the keyboard layout (even after 3 years it
| feels off..), or how they've for years not have included
| necessary ports so it's a dongle-show. I also don't like
| the value per dollar of their hardware. If my employer
| pays it's fine, but I wouldn't pay the Apple tax myself.
|
| I'm not here to start a flame war. Just to point out that
| you speak as if your preferences are a global truth, but
| plenty disagree.
| the_overseer wrote:
| And yet somehow Apple is one of the most profitable
| companies in the world. You wouldn't know that by
| visiting HN where everybody says that they can't "grow to
| like macos" etc etc. Obviously you are in the minority.
| People buy macbooks in droves.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| >Obviously you are in the minority
|
| Non-Apple laptop users are in the minority? You sure
| about that?
| ztrww wrote:
| > Who doesn't like macos?
|
| It's buggy AF and Apple is dumbing down the UX/UI every
| year and customization options are almost non existent.
|
| Also compared to Windows multi-display support is thrash,
| no window snapping (?!) and Windows seems to be generally
| more stable.
| sensanaty wrote:
| Mac/MacOS is piping hot garbage, I have one through work
| and I only ever use it as a 4th screen (aka Slack and
| Email machine) to the left of my actual work setup, since
| the thing shits itself whenever you try working with more
| than a single extra screen connected.
|
| When forced to use it due to being in office or whatever
| I just ssh into my home setup & control it through
| Parsec, every time I have to actually use the thing I get
| the urge to toss it out of a window
| mft_ wrote:
| A laptop that can't be upgraded likely also can't be
| fixed by the user. I'd like a realistically user-fixable
| laptop - especially as I (unfortunately) bought a 2017 MB
| Pro which has had a screen failure, a prematurely dying
| battery, and the well-known butterfly keyboard issues.
| Oddskar wrote:
| I like Apple. I'm find this new release quite cool. But
| you fanboys are a bit much. Sigh.. guess I'm going to do
| this.
|
| > Who doesn't like macos? Like it is objectively better
| than windows, and is able to actually work decently
| without set up pain (like linux)
|
| Not really objectively better any more, no. With WSL2
| developing on Windows is actually pretty darn great. It's
| the best of both worlds: first party support of most
| applications and devices that I care about, and a really
| good OS for development.
|
| > Who doesn't like the hardware?
|
| Overall Macbooks are almost unbeatable with e.g. the
| screens or sound for instance. But I still find the port
| selection to be baffling. It's been many, many years
| since the release of USB-C and I _still_ need USB-A
| ports.
|
| I also really do not like the sharp edges on the new
| Macbooks. They're visually appealing, sure. But if I'm on
| a train and they're cutting into my wrists it's not
| great.
|
| > What is unrepairable about macbooks? It's not an
| iphone, i ve replaced hard drives, fans and other
| components on a macbook countless times.
|
| Aha, please try "replacing your hard drive" in your new
| Macbook.
|
| Also the attitude and track record of Apples behavior
| towards repair shops is abysmal.
|
| > Who really wants an upgradable laptop? I'd give you
| desktop perhaps, but with laptops i struggle to see the
| usecase
|
| You just said you have "replaced hard drives, fans and
| other components on a macbook countless times" so I
| struggle a bit with this one.
|
| In general it's a good idea to make devices last longer.
| Y'know, with the planet being almost being on fire since
| we're over-consuming? No?
| tesin wrote:
| Yeah, I loathe it. I use Linux (of all stripes), Windows,
| android etc. So it's not brand loyalty. The UX is trash.
| celeritascelery wrote:
| I found it a little funny that they had a doctor on explaining
| about their new feature to keep the screen farther from your face
| to reduce eye strain and myopia, then proceed to release a device
| where is the screen is right in front of your eyes.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| this represent a persistent and common misunderstanding of how
| VR optics works. VR is good for your eyes because the focal
| point is actually quite far away. Hence why you still need
| corrective lenses to use it if you are short sighted. It's a
| lot better than staring at a close up screen.
| trafficante wrote:
| Who else noticed that none of the presenters were actually
| wearing the device they were unveiling?
|
| Best case scenario is they didn't want to monkey around awkwardly
| with fit and adjustment. But even in that case, wasn't the whole
| thing pre-recorded anyways?
|
| My hunch (combined with the 2024 release date) is that this thing
| isn't fully baked yet.
| marricks wrote:
| Meta has a social network, but they don't really have an
| electronic ecosystem connecting them. Mac has a social network
| (anyone with an iPhone arguable) and an operating system. This
| might give them the edge needed in integration to do well.
|
| Additionally, apple fan boys will pay a few grand for a high end
| device. So the whole "glasshole" issue from Google will be less
| of a thing. It's easier to see where they are coming from here is
| what I'm saying.
|
| I think the nay sayers sure have reasonable nays to say, but I
| can see how it'll be popular to Apple's core "creative pro with
| pro level pocket change." Growing beyond that is definitely
| anyones guess and needs a "VisionLite"
| jakobdabo wrote:
| I think wearing such a massive thing on your head is a dead end.
| It may become a niche product for professionals (as the price and
| "Pro" in the name suggest), but it's not practical for everyday
| casual use.
|
| Is it still out of the reach from the current state of art in
| technology for a thin client, not much heaver than sunglasses -
| just the visual component and some simple circuit to receive the
| signal from an iPhone?
| magpi3 wrote:
| This may be an age thing (it is probably an age thing), but the
| picture of a smiling woman with a VR headset on completely
| detached from reality looks dystopian as hell to me. And it is
| being advertised as something I would actually want.
| tabulatouch wrote:
| I love the "spatial" term, it was in the air..
|
| https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/s-arcade-first-spatial-au...
|
| My bet, or wishful thinking, is that lower-fi spatial augmented
| experiences can be more fun and engaging when "shared" with our
| senses. Maybe also cheaper :D
| anonymousiam wrote:
| The facetime video shows the faces of the people she's online
| with, but they will not be able to see her face while she's
| wearing the "spacial computer", unless it generates a fake avatar
| for them.
| jusonchan81 wrote:
| I use Meta Quest 2 on an average around an hour a day - workouts,
| Netflix, Youtube etc. I am really excited but Vision Pro, but
| $3500 is a bit too high for me.
|
| I am now eagerly waiting for what Meta Quest 3 has in store for
| us. I'll just upgrade to that for now and will wait for Vision
| Pro cost to come down.
| collenjones wrote:
| Yep. I'm planning the same thing.
| koromak wrote:
| If the virtual screens feel as good as my 4K external monitors,
| then I'm in 100%.
|
| Theres a good chance they won't though.
| Demmme wrote:
| Porn.
|
| Perfect for porn.
|
| Honestly could be a deal breaker for porn.
|
| Just no clue if I will ever shelf out 3.5k for porn.
|
| But it's perfect for porn.
|
| Otherwise holy shit if this is taking of in any relevant capacity
| I will eat a broom.
|
| And it looks even weirder than I thought.
|
| It looks like a really interesting piece of technology while also
| looking tremendously weird.
|
| It's like a gold dagger pearcing to my dream of ever having a
| cool at/vr future ever.
| mikece wrote:
| "Reliving the memories closest to your heart -- that you
| apparently recorded with this thing over your face."
|
| Seriously though: if this takes off I can see specially designed
| video capture devices/cameras for recording events like weddings
| (and other significant life events) meant for consumption on an
| Apple Vision Pro (and captured in higher quality than the cameras
| and lenses in the Apple Vision Pro).
| abracadaniel wrote:
| I fully expect iPhone pros to start having the 3d camera in the
| next gen or 2
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| If apple really believed this were a revolutionary product they
| would have done the entire keynote with every presenter wearing
| and using the device. The fact they didn't is a major tell...
|
| This thing has sunk cost fallacy written all over it and I'll be
| shocked if it even makes it to a version 2 of the device. They
| likely had so much time and talent engaged in the creation of it
| over the last few years that they feared it would be more of a
| demoralizing and attrition inducing event to kill it before
| launch vs. quietly abandon it afterwards.
|
| I'm just starring slackjawed at their press photos of people
| using it and thinking if that's the absolute best they can make
| this thing look it is completely DOA with normal people.
| Nevermind all the usability issues that are sure to exist with
| strapping goggles to your face and head for hours at a time.
| homarp wrote:
| https://slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releases-i...
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| If you recall Steve Jobs was actually wearing and using the
| iPod when he announced it.
|
| This AR device is so shoddy and weird looking I'm certain
| Jobs would have binned the whole project the first time he
| saw it in prototype.
| homarp wrote:
| kind of... he had it in his pocket:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kN0SVBCJqLs
|
| but Steve is a showman and Tim is coordinator.
| it_citizen wrote:
| They announced a product that is a year away and dedicated
| almost an hour to it, stretching the entire conference to two
| hours.
|
| They are definitely not burying it.
| the_mar wrote:
| No? That would make a very shitty demo since you are looking at
| it on a 2D screen.
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| No I mean every apple leader on stage would have been wearing
| this device as they presented their part of the program (even
| parts unrelated to the headset).
| m3kw9 wrote:
| This is not the reason people will or will not buy this.
| Contrary to it, they'd be called idiots for wearing it for
| nothing, as they are the ones seeing it inside
| [deleted]
| londons_explore wrote:
| Sometimes new and soon to be very popular things have a seriously
| negative response here in HN initially.
|
| Think of Snapchat. I'm sure everyone in tech would have said
| 'nah, there is no market for a messaging app where all messages
| disappear after 15 seconds'.
|
| And yet only a year or so later it was sending more photos than
| any other platform.
|
| Apples product might be the same.
| graypegg wrote:
| That's the usual refrain isn't it? You can apply "remember how
| everyone said X wasn't useful?" to almost anything.
|
| Honestly I think this will be pretty middle of the road. Apple
| Watch started off with a general market, and pivoted to
| health/fitness.
|
| I could totally see them readjusting as time goes on into
| whatever people start using it for. But it'll be a niche. I
| think the "it's for everyone" marketing from today is a way to
| gauge who really is their target market, not the market itself.
| gnicholas wrote:
| It would be amazing if the downward-facing cameras could be used
| for 'typing' on a phantom keyboard. It would be weird to do so
| without tactile feedback, but it would make it possible to be
| productive anywhere, without having to bring a keyboard along.
| I'm sure that someone will come up with some sort of alternate
| text input method, given that Siri is not great at speech-to-
| text, and speaking out loud is terrible for privacy.
| ripvanwinkle wrote:
| IMO what makes Apple different and more likely to succeed than
| Meta is that they are pursuing more concrete scenarios like
| viewing content in a more immersive environment or spinning up a
| large viewing surface where you may have none .
|
| Meta's problem is this focus around social interactions which
| just isn't taking hold apart from a niche audience of
| enthusiasts. Having tried the Quest Pro, if Meta pursued the
| remote office collaboration scenario more vigorously which is
| really quite promising and multiple desktop monitor replacement
| they would do a lot better
|
| The obvious drawback with the Apple device is price and it's
| going to have challenges with traction. The enterprise would be a
| good place to start but that doesn't seem to be Apple's forte
| oezi wrote:
| I think you are absolutely right. The Vision Pro presentation
| was the first time that I could consider watching a movie or
| sports in VR. Making that screen really big but also embedding
| you into an environment focused on the show was great to see.
| Dimming the room or giving it a Star Wars theme is very nice.
|
| It shows that they really considered what you can do with the
| device more than all the others.
| cjohnson318 wrote:
| Yeah, I haven't bought/used any AR/VR devices before, but I'm
| excited about a device that will offer seamless interaction
| with the rest of my Apple devices.
|
| > pursuing more concrete scenarios like viewing content in a
| more immersive environment
|
| 100%. I'm not into playing video games or watching TV, so their
| focus on real world things really appealed to me.
|
| It's a huuuge price tag, but I'm psyched.
| RandallBrown wrote:
| This was maybe my biggest complaint about the Quest 2. I
| would get a text message or notification on my phone. I could
| feel it vibrate in my pocket or on my wrist, but I couldn't
| actually see it unless I took the headset off.
| 76SlashDolphin wrote:
| On the other hand, Meta are very very good at acquiring key
| companies for their ambitions. My Quest 2 is a Beat Saber
| machine and everything else that comes with it is icing on the
| cake.
| cwkoss wrote:
| Meta just isn't very good at building software that users want.
| They've been optimizing for advertisers and stockholders
| instead for the past decade.
|
| Really a shame that Oculus got acquired by them.
| mupuff1234 wrote:
| Doesn't even come with a controller, which I assume will
| eventually come out and will cost 100$+
| cdme wrote:
| This whole product category feels like a solution in search of a
| problem.
| stuff4ben wrote:
| This really blows whatever it was that Zuck and Meta were doing
| out of the water and into outer space! This is light-years more
| game-changing than the metaverse and old VR. Only drawback is the
| price, but I'm sure a non-pro will be released at a cheaper price
| point.
| chrbr wrote:
| I was thinking the same thing. I know the price points are
| _way_ different between what Apple 's putting forward and what
| Meta was shipping, but Apple's vision and tech here blows
| Meta's out of the water. Meta seemed to be approaching the
| problem with an iterative approach, where the payoff in vision
| was down the road, and wanted consumers to share the journey to
| get there - whereas Apple jumped all the way to the end.
| [deleted]
| mciancia wrote:
| Interesting, in terms of resolution:
|
| PS VR2: 2000 x 2040, so ~4Mpix per eye
|
| Quest pro: 1800 x 1920 pixels per eye, so ~3.5Mpx per eye
|
| Vision pro: "The custom micro-OLED display system features 23
| million pixels" So 11.5Mpix per eye, assuming similar aspect
| ratio (1:1) resolution ~3400x3400
|
| Probably there is more then resolution to this, but still, seems
| impressive
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| blitztime wrote:
| Incredible the amount of new tech that goes into this device.
| Still seems pretty niche and I'm skeptical about how good the
| controls will be.
| illuminati1911 wrote:
| The price is so insane and outrageous that this will be pretty
| much 101% failure.
|
| It's essentially iOS app browser inside Oculus Quest like glasses
| + Disney garbage content. Hard to see even value for 1000 USD
| price tag.
| wongarsu wrote:
| A Valve Index will run you $1000, for less resolution and no
| onboard computing. Lenovo has $1700 AR glasses. Both of these
| seem like much better comparison points than a budget product
| like the Oculus Quest.
| adamwk wrote:
| I always consider V1 Apple products like kickstarters funded by
| Apple whales
| travisgriggs wrote:
| I think this is very point on. This is not the sweet spot on
| the supply demand curve that maximizes the units sold * price
| per unit. But at this point in time, that's not actually what
| Apple would want/need with this new "innovation". They need a
| limited set of people who are zealous enough to jump in at
| that price, and help refine the product. Apple gets feedback
| and a publicity that will be biased positively. "Let's drop
| 3500+ and then pan this thing" will not fit the majority of
| reviewers. But "I spent discretionary money that you
| didn't/don't have and I want you to know it, and I'm
| certainly going to paint it as a wise first mover type
| experience" is more likely. People who pay more for seats at
| a game, always make a bigger deal about how awesome the game
| was.
| frou_dh wrote:
| Even once this is released, it's going to take a while for the OS
| and applications to find their groove. So rich people will
| essentially be paying to beta test this.
|
| Probably going to be unequivocally awesome 3 years from now
| though.
| rumori wrote:
| I feel this is the point where they have to heavily rely on the
| developers and possibly give out devices to developers to
| experiment like they did with the Apple TV. It's a huge risk for
| an indie dev to buy and bet on, it will be really interesting to
| see how they approach this.
| sylens wrote:
| This headset is without a doubt an order of magnitude above
| things like the Meta Quest Pro, but even with that increase in
| power, UI, hardware, etc - I'm not sure they have really figured
| out the "why" for it quite yet.
|
| The biggest tell is the fact that the battery pack is going to
| give you only two hours of use. Part of the appeal of a headset
| being AR instead of VR is that I can use it while out and about
| to add context and value to what I am seeing. The battery is a
| major limitation that will keep its use squarely at home or in
| the office, where it essentially is just another monitor (or set
| of monitors).
| codq wrote:
| Perhaps, but my sense is you can hot swap the battery while
| using the device, instantly getting back to 100% charge.
| Inelegant, but solves the battery problem.
| marricks wrote:
| So many technologies Apple has launched in the past 5 years
| seemed nifty & weird but were all being built to lead up to this:
|
| - Spatial Audio - Is any one a huge fan of this? It doesn't
| matter a ton outside of AR but matters greatly within it
|
| - Side Car - mirroring to a local apple device. It's useful as a
| second monitor but... mirroring your iPad or MacBook into VR and
| typing on it. Super useful.
|
| - FaceID - is it really better than using your finger to unlock?
| I think it is now but it wasn't initially... This face scanning
| tech is an entry point into the whole "face as an avatar"
| integration into their ecosystem. Also keeping a secure local
| image of your face on device.
|
| - Separating a subject from scene used live in iPhone "portrait"
| view and in photos to clip out w/ neural engine - sure that's
| fun, but in AR this is a lot more useful for presenter view they
| showed.
|
| That's off the top of my head. This totally could fail but piece
| by piece Apple has been building and trying out the tech for this
| in their ecosystem. If it fails, it won't be because of a buggy
| ecosystem.
|
| Actually, I still find side car buggy so it definitely could/will
| be buggy, but, it is a broad integration and feature set they've
| been working towards for a while.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| I can't wait for more 3D photography - I bet an iPhone in the
| near future is going to support stereocameras somehow so that
| even pictures you take off the headset will be 3d. And I bet
| they're going to have more ways to view them without the
| headset.
| okwubodu wrote:
| I made a similar comment almost a year ago and it seems like
| it's panning out nicely:
|
| > "Apple has been testing overengineered features that are
| suspiciously well suited for AR in broad daylight for a few
| years now. If they can't pull it off, I don't think anyone
| can."
|
| They've reached a stage where outpacing the field is just a
| matter of reaching into their grab bag of miscellaneous
| technologies.
| LegitShady wrote:
| I've never heard such breathless praise of nonsense before.
| every vr headset has had spatial audio. mirroring a desktop to
| vr has been doable on vive or oculus for years and years.
| faceid literally has nothing to do with this vr headset. etc
| etc.
| mft_ wrote:
| Maybe add the 3D scanner on the back of the Pro iPhones (and
| some iPads?) to your list? It's cool, but I never understood
| why they bothered, especially as they barely supported it with
| their own software.
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _Spatial Audio - Is any one a huge fan of this?_
|
| Gigantic fan. Listening to music or movies/TV on headphones
| without it seems almost painful now -- I sound like I'm
| exaggerating but I'm not.
|
| Once you get used to audio always sounding like it's coming
| from outside of your head, going back to non-spatial audio that
| seems like it's emanating from inside of your head is jarring
| and positively claustrophobic.
|
| And nobody's as surprised as me to find myself typing something
| like that. I always imagined it would just be a gimmick, but at
| least on the AirPods it's anything but. And it wasn't until the
| "Spatialize Stereo" toggle appeared recently that it worked
| with _everthing_ , like regular tracks on Spotify.
| shepherdjerred wrote:
| I switched from Spotify just for spatial audio
| lagrange77 wrote:
| Are there any further infos on the R1 chip? I guess it will be
| some kind of DSP, maybe along with some machine learning
| accelerator HW.
| illuminati1911 wrote:
| 3499. Could this finally be the turning point and beginning of
| collapse of Apple?
| threeseed wrote:
| Apple won't have the supply chain to make this a consumer
| product for years.
|
| So it makes no sense to price it at $399.
| replygirl wrote:
| It's just disappointing when we know they can easily afford
| to go Fairchild and hit $2k to help commoditize it a little
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| I don't think this is a revolution but it might be a good
| enough improvement over existing/previous XR devices.
|
| It certainly seems better than Microsoft Hololens. Basically
| the same idea but with higher end hardware and more refined.
|
| This does not look like to be a turning point either way, it is
| priced out of mass market adoption, but it will be an
| interesting toy for many.
| whartung wrote:
| Into an ecosystem where people buy a $1000 watch, $1000 phone,
| $200 earphones, and a $2000 computer.
|
| There is absolutely a market for this, the demo experiences are
| extraordinary.
|
| I have no idea what the Meta experience is like, but even in
| ignorance, it's not like what this thing is doing.
|
| They were correct in saying this is something only Apple can
| do.
|
| There are a lot of isolated technophiles with money to burn to
| put into something like this. The idea of lifting your mac into
| space with nothing but a keyboard and mouse in front of you
| alone is enough for many to pop for this. Talk about bringing
| your office into the local Starbucks, this moves it to the next
| level.
| fsloth wrote:
| A high end VR/XR display like Varjo does feel like a new ux
| paradigm _if_ the device has low latency and high resolution
| and good software. Given how long Apple has been at this I
| would bet they've come up with something that is of expected
| quality.
|
| Some of the stuff on display felt gimmicky, but I would imagine
| as bare minimum there are lot of people who are happy to have a
| private huge 4k screen they can move anywhere.
| bsaul wrote:
| for purely professional usage, it's still fine. But it'll
| remain quite niche.
| throwaway4good wrote:
| We didn't get the car but we got the price tag.
| smoldesu wrote:
| No. But it's an outrageous price for a redundant product that
| most people will not purchase. I don't see any meaningful
| market leverage for Apple here relative to Meta - if the
| selling point for this is "experiences, plus iPhone apps" then
| everyone with an iPhone will get a Quest or similar and save a
| few thousand bucks.
| just-ok wrote:
| I suppose if you think of it as a high-end MacBook Pro +
| display, it's an easier pill to swallow.
| bunga-bunga wrote:
| I'll believe it when I see Xcode running on the thing. Plus I
| would not want to be seen around wearing that thing.
| ChildOfChaos wrote:
| It might be, but you still need the MacBook Pro if you want
| to use this as a Mac. So this is just the display, that can
| access some iPad apps.
|
| Although I still think it's pretty awesome, need to give it a
| few years and see the price come down and a few versions
| later, this tech will be very interesting in the 5-10 year
| time space, what a crazy time that is going to be with AI and
| all this stuff.
| illuminati1911 wrote:
| Of course if we lie to ourselves. It's just an iOS app
| browser inside Oculus Quest like product + Disney content.
| datatrashfire wrote:
| Too expensive. It's giant and obtrusive. This will be a niche
| product for the Apple die hards. It will not reach mainstream
| acceptance.
| arnaudsm wrote:
| Imagine if you could plug this to your desktop dock and use it
| like a Mac Mini. It would be the ultimate multimodal workstation,
| and justify its price easily.
| nblgbg wrote:
| The one unintended effect is that the apps may charge extra for
| supporting this! For example, Disney+ or the NBA may charge extra
| $$ for supporting this device!
|
| Also, everyone is assuming that it's powerful enough to run the
| development environment. We need to wait until Apple releases the
| specs.
| NickC25 wrote:
| Neat. I won't buy one any time soon, but it looks cool and
| knowing Apple, they will iterate like hell on this platform over
| the years and hopefully the price will eventually come down to a
| more reasonable point like $2k-2.5k.
|
| In 3-5 years down the line, though, this will really start to
| take off. The Vision Pro 2 or Vision Pro 3 will be a game
| changer.
|
| Some of the features are quite useful, though.
| patwolf wrote:
| I'm usually a fan of shiny new things, but this might be the
| first time I'll make an intentional effort to not buy something.
| I expect it's going to be fantastic, and using it for my
| development workstation would be amazing. However, I feel like
| this will be a net negative for humankind.
|
| My kids will plead with me to get them one, and it will be easy
| to say no because it's so expensive. But with each successive
| generation it will get better and cheaper until I can no longer
| use cost as an excuse. My kids will explain to me that they have
| no way to interact with their friends because they all use it.
| I'm already dreading it.
| spideymans wrote:
| Apple says kids younger than 13 shouldn't use the product.
| Another excuse for you :)
| l33tbro wrote:
| For now.
|
| Think it's pretty reasonable to assume these things become
| integrated with childhood over time in the same way other
| screens have.
| pityJuke wrote:
| > However, I feel like this will be a net negative for
| humankind.
|
| The sinking feeling hit me too.
|
| I'm well aware of how my usage of computers and technology,
| despite how well they've served me professionally, have
| absolutely caused me to be a more isolated human being.
| Spending times on online forums were fun... but frankly, I
| shouldn't've been hanging out there, and instead been
| developing my social skills with my peers.
|
| But now having conversations with others while my AI eyes
| signal to them that I am totally listening?
|
| Sitting in an empty room watching a TV? Or worse, sitting in a
| room with someone else, both of us strapped up with a headset
| to watch something, which we have to sync through the internet.
|
| I mean, one of the demos was a parent sitting with one of these
| things strapped to their face so they could record a 3D Video
| of their kids. Instead of, you know, being with their kids.
|
| VR/AR was already here, but now Apple have made it real. Not
| looking forward to this.
| ericzawo wrote:
| I don't want the face computer.
| StillBored wrote:
| From someone who ignored the iphone because I didn't think it was
| going to be a big deal and hopefully learned a lesson.
|
| OTOH, 12 milliseconds in the AR mode doesn't sound fast to me.
| I'm not in this space as other than a past oculus owner, but that
| is 8 frames of latency at 60hz. I thought that the best devices
| were much less these days.
| darzu wrote:
| 60hz is 16.7ms per frame. How are you getting 8?
| [deleted]
| simse wrote:
| You get 8 if you think there's 100 milliseconds in a second.
| fred256 wrote:
| Unless I misunderstand, it's less than a frame at 60 Hz (= 16.7
| ms per frame).
| modeless wrote:
| 12ms is 1 frame of latency at 90 Hz.
| 037 wrote:
| [dead]
| gslaller wrote:
| Disney did a better job of demonstrating the Vision Pro's ability
| than apple. This is obviously going to be a hit, and by gen 3 -
| 4(with a ton a immersive apps) it might by trailing behind
| iPhone.
| wildpeaks wrote:
| They shouldn't have revealed the price today, it would have
| afforded them more time to build hype around features and in-
| person demos (and to give themselves a chance to reduce the price
| before release).
| allenu wrote:
| The high price tag is interesting from a strategy perspective.
| It feels like they wanted to start super high to really test
| the market and give themselves an out if it doesn't succeed for
| a long time.
|
| Each year that they keep the price high, it can be used as an
| excuse for the lack of uptake, should it not succeed. If they
| ever exit the space, they can always announce that it was too
| difficult to make it work at lower price points, instead of
| "people just weren't interested in an AR headset".
| rTX5CMRXIfFG wrote:
| There's a lot of impressive technology in the device but I'm not
| convinced that it's going to be as popular as the iPhone. Even
| the Watch has a smaller market than the iPhone--I think this one
| is even smaller than the Watch.
|
| Perhaps if they made a lighter version that people could take
| outdoors and quickly take photos/videos with for sharing in
| social media (i.e. something to compete with Snap's Spectacles),
| then it'd be easier to see more popular adoption. They wouldn't
| really be innovating, though, and I'm not even excited by the
| idea of being surrounded by people who wear such glasses whenever
| I am outdoors.
| vivegi wrote:
| This is probably going to be even less successful than the Apple
| watch in terms of adoption. $3.5k for a personal device --
| perhaps it will capture a niche. Genre defining like the iPod or
| iPhone, this isn't going to be.
| yvsong wrote:
| AirPods Max synthetic fabric is not comfortable to touch face.
| Hope Vision Pro has more comfortable materials. Many big
| headphones have comfortable velour or leather ear pads. It's also
| better for the pads to be replaceable.
| FinnKuhn wrote:
| This seems very promising by being based on already existing
| experiences (support for iPhone and iPad Apps). Considering all
| the other features the price of 3499$ doesn't seem to crazy,
| especially because it can replace all of your monitors, TV and
| more while also enabling entirely new experiences for basically
| the same price.
| matsemann wrote:
| For the FaceTime calling to make sense, you have to be the only
| one actually using this product. If everyone in the call is
| wearing this, you're basically talking with avatars..
| gomjabbar wrote:
| The avatar is supposed to be lifelike, captured from the lidar
| camera...we'll see though
| turingfeel wrote:
| I think the avatar they demoed was somewhat lifelike to put
| it very generously.
| stellalo wrote:
| If there's a company that can make the VR/AR headset thingy fly,
| that is Apple. I'm not sure it will fly (I'm skeptical) but I'm
| happy that we will finally find out.
| bmcclure wrote:
| Ooof, the price point on this is killer ($3500). Will need to
| have some major differentiating features to justify that pricing
| compared to a Quest 3.
|
| I know they are fundamentally different (Quest having roots in VR
| but also enabling passthrough AR and Vision Pro focusing on AR
| ala Microsoft HoloLens) but hard to chew on that price!
| joexner wrote:
| But is it _advanced_ enough?
| wildpeaks wrote:
| They shouldn't have revealed the price today, it would have
| afforded them more time to build hype around features and in-
| person demos (and to give themselves a chance to reduce the price
| before release).
|
| Now it's going to kill interest in the device before it's even
| out.
| gowld wrote:
| This could be the new Nexus Q.
| sourcecodeplz wrote:
| $3500 and you have to carry a weird battery around. The Oculus is
| so much better.
| nickpinkston wrote:
| I'm betting that even Apple can't get this form factor to take
| off in mainstream use cases.
|
| Maybe in very niche cases, but there's a lot of dead bodies on
| the VR/AR hardware hill even there with Hololens, MagicLeap, etc.
|
| Then again Oculus sold like 20M units, so who knows...
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| Oculus sold a lot of users but most of them were used 0 or 1
| times.
|
| This product will need to be actually useful to take off, the
| early adopters need to rave about it to their friends.
| Presumably that's why Apple is targeting such a high price
| point at first, I'm sure they could remove half the cameras and
| use a worse CPU and end up with a device that sort of works,
| but first impressions matter.
| l33t233372 wrote:
| I highly doubt many Oculus devices were sold that were used 0
| times.
| nickpinkston wrote:
| I used my Quest 3 like twice and forgot to sell / gift it.
| It's a pretty big problem, but I'm unsure the distribution.
| w10-1 wrote:
| The underlying tech is amazing, as is the design.
|
| Augmented reality is a much harder problem than virtual reality.
|
| Have they defeated cybersickness?
|
| Possibly, in part due to only 12ms latency from outside camera to
| display. The neurological visual latency is about 100ms, but
| there are many drivers to cybersickness[1].
|
| fovea-centric resolution: improve not the whole screen, but the
| area seen by the retina's fovea, which has much higher resolution
| (and attention). I can see how the R2 processor schedule could
| prioritize what you're actually looking at relative to the rest
| of the UI.
|
| Is it weird? The device projects the eyes and face out to others,
| so they can "interact" with you. It's telling that the ad places
| the user not in a business context, but making toast for kids,
| and interacting with a surprise soccer ball.
|
| Notwithstanding the "everyday" appeal of 3D games for play and
| minority-report displays for work, there are many, many specialty
| applications where this could be huge and $3,500 would be
| nothing.
|
| I wonder what their manufacturing runway is. It could take time
| to start selling millions of these units, but small lots can be
| really, really hard to justify.
|
| [1]
| https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frvir.2020.5822...
| activitypea wrote:
| 12ms puts it at about 90hz latency. I play games on a 144hz
| screen, and I can tell the difference between 90 and 144 hz,
| and that's on a bad screen at an arms length from my face
| that's definitely not trying to convince me I'm looking at
| reality.
|
| It'll probably be in the same ballpark as a good transparency
| mode on headphones -- close to indistinguishable in small
| bursts, but long term causes alienation/lack of presence.
| sinemetu11 wrote:
| So it's a big screen?
|
| The tech looks impressive, and I'm sure many people will buy it.
| I'm guessing they'll also shortly after find it as exciting as
| their phones...
| Hippocrates wrote:
| 3,500 seems SO worth it if this can be used to comfortably
| replace external displays for long periods of time.
|
| If I don't need external monitors, I don't need my large desk,
| and I don't need my home office, which adds like 100k to the
| price of any home I'd consider. I'd just work from a bedroom, a
| closet, or my deck if I had this.
|
| It would be amazing if I could use this to do more work outside,
| while benefitting from a larger screen without glare, even though
| "outside" might be watered down a bit. It would be excellent for
| nomading or work/entertainment from a hotel room.
|
| This could be a great way to regain some privacy and focus in an
| open office environment, plus be able to personalize your setup.
| A digital beach backdrop is better than seeing my coworker
| scratch his crusty scalp 2 feet in front of me.
|
| The benefits for air travel are obvious. People already swaddle
| themselves with large noise cancelling headphones and zany neck
| pillows. I don't think this would be weird plane at all. I'd kill
| for an immersive 4k display over craning at my phone or relying
| on flaky seatback entertainment.
| o_m wrote:
| I think I'll skip the first generation and wait for the
| resolution to become better. 4k is good for a 22" external
| monitor, but having 4k cover your field of vision will make
| have to move your eyes a lot for the text to look good.
| ricardobeat wrote:
| It's nearly 5k per eye. The Reverb G2 is only 2160x2160, a
| bit over 1/3rd of that pixel density and is already quite
| usable for coding, so I expect the Vision Pro to be well
| beyond "good enough" territory.
| Hippocrates wrote:
| Yeah I am curious to see how well this works in practice.
| Resolution and screen size is a delicate balance, and the
| face-mounted aspect of this throws conventional wisdom of
| what works well out the window.
| o_m wrote:
| Yeah, I'm definitely going to try it out in an Apple store
| but I don't have high hopes for anything text related. I'm
| also skeptical to the 12ms (83fps) refresh rate.
| rimeice wrote:
| > use this to do more work outside
|
| Can't wait for the Apple Vision Pro suntan.
| js2 wrote:
| It won't look too different from this:
|
| https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ski+goggle+tan&iar=images&iax=imag.
| ..
| lph wrote:
| > 3,500 seems SO worth it if this can be used to comfortably
| replace external displays
|
| Agreed, but that's a huge IF. The ergonomics problems with VR
| headsets are well documented - has Apple really managed to
| transcend them? I'm not gambling $3500 for a thing that
| probably ends up sitting in a drawer because it gives me neck
| cramps or eye strain or motion sickness.
|
| If Apple wants to drive adoption they need to lower that risk.
| A way to have a trial period or a one-week rental would help.
| lurker919 wrote:
| I'm pretty sure they would have had extensive trials for
| comfort and neck strain already.
| Terretta wrote:
| > _If I don 't need external monitors, I don't need my large
| desk, and I don't need my home office, which adds like 100k to
| the price of any home I'd consider._
|
| First thing my SO mentioned on seeing this was "wow, we can try
| more kinds of places to stay when we travel". Lots of VRBO /
| AirBnB can't work for remote work.
|
| This expands the inventory of WR options for less than the
| price difference of a week's stay.
| 1letterunixname wrote:
| Quest Pro does the exact same thing for 1/3 the price. It has
| all sorts of enterprise features and Microsoft is on-board with
| it.
| goolz wrote:
| Thank you for this! While yes, it is expensive and I do think a
| bit wild I would pay serious, serious money to migrate away
| from my home office.
|
| Ever since I began remote work I have been cooking up ways to
| code outside but the glare alone puts me off from it. I am a
| solo kind of person who enjoys media a ton and am already a
| huge fan of Apple's displays.
|
| I guess with all the naysayers here it makes me happy to see
| someone who understands the potential. This is awesome, and the
| first VR set I have wanted to purchase. The price is steep and
| I may even wait a generation. But if I had to bet, this will
| end up absurdly successful similar to all of their other recent
| home runs.
| ndesaulniers wrote:
| Hell you don't even have to get out of bed! Just lay there all
| day with this thing on your face and atrophy like in
| Surrogates.
| [deleted]
| paxys wrote:
| What kind of work are you going to do on this without a
| keyboard, mouse, and a laptop nearby for tethering? And if all
| those are still a requirement then you're back to being stuck
| on your desk.
| goolz wrote:
| Sure, for now perhaps. Do you really think Apple will not add
| those features?
| nomel wrote:
| As they demonstrated, Bluetooth accessories like a keyboard
| and mouse can be used. I basically did this, during the
| pandemic, with my Quest 2, a TV tray, and my MacBook sitting
| on the floor, next to me. I used my closet.
| ncr100 wrote:
| Making digital music - all the guitars and keyboard /
| sequencer machine stuff.
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| It supports wireless keyboard and a trackpad. For sure mouse
| is not a problem.
| sweetjuly wrote:
| Stuck at a desk, sure, but as it stands I need a pretty big
| desk to hold my ultrawide monitor while still having enough
| room to hold regular physical things like notebooks, test
| hardware, and other tools. Being able to ditch the monitor
| and work with just a small 13" laptop would make small desks
| more practical.
| samsolomon wrote:
| I've always thought the killer feature to get people to start
| using AR/VR wasn't games or social experiences, but just a bigger
| screen for web browsing, Excel, dashboards and a bunch of other
| boring software.
|
| Honestly, I'm not sure how Vision Pro product stacks up to what
| Apple says, but the marketing shows that Apple has clearly
| figured it out.
|
| > I was initially a skeptic of widespread adoption of VR. I'm not
| sure that it's going to be the next smartphone. However, if it
| gets more comfortable and the price point goes down, I could see
| it being a replacement for traditional desktop monitors. Instead
| of paying $1k for a 27-inch display you get as many large screens
| as you want. That seems probable to me.
|
| >
|
| > I know that sounds awfully boring and mundane, but that
| probably comes way before other applications. After all the
| original iPhone was just an iPod you could make calls with.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33358495
| [deleted]
| satysin wrote:
| For all the tech inside a device you can wear on your head it is
| quite impressive even for the $3499 price tag.
|
| I will hold off judgement until I can actually use one. While it
| certainly has some goofiness and kinda dystopian vibes in some of
| the demos shown it also has some very interesting use cases that
| could be something almost everyone uses day to day like the TV or
| computer.
|
| But who knows, predicting the future is hard :)
| jadbox wrote:
| but will it run VSCode? Or is this iOS apps locked?
| satysin wrote:
| Well they showed it being used as a display with macOS but I
| don't know if you can isolate an individual macOS app window
| and use it as such within the Vision Pro interface.
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| > Starts at $3499
|
| Thar she bloooows!
| [deleted]
| elfrinjo wrote:
| Well, we have seen something like this failing about six years
| ago. Let's see whether - there is a new killer-use-case or -
| technology has advanced enough to make it less cumbersome or -
| Apple can generate enough hype around it to make it work on its
| own.
| 1letterunixname wrote:
| Apple doesn't do enterprise or gaming.
|
| VR headsets is a "flying car" tech category: always around the
| corner, but unlikely to ever reach widespread adoption.
| duncan-donuts wrote:
| I think this looks cool as hell. The only thing that obviously
| sucks about it is how big it is. Admittedly I didn't really jump
| on the VR/AR hype train years ago so I don't know what's possible
| today. This headset gives me some serious uncanny valley vibes
| and kinda freaks me out which no other product in this space has
| ever done.
| krishna0902 wrote:
| a lot of things started with games :)
| rcconf wrote:
| Regardless of how well this product does, the presentation and
| vision from Apple was phenomenal. It was like watching a
| cinematic AAA movie, so exciting and inspiring. There has been no
| other company that has been able to present AR and VR in such a
| way that is so exciting.
|
| The augmented reality shifting to virtual with the dial is so
| genius. I feel like a kid, and that's rare to feel these days.
| Love it, dream on Apple!
| vonnik wrote:
| Looking at the demo through the link, the next step here is to
| translate whatever the dog is thinking into natural language.
| Would much rather get enriched reality than a 3D theater for my
| 2D screens. I'm sure that's coming eventually, maybe through an
| app store.
| nkotov wrote:
| I'm not exactly sure what the "aha moment" is for this compared
| to the iPhone launch. Don't get me wrong, it looks incredibly
| exciting and I love new shiny tech but the demo videos felt
| incredibly lonely and I can't really picture myself using this on
| a daily basis for hours. I have a Quest 2 that gets used once,
| perhaps twice a month for VR Chat or to entertain family/friends
| with Beatsaber. Once you played enough VR, you kind of get over
| it.
|
| It's like the iPad for me. When I want to get serious work done,
| I use a MacBook. For quick stuff, the iPhone is sufficient. The
| iPad then ends up being an entertainment device.
| comment_ran wrote:
| what a year to be alive!
| motoxpro wrote:
| As someone who travels for work, this is well worth 3500. To wear
| these on flights, in small hotel rooms, etc. is definitely a game
| changer. I have no use for video games so the Quest stuff with
| the controllers never made sense.
|
| I think people that complain about the price are anchoring on the
| Quest price, same as people who anchored on MP3 player prices
| when the iPod came out at 10x the price. Even if the Quest was
| $100 or $50, I wouldn't buy it because its just not useful.
|
| For sure I am an early adopter on this one, but as others have
| said, this is Gen 1. It will get cheaper, faster, smaller,
| better, last longer, have less bugs, etc. This is the way
| technology works. It makes progress.
|
| So many unfortunate maximalist (bigger than the iPhone moment) or
| doomer (this is pointless and always will be) takes here. I'm
| glad companies still take swings in the face of the way people
| respond here.
|
| EDIT: I don't see these as "metaverse" glasses or VR as much as a
| $3500 display which framed in that way is completely reasonable,
| it's $1000 cheaper than this https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-
| mac/pro-display-xdr
| kllrnohj wrote:
| > As someone who travels for work, this is well worth 3500. To
| wear these on flights, in small hotel rooms, etc. is definitely
| a game changer. I have no use for video games so the Quest
| stuff with the controllers never made sense.
|
| Eh? Things like watching videos on a flight were tried with
| Samsung Gear VR or Google Day Dream. It flopped. Want a virtual
| office on a flight? Well fire up Virtual Desktop on an Occulus
| today and you've got exactly that - no controller needed.
|
| On a flight something like Occulus' passthrough mode looks
| perfectly adequate - after all, the whole point in that
| scenario is to isolate not to socialize. So the plain/train/bus
| usage seems questionable, and do you really want to travel with
| something that bulky?
| motoxpro wrote:
| This is not the same experience
| https://youtu.be/74KInxQ8suI?t=208
|
| The low res, jerkiness, having to use controllers, etc.
| wether or not the apple experience is worth it is up to the
| person.
|
| I don't see these as "metaverse" glasses or VR/AR as much as
| a $3500 display.
| crakhamster01 wrote:
| FWIW, that's a 4 year old video. MKBHD's video of the quest
| pro:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jUIE2l_9ig8
| ImHereToVote wrote:
| But but but. Tim said that "Today marks the beginning of
| a new era for computing,"
| ncr100 wrote:
| "'Computing' is a trademarked word owned by Apple
| Computer Inc, Cuptertino California"
| frakkingcylons wrote:
| GearVR was a precursor to the Oculus Go, which was quite
| successful. It showed that lots of people wanted a device to
| watch media and user retention was pretty good:
|
| From Carmack's Oculus Connect 2018 talk:
|
| > With Oculus Go, about 80 percent of usage time has been for
| viewing "media" and only 20 percent for gaming.
|
| > Oculus Go and Rift are much "stickier," he says, with users
| that "come back... week to week and spend a lot of time in
| it."
|
| https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/09/carmack-oculus-
| quests...
| denlekke wrote:
| what's the virtual desktop on a plane situation you're
| describing ? i thought it needed airlink to a local computer
| or a really fast internet connection to a remote computer but
| maybe i'm not up to date
|
| if the vision pro gives me a laptop-mac experience in vr
| without needing a separate computer with me, that's a pretty
| compelling use case to me
| ncr100 wrote:
| You should be able to use the headset alone as a "ipad pro"
| experience, computing power.
|
| And you should be able to have your separate computer, with
| the lid closed, and it still be running, projecting its
| desktop inside the headset.
|
| (based upon today's videos)
| sdn90 wrote:
| Same use case for me.
|
| Laptops have terrible ergonomics it's near impossible to get
| proper posture while traveling.
|
| - Laptop stands help but introduce a new set of problems around
| the distance of the screen and keyboard height
|
| - Hard to find adjustable office chairs anywhere
|
| - If you're in a city where you're walking for hours a day,
| carrying a larger laptop gets tiring
| hollerith wrote:
| Sounds like you know that this new product weighs less than a
| large laptop.
| mahathu wrote:
| You're still gonna have to type on something.
| motoxpro wrote:
| A keyboard fits on the tray a lot easier than a laptop if
| youve never tried it.
| rcarr wrote:
| Might want to check out the Tap XR.
|
| https://www.tapwithus.com/product/tap-xr/
| zmmmmm wrote:
| I agree the simple monitor replacement use case is probably one
| of the best in terms of real world usefulness.
|
| But it's also the one that is most open to competition because
| it has no ecosystem link. There are already half a dozen
| alternatives at $400-$1k type range that give you virtual
| monitors. eg: the XReal Air [0]. It's interesting that even
| while they are generating some interest, it doesn't seem to me
| that AR glasses as monitors on their own are taking off yet in
| a mainstream way.
|
| So it's going to be a question of how much more it can add to
| that or do better than that. Is just branding it Apple enough?
| Maybe. But I feel like it needs at least something else than
| purely being a monitor to compete with the alternatives.
|
| [0] https://xreal.com/air/
| notJim wrote:
| Resolution information is conspicuously absent from this
| page.
| graypegg wrote:
| Really? On flights? That struck me as a... weird use case I
| could never be confident enough to do. Strapping something to
| your face, noise cancelling headphones in, you've become
| basically unapproachable for anyone around you. Is someone that
| needs to get past you going to awkwardly tap you on the
| shoulder and you either creepily turn over to them with your
| projected eyes staring back, or watch in awkward silence as you
| disentangle the headset + AirPod max combo. I hope you don't
| get the aisle seat!
| varenc wrote:
| The audio isn't noise cancelling. The speakers are on the
| strap right by your ears so you'll still hear everything else
| around you. If anything my concern on flights would be that
| someone next to me can hear my audio, not that I can't hear
| them. (but maybe you can also use AirPods)
|
| You can also adjust your "immersion level". As in, have the
| screen floating in front of you and still see the space
| around you, or have reality totally blanked out. Seems like
| at a low immersion level you'd have no problem turning to
| address someone trying to get your attention. The worst part
| might be how ridiculous you look talking to and addressing
| someone normally while wearing these. (though perhaps like
| the AirPods, the perception of it being a goofy look will
| fade with time)
| graypegg wrote:
| The immersion level is big, to be fair. Definitely good to
| be able to let the real world bleed in a bit.
|
| The presentation showed AirPods in the flight scene.
| Presumably noise canceling on for a flight.
| mrfishsticks wrote:
| They showed AirPods working with the headset on a flight
| during the presentation at one point.
| graypegg wrote:
| That's what I was referring to, the ecosystem pairing
| seems pretty tight so I could imagine that will be a
| common combo.
| savef wrote:
| This is no different to how many people behave on long haul
| flights anyway. Face mask on, eye mask on, ear plugs in.
| Isolated from everybody else as much as they can be, trying
| to sleep, and they manage it in isle seats.
|
| Also, I remember TotalBiscuit talking about using an Oculus
| headset to watch films on a plane and it being a better
| experience than the screen in front for him (I don't quite
| remember why). So it's not a new concept and this device just
| makes it less cumbersome, I guess.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| > you've become basically unapproachable
|
| I don't want people talking to me on planes.
| graypegg wrote:
| Hey, it'll work! Just not a product for me.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| > you've become basically unapproachable for anyone around
| you
|
| Oh! you're not the captive audience of a strangers unwanted
| small talk then? That's been an undesirable part of traveling
| solo for a lot of people. The shoulder tap will still work
| fine if you need to get past somebody to stand up.
| graypegg wrote:
| So I guess yeah small talk is normally bad and
| uninteresting, but essentially putting a blind fold on?
| People are that selective about who they'll even consider
| socializing with?
|
| To be fair I'm not regularly on planes/trains so maybe I'm
| just not annoyed enough by it.
| buildbuildbuild wrote:
| This is also now the most private display. You can work in
| public with no risk of leaks.
| motoxpro wrote:
| Totally. Meta framed any VR device as a metaverse device,
| which I have no desire to ever participate in. I just want to
| use "VR" the same way I use my laptop.
| moduspol wrote:
| It'll probably work well until you start making the "boob
| honking" gesture with your hands. Then we'll be able to tell.
| ncr100 wrote:
| Cough, Senator Al Franken, cough.
| arek_nawo wrote:
| $3499 is a high price, but if Apple can deliver, this might just
| be the next iPhone-like product.
| mackid wrote:
| 1977 Apple ][ Introductory price US$1,298 (equivalent to $6,270
| in 2022)
|
| I think folks are missing the point that this is the first Pro
| version. Likely targeted at developers and early adopters. I'm
| sure there will be an Air/Lite/etc version that cost reduces
| overtime.
| KMnO4 wrote:
| It's effectively a nonstarter. $3499 USD prices this way beyond
| the grasp of everyone but a small minority of enthusiasts and
| professionals.
|
| And considering Apple isn't really known for dropping product
| prices as the years go by, all this really does is tell us that
| the tech just isn't ready for mass production yet.
|
| I'm considering this, like Google Glass, to be a neat proof-of-
| concept.
| [deleted]
| petercooper wrote:
| _$3499 USD prices this way beyond the grasp of everyone but a
| small minority of enthusiasts and professionals._
|
| In a world of $1000 cellphones, $2000 computers and $40k
| cars, I wouldn't be so sure. I suspect if the prices do stay
| this high, it'll get priced on a monthly like how many people
| pay for their phones or cars.
| germinalphrase wrote:
| Presumably, they would go the SE route where the Pro model
| retains highest performance and price while the SE model
| inherits the tech from past generations.
| arek_nawo wrote:
| Compared to what you are (potentially) getting for the price
| it's not that high - especially when viewed as a work tool or
| business expense. You can easily pay more for tech it could
| replace, like monitors, headphones, speakers, lower-end
| laptops and desktops even.
|
| The only drawback I can see is the 2h battery and potential
| fatigue from wearing something on your head, near the eyes
| for longer periods of time. Maybe that'll be a non-issue?
| Will have to wait and see.
| bowsamic wrote:
| > $3499 USD prices this way beyond the grasp of everyone but
| a small minority of enthusiasts and professionals.
|
| That's a really bizarre thing to say. People will literally
| spend that on a fancy watch. They will spend 30 times that on
| a car.
| kweingar wrote:
| I think you proved their point. A very small minority of
| enthusiasts and professionals wear $3500 watches and
| >$100,000 cars.
| synaesthesisx wrote:
| I'll go out on a limb and say it will be far more popular
| than people think. I'm ready to preorder one (although
| perhaps I fall into the enthusiast & early adopter category).
|
| This can't be compared to other headsets out there, and is
| rather in an entirely different product category.
| [deleted]
| the42thdoctor wrote:
| Can't wait for the GPT integration with GitHub and start
| programming like Tony Stark
| nateb2022 wrote:
| Because of the "Pro" branding, I'm really interested in how soon
| we can expect a baseline non-pro Apple Vision. Determining what
| specs/features they're going to cut will be interesting.
|
| Also, with the release of visionOS, Apple is now maintaining a
| pretty hefty load of systems: macOS, iPadOS, iOS, watchOS, tvOS,
| and now visionOS. I have no doubt that beneath the UX they share
| a LOT of common building blocks, however I wonder if Apple will
| try to consolidate one or more of those platforms. E.g. macOS and
| iPadOS could be merged into a hybrid, watchOS is basically
| turning into iOS on a small screen, and visionOS may have some
| very interesting common ground with macOS -- possibly a
| continuity-screen style interop in the future.
| moron4hire wrote:
| Disappointed there was no mention of WebXR support in Safari.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Welcome to the ultimate skeptics vs optimists thread regarding
| our AR/VR future
| botverse wrote:
| It's sad that they had to partner with Unity instead of EPIC...
| So no Unreal engine for this because of the store dispute, great
| loss for both parties
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| I'm skeptical. But if I put my inner skeptic in the corner, what
| I'm most excited about is how it will affect ergonomics.
|
| Most input happens in a (typically horizontal) plane, but the
| human body is better modeled in polar coordinates. It's called
| "tech neck" because we've attached a screen to the input plane
| and then end up hunching while we look at it. Decoupling the two,
| if we can pull it off, will help a lot of people.
| peddling-brink wrote:
| Hanging a computer on on face seems like an ergo negative.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| That's going to depend pretty heavily on what you're doing
| with that computer on your face.
|
| Ergo problems typically come up when you're assuming the same
| posture for long periods. If there are no other constraints
| to lock you in (e.g. desk and monitor), then I expect there
| will be much more moving around (perhaps even explicitly
| encouraged by the OS).
|
| Whether this offsets the weight-on-head thing... time will
| tell. Whatever the problems will be, they'll be different
| problems.
| rednerrus wrote:
| This has iPhone 1 feel. Killer hardware, killer idea, giant price
| tag, and no killer app. They were really stretching with the
| heart and the skyview app.
|
| Eventually they'll get the killer app and it'll take off.
| lardo wrote:
| A Dyson Sphere for your attention.
| zeroEscape wrote:
| My biggest concern with this is how easy it would be to steal. If
| I'm sitting in a train, someone could just yank it off my head
| and run away. That's $3,500 bucks down the drain. When using a
| phone for example, I don't really have to worry about it as long
| as I'm careful. I wear a shirt long enough to cover my pockets
| making it hard for a thief to lift up the shirt without me
| noticing and grab the phone in my pocket. When I use the phone, I
| keep it close to my body. If I were using the Vision Pro, I'd
| have a giant screen in front of my face. I wouldn't even see the
| thief coming. Maybe they could make a strap that you attach
| around your chin like a helmet and charge $1,000 bucks for it. Or
| perhaps screws to drill it into your skull.
| dandandan wrote:
| Given the Optic ID demo, I assume it's locked to authorized
| users only and not valuable outside of being a source of parts
| if stolen.
| zeroEscape wrote:
| I'm sure an hour after it's released, a YouTube video will
| appear of someone demonstrating how to hack it.
| jw1224 wrote:
| I will happily go on the record as saying that this will be as
| revolutionary as the iPhone, perhaps even more so.
|
| ---
|
| EDIT: To clarify this statement...
|
| - For personal/entertainment use it largely replaces the need for
| a TV, soundbar, or home cinema.
|
| - For business use, the days of multiple displays and screen
| management seem set to be a relic of the past. I look forward to
| coding in an IDE which isn't constrained to a physical device sat
| on my desk, or replying to emails "on the beach" versus under
| fluorescent lighting. My work environment will soon become
| consistent, without relying on the realities of my real-world
| physical environment. Think about people working from home with
| little-to-no desk space: this solves that problem.
|
| - In response to the obvious criticisms (high price, battery
| life, form factor, weird eyeball thing)... this is Gen 1. Look
| how quickly the iPhone and Apple Watch evolved between
| generations 1 to 3, and look how the price changed as production
| capabilities and economies of scale evolved.
|
| - Personally, I've been using Apple devices for 20 years. This is
| the first novel Apple device I've felt _genuinely_ excited about
| since first joining the ecosystem. Will I use it for everything?
| No. Will the first version be perfect? No. Does it offer a whole
| new paradigm to any one of the _physical_ devices I already
| own...? Yes! If Apple 's reputation for growth and improvement in
| other product categories historically is anything to go by, I
| look forward to seeing how ubiquitous this becomes in 5 or 10
| years from now.
| ChuckMcM wrote:
| I was wondering what was dragging HN down :-). That said, if it
| translates signs in the "real world" on the fly to your native
| language, that would be win for business users. The "infinite
| screen/screens" thing has always show promise but has always
| been hard to execute against. The lack of them pushing any kind
| of gaming experience[1] was a bit telling for me. I'm guessing
| they haven't fixed the vomit problem. Still think it would be
| awkward to be in the same physical space with people who have
| visors and people who don't.
|
| [1] To be fair I didn't see the keynote, just followed the
| website sales pitch.
| lowbloodsugar wrote:
| Not this version probably, just like the first version of the
| iPhone wasn't stellar. But as a new product _line_ , this is
| the first VR/AR device I've seen that demonstrates a vision for
| the future that might work. For a one-day ubiquitous product,
| $3k is the entry level price. None of the existing devices
| support this vision - they are just VR hardware. Their lower
| price doesn't matter because that's not what's going to go
| mainstream.
| niho wrote:
| The thing that amazed me the most with the presentation was
| that they never showed typing on a virtual keyboard. It seems
| like you need an actual physical keyboard to do any typing.
|
| The keyboard was famously considered a make it or break it
| feature internally at Apple when developing the original
| iPhone. It is very telling that they haven't managed to solve
| this basic HCI problem for the Vision. Steve Jobs would never
| have released this. I'm sad to say it, but this is not a "Pro"
| device. It's a Prototype device.
|
| Apple Vision Prototype
|
| (And I'm sorry, but the eyes are creepy --- uncanny valley)
| greedo wrote:
| They did show a virtual keyboard during the presentation.
| paul_f wrote:
| I don't think it was virtual. Looked like a real keyboard
| on the table
| mrguyorama wrote:
| The dual-touchpad style VR keyboard like the original Vive
| has is probably the only usable virtual keyboard. Everything
| else is one by one, find and peck typing.
|
| If you want to experience it, get a steam controller or a
| steam deck and use the trackpads on that keyboard. You get
| used to it very fast and you can get really usable typing
| speed.
|
| It won't work for programming though because anything that
| needs more niche than basic punctuation would require
| chording or multiple inputs, which sucks.
| 6nf wrote:
| The idea is that you'll use voice recognition instead of
| typing
| niho wrote:
| Yeah. Lol. So I'm going to be talking my code? Will be
| super popular in the office.
|
| "Hey Siri! Put that statement in an if-clause. ...no, not
| that one. The other one. Argh!!!"
|
| _throws the $3499 vision across the room_
| Ylmaz wrote:
| Every team in my company got the new meta headset for free. I
| used it for like 30 seconds and i've never seen anyone else
| using it.
| [deleted]
| newaccount74 wrote:
| I think more iPad level. A successful product, but not
| something everyone will have.
| jonwinstanley wrote:
| Not for a while, but this is v1. When they're cheaper,
| smaller and lighter who knows
| bunga-bunga wrote:
| At 3500 this will be niche at best. They'll sell half the
| units of Watch Ultra if they're lucky.
| turnsout wrote:
| Yeah... It's like sure, this replaces a TV for ONE person.
| If I want to watch a movie with my wife and daughter, I'm
| out $10,500
| Dudester230602 wrote:
| Keep in mind the battery is not enough for a movie. So
| the entire family will also be plugged into a wall wart.
| Mind the wire for any bathroom breaks!
| thrill wrote:
| It's a 2 hour battery with a dedicated cable and looks
| easily swappable in seconds.
| Dudester230602 wrote:
| Yes, even for that family of rich Apple executives, it
| will get tired by the third time.
| paul_f wrote:
| The running time of the CD-ROM was designed to play
| Beethoven's 9th symphony in its entirety. You would have
| thought Apple would plan the battery life to allow you to
| watch all of Avengers: Endgame, or maybe Oppenheimer,
| without pausing to swap the battery.
| ladyanita22 wrote:
| For a 3500$ device? Fantastic!
| newaccount74 wrote:
| I don't think the biggest obstacle is the price. I'm
| assuming the price goes down eventually.
|
| I just don't see the must-have reason why everyone would
| have to buy one.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| iPhone rollout not only first model
| alwillis wrote:
| > At 3500 this will be niche at best.
|
| The original 128k Macintosh was $2,495 in 1984--that's
| $6,244.14 in todays (2023) dollars, just to put things in
| perspective.
|
| Obviously there will be less expensive models to come; this
| is just the start. This will be mostly for early adopters
| and developers.
| drivers99 wrote:
| The original Macintosh was a flop in terms of sales, at
| first.
| alwillis wrote:
| > The original Macintosh was a flop in terms of sales, at
| first.
|
| The point: it sold well enough for it to lay the
| groundwork to the Mac market of today.
|
| At this stage, Apple looks like the only company with a
| real shot at making a mixed reality headset mainstream in
| the next 5-7 years.
| Kareem71 wrote:
| People are poorer today on an inflation adjusted basis
| selectodude wrote:
| No, they really aren't.
|
| https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N
| Xeoncross wrote:
| I know the FED says we're not poorer, but their
| adjustment for inflation is just a marketing stunt.
|
| If you look at the historical ratio of income to the
| price of housing you'll see we're making less compared to
| the cost of things every year.
|
| Pull up a chart of "FRED:ASPUS/FRED:MEHOINUSA646N" on
| https://www.tradingview.com
|
| edit: took a screenshot to save the trouble
| https://imgur.com/a/U5ml4Iq
| mrep wrote:
| You're ignoring interest rates which allow the overall
| price to go up while keeping the monthly payment the same
| and the fact that houses have gotten a lot bigger over
| the decades [0].
|
| [0]: https://www.supermoney.com/inflation-adjusted-home-
| prices/
| orangecat wrote:
| _If you look at the historical ratio of income to the
| price of housing_
|
| This has a lot more to do with governments making it
| illegal to build housing than the overall strength of the
| economy.
| selectodude wrote:
| If you look at the historical ratio of income to the
| price of computers we're literally orders of magnitude
| wealthier. You can't just pick one data point and blast
| off.
| JoeJonathan wrote:
| I mean, it's not entirely implausible that housing is a
| better index of cost of living than computers.
| nicoburns wrote:
| True, but the price will come down. The early MacBook Air's
| were also super-expensive, rich-early-adopter-only pricing,
| and now they're the mainstream product.
| kgwgk wrote:
| $1800 was expensive but there were a number of
| competitors in that price range.
| gigel82 wrote:
| I will go on record as saying this will be one of the biggest
| flops in Apple's modern hardware history.
|
| They've shown no innovative scenarios that Hololens / Quest /
| Google Glass (and similar devices) hasn't shown before. Those
| things flopped because they didn't have the scenarios and
| nothing changed now.
| hajile wrote:
| For me, the big difference is apps. I have a Quest and
| there's not much usable stuff for it. I can see a lot of
| those ipad/iphone/mac apps as useful on an AR device.
|
| Quality also matters. I don't really like looking through the
| Quest for very long. Fresnel lenses and meh screen combined
| with a terrible processor means the visual experience isn't
| very good. I'd bet a lot that their custom lenses and screens
| combined with a decent SoC offer a HUGE jump in visual
| fidelity.
| skilled wrote:
| Nobody will remember/care about this as soon as the news sites
| stop talking about it (in a few days), enjoy your iPhone moment
| prediction.
| bequanna wrote:
| Man, I for one sure hope this isn't the future.
|
| But maybe it is. Just another step away from one another,
| further into isolation.
| SanderNL wrote:
| And I will go on record saying this is nice and all, but
| fundamentally just some incremental progress. Absolutely not an
| iPhone moment.
|
| The _idea_ of having a fully immersive 3D environment around
| you is cool, but I haven't had any VR experience that didn't
| turn out to be eventually a headache let alone actually
| productive. Even with gaming I can only name a few titles that
| actually benefit, but for the ones that do the effect is quite
| something, I'll admit that.
| comment_ran wrote:
| That's definitely a big concern about the physical pen. If
| it's too heavy or if it's too hot, it will overperform or
| perform some CPU intense work. Also the fitting using your
| eye with such a close contact with the digital device is
| another issue.
| bluescrn wrote:
| Was there really an 'iPhone moment', though?
|
| The success of the iPhone has been all about the 'incremental
| progress'.
| billti wrote:
| You do recall that when the iPhone came out we already had
| Blackberry, HTC, Windows Mobile, Nokia already making smart
| phones with touch screens and apps right?
|
| Sure the experience was terrible, but that's the same play
| here. Apple generally takes a technology space which is a
| little early and poorly done by others, and ships a great
| experience across hardware, software, and ecosystem to
| capture a market.
| jq-r wrote:
| The elephant in the room is that by the time Apple came out
| with iPhone, everyone else had a mobile phone because there
| are clear benefits of ownining a mobile phone. Those phones
| as you say were not great, and iPhone was absolutely
| revolutionary in that case so we agree here.
|
| But pretty much nobody has a VR headset right now (or at
| least IRL people that I know), so not sure if a normal
| person will see a benefit of owning this kind of device.
| SanderNL wrote:
| You are not wrong. Let's wait and see. I actually hope I'm
| wrong.
| jonwinstanley wrote:
| Not sure how you can say it's incremental. I'd say it's quite
| a jump from the other mixed reality products we've seen so
| far
| Demmme wrote:
| Incremental because it's not new.
|
| It was totally clear that a device for 3.4k can have the
| values apples headset has.
| throw74775 wrote:
| > it's not new.
|
| I'm not aware of any remotely comparable product.
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| It's a jump from what we've seen in the consumer space. It
| isn't priced like other consumer VR hardware though, it's
| 4-8x the price; much closer to enterprise pricing. If you
| include the wider space with things like the Varjo XR3
| (which released 2 years ago at only 2x the price) then it
| looks a lot less impressive of a jump. Plus there's things
| like the Bigscreen Beyond which actually manage a slim form
| factor. Really the only thing Apple has a chance to
| differentiate on is software, and they've got a lot of
| catching up to do there.
| jonwinstanley wrote:
| But they do have a huge head start in apps, movies, tv,
| games, sports rights compared to the makers of any other
| device. They are well positioned or make this work by
| integrating tightly to their own eco-system
| whynaut wrote:
| but it's AR?
| verdverm wrote:
| The Hololens was way ahead of this as far as AR goes, the
| only issue that device had was FOV, but I won't use any
| passthrough after trying both
| bni wrote:
| Passthrough has the benefit of enabling processing the
| input in ways to make surroundings more compelling and to
| blend in with the virtual content.
|
| Also small FOV is a critical issue for transparent screen
| AR. No one has managed to improve this significantly
| after hololens v1.
| verdverm wrote:
| The hololens was much better at blending, I want to see
| the actual real world, not a display of it. There is no
| comparison here
|
| HLv2 was an all around improvement, if you only tried v1,
| you cannot make conclusions
| whynaut wrote:
| That has nothing to do with the point that VR issues are
| being prescribed to an AR device..
| isp wrote:
| The _idea_ of hybrid AR /VR - adjusted by a dial (crown) - is
| very clever. As is a high-resolution display.
|
| But the form factor is a problem.
|
| If it had all of the capabilities announced _but combined
| with the Google Glass form factor of ultra thin & light_ -
| then it would be a device more revolutionary than the iPhone.
|
| But the form factor makes it much more niche.
|
| And the tech just doesn't exist in the year 2023 to make a
| device with that sweet-spot combination of high capability
| and tiny form factor.
|
| (My two cents, which I am hoping ages better than the
| infamous HN Dropbox comment.)
| SanderNL wrote:
| I agree, but I actually hope we are wrong. This tech can be
| amazing. I already like the Oculus with all its warts.
| isp wrote:
| I hope we are wrong too.
|
| But I (perhaps naively) think this is being approached
| from the wrong direction.
|
| To me, if Apple had launched a new highly limited device
| but with the Google Glass form factor - then I could see
| the path to incrementally improve (keep the form factor,
| and add features over time as hardware progresses).
|
| It's much harder for me to see the opposite - of starting
| out with the clunky form factor, even if it is 100x more
| capable.
|
| EDIT: Or I may be thinking from the wrong direction. I
| could see this device as overtaking existing VR devices
| like the Rift by far.
|
| It depends on whether "success" here is defined as
| surpassing the previous best-selling VR headset (very
| plausible), or as matching the iPhone (much less
| plausible).
| andrewstuart wrote:
| >> this will be as revolutionary as the iPhone, perhaps even
| more so.
|
| Not even close.
|
| 99% of the people I know would never put a computer on their
| face.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| If it's so good for WFH, why has Apple insisted everybody
| return to the office?
|
| It's got a 2h battery life, so your dreams of using it on the
| beach are pretty funny versus just using a laptop.
| zjaffee wrote:
| Strongly disagree that this will be as revolutionary as the
| iphone. The iphone, and smart phones as a platform were
| revolutionary largely because of how portable they are.
|
| This is much more comparable to a laptop than a phone, and it
| doesn't introduce new communications technology like the iphone
| did with there now being near universal real time access to
| people's cameras and gps location.
|
| This feels like what the apple watch was to the iphone but
| instead to the MacBook pro.
| comment_ran wrote:
| Unfortunately, I strongly disagree with this comment as well.
| It is because how portable this device is, you have to think
| about the... Imagine you have an infinite amount of screen
| just in your pocket. What you say causes what you do, and
| that's a huge thing.
| prmoustache wrote:
| Except even regular sunglasses are often inconvenient to
| carry around. So this will never get in your pocket.
|
| The rear revolution will be when the info goes directly to
| our brain, bypassing the eyes. VR headsets looks to me like
| half assed interim "what if" devices.
| comment_ran wrote:
| Good point. Remember, they demonstrate that they put
| these devices as a module, so I'm not sure it is possible
| to make it a portable device. You can easily get rid of
| part of the panel part and put it into a very small bag,
| and the rest of things can just like a rope, something
| similar to those things, you can easily fold them into
| small spaces. I'm actually thinking the same thing as
| you. The real revolution is going to be directly
| connecting our brains, so we don't bother using our eyes
| to kind of sensor our physical world, that's kind of like
| the matrix. I'm not sure that's going to be in the near
| future or in the life we have, but I'm really looking
| forward to that kind of scenario.
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| I have an NReal Air. It offers similar capabilities to
| everything you mentioned (though much worse resolution).
|
| If I have the preference, I still choose a screen. Screens are
| easy, screens a casual, screens exist in the real world. I can
| share them, I can walk away from them, I can position them
| where _they will never, ever move_. Screens have (and will
| always have) higher resolution. Screens don't require me to
| mess with some cord and pull a headset off to find my snack or
| walk to the bathroom.
|
| I prefer my Nreals in two situations:
|
| * When I'm traveling/on-the-go and want more screen real
| estate.
|
| * When my wife is using the main TV and I don't feel like
| hauling the Playstation downstairs.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| Sounds like the Vision Pro addresses your main issues - it's
| fully wireless, albeit with the somewhat ridiculous cord
| hanging off and battery pack in your pocket. And you can walk
| around your house with (presumably) near perfect pass through
| view of the real world. And then the resolution - I think you
| could be wrong about that. It's surprisingly hard to compare,
| but the Vision Pro is going to get you pretty close to high
| enough resolution that it doesn't matter any more.
|
| It's interesting though you seem to view the fact that it's
| close to impossible to move your monitors as a plus - that
| part sounds very weird to me.
| geerlingguy wrote:
| Is this the new reverse-Dropbox reverse-iPhone HN groupthink
| meta? The question is, will we link back to this in 10 years as
| a gotcha as AR/VR is still 10 years away from mainstream then?
| jonplackett wrote:
| I will happily go on record as saying I do not have $3,499 to
| spend on this, but I wish i did.
| braymundo wrote:
| I can't wait to see the second generation. And with Apple
| giving some good attention to game developers, the
| possibilities are incredibly interesting!
| moralestapia wrote:
| >this will be as revolutionary as the iPhone
|
| I'm not so sure about that but I'm 100% sure that if anyone
| manages to pull that off it's going to be Apple.
|
| Corollary: if this doesn't make AR/VR finally go mainstream
| then forget about it, it's 3D TV again.
| vertigolimbo wrote:
| It won't. Sadly. Can't justify spending 3K on... family calls,
| tiresome multiscreen development environment, finally - games?
| Won't happen unfortunately.
| sekai wrote:
| > It won't. Sadly. Can't justify spending 3K on... family
| calls, tiresome multiscreen development environment, finally
| - games? Won't happen unfortunately.
|
| You missed one, porn.
| LegitShady wrote:
| from my...market research...vr porn super disappointing.
| vertigolimbo wrote:
| well apple could use vr + ar to enhance your experience,
| provided that your partner agrees to that, and that could
| potentially be a winner's recipe. But you know what's the
| limitation? You won't see p*rn on apple store, or vision
| os whatever it will be called.
| shultays wrote:
| What if Apple offers an AR service that sends you a call
| girl and you can replace her face with whomever you want?
| jsheard wrote:
| The scope for games on this is pretty narrow without the dual
| independently tracked controllers you get with the
| Quest/PSVR/etc.
|
| They'd have to work with hand tracking (low accuracy, no
| buttons or sticks, no haptics) or a conventional console
| controller (limited immersion).
|
| Nearly all existing VR games are built around dual
| controllers and would need significant reworking/compromises
| to be playable on the Vision Pro.
| jarjoura wrote:
| No clue, but I'd assume this is like any other pro Apple
| device that will have a bluetooth or some external device
| SDK and 3rd parties will make controllers for games.
| jsheard wrote:
| Quest-style controllers are something that Apple would
| have to faciliate. They are tracked using a combination
| of motion sensors (high resolution but prone to drift)
| and detection by the headsets cameras (low resolution but
| doesn't drift) and the Vision Pros raw camera data is
| only visible to the operating system.
|
| You can connect a traditional controller of course, they
| showed it working with a Playstation controller in one of
| the clips, but that's mainly useful for playing
| traditional flat-screen games on a virtual big screen and
| not so much for games which actually explore the
| possibilities of VR and AR.
| andybak wrote:
| 6dof tracked controllers usually need to be tightly
| integrated with the headset.
|
| Even if they are self tracking (like the Quest Pro
| controllers and therefore expensive) there's still a
| bunch of things that need to work smoothly together.
|
| It's not just like making a Bluetooth gamepad.
|
| And one thing we know about expensive, optional
| peripherals is that lack of developer support is usually
| it's death knell
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| The original iPhone was also a bit of a waste of money so
| that doesn't really disprove their point.
| tsunamifury wrote:
| iPhone was an immediate iPod/phone/web browser/email
| replacement on day one.
|
| It's day one utility was one of the best ever
| LapsangGuzzler wrote:
| > tiresome multiscreen development environment
|
| ...that fits in your bag. This is huge for folks like me that
| want to travel without lugging around a large display. If the
| visual integrity is there, it's gonna be worth it for me.
| doix wrote:
| Yeah, the resolution will make it or break it for me. I
| tried working in a valve index using Simula and couldn't
| really get into it. Despite technically having much more
| screen space and screens, it felt like I was much more
| constrained.
| vertigolimbo wrote:
| Si senior. Same experience with quest 2. It has to be
| perfectly executed. In the Apple demo the guy was hitting
| virtual keyboard? If vr misses two keys, I am done with
| it and back to gaming only.
| IanCal wrote:
| I'm interested to know what sort of resolution you'd get
| looking at a "screen". You get over 4k per eye, but that
| means 4k-ish for your field of vision.
| comment_ran wrote:
| exactly I don't know how many like 4k monitor is just sat
| in front of you and that physical device is only I don't
| know smaller than a 10 inch iPad so that's it's incredible
| rtkwe wrote:
| This first version sure but if they're able to bring the
| costs down and maintain the relative power it's a pretty neat
| implementation of the idea.
| vertigolimbo wrote:
| _maintain_.... competition will catch up and /or will do it
| better for a lower cost. It took years for other companies
| to get close to iphone performance. But now Apple is
| entering an established market already where fb is throwing
| big bucks.
| gigatexal wrote:
| Yeah from what I can tell and being a solitary person if I had
| 3.5k I'd be all over this. And I am a die-hard Linux guy though
| I have an iPhone and an Apple Watch. Very cool stuff, albeit,
| if it lives up to the hype in the presentation. Very cool
| stuff.
| wongarsu wrote:
| Having multiple private large-scale screens anywhere, even on
| the train or plane, is huge. Many VR headsets tried delivering
| that, but so far the resolution just wasn't there. The article
| is a bit light on actual details, but at least the price point
| gives an indication that Apple might make it possible.
| rafark wrote:
| Loved it. It's exactly how I imagined it. People didn't have
| high expectations because they thought this was going to be a
| gaming device. I posted quite a few comments in the past months
| telling people vr glasses like this had so much potential for
| broader applications. I'm glad Apple is making this a reality.
| It's going to be a wild success.
| subsubzero wrote:
| So.. Fun fact, Osterhaut group(ODG) has something just like
| this and it was working as Apple demos showed and it was out 7
| years ago. I tried it on and for me it was the biggest game
| changer I felt since the 2007 iphone. Microsoft bought the
| patents from odg and the company ran out of money trying its
| own strategy. Sad story for them but I hope apple really does
| this right as it will be an absolute game changer.
|
| https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/03/odg-unveils-its-first-cons...
| prmoustache wrote:
| So most people prefer holding their phone in the hand to using
| airpods to send voice messages or having calls.
|
| What makes you think people will prefer strapping a much
| heavier and uncomfortable headset to watching a screen?
| ChicagoBoy11 wrote:
| I completely agree.
|
| I'm one of the weird people who tried out the Google Glass. It
| was finnicky, 0 actual interaction with the modern world,
| lasted a good 45 minutes, melted your face, and had terrible
| audio.
|
| But the thing is, if you could peak THROUGH the shortcomings,
| it was abundantly clear how an eyesight driven, glass form
| factor is the destination for computing. Smartphones were even
| less advanced at the time, but even then, we I tried for a few
| weeks making more extensive use of it, I would catch many
| glimpses of how "neat" this technology would be... even doing
| simple things like effortlessly capturing a picture on the
| spot, or videoconferencing with my gf (now wife!) showing her
| stuff in the grocery store and asking her what to get.
|
| The AR capabilities, mixed with the essentially VR potential
| for movies/games, will totally be a thing and it'll totally
| live on our face as glasses. There can be details as to when
| exactly, price points ,etc., but the ubiquity of this sort of
| computing device will eclipse the iPhone when it comes time,
| and until then, slowly but surely change the nature of "working
| on a screen."
| jbverschoor wrote:
| Yes, Google Glass was fun, and geeky, but was SO bad.
|
| This seems to be an actual well thought out product. The
| resolution is a lot higher than the meta quest 3, and delays
| will be super small.
|
| They're marketing this for productivity, which for me is the
| main selling point for VR at this point. I want a more
| spatial desktop, and I want multiple screens on the go.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| I think it's a good risk, and the kind of risk Apple is well-
| positioned (as a combined owner of hardware, software, and
| third-party software ecosystem) to take.
|
| Major we'll-see risk factors I identify:
|
| 1) $3,500 is expensive, any way you slice it. That makes it
| price-competitive with a workstation.
|
| 2) The stand-up-and-work environment they demo'd doesn't work
| for a lot of people. But if you sit down, you lose a lot of the
| benefit of that panoramic space.
|
| 3) Their gesture interface has to be rock-solid (meaning no
| false negatives but also _no false positives_ ) for it to be
| part of a daily work environment.
|
| 4) We've been experimenting with headsets for long enough to
| know that for the average user, the amount of time you can
| comfortably use one is lower than the amount of time seated at
| a mouse-keyboard-monitor UI.
|
| 5) The battery life is 2 hours, which is like nothing. You can
| use it plugged in, but then you're plugged in (meaning not only
| that you're tethered to somewhere, but that you've got the
| constant pressure of the tether disrupting your head motions,
| which adds up over time in irritation).
|
| All of that having been said, if anyone has a prayer of
| overcoming these obstacles it's Apple. They've got the software
| / hardware / UI / UX integration in-house to take a solid run
| at the challenge.
| comment_ran wrote:
| I completely agree with your point about risk. When we're
| talking about risk, the opposite of risk is a great benefit,
| just like a starship. Captain Kirk said great risk we have,
| the more potential gain we probably gain. Stand-up work
| environment is also huge for me. I don't like sitting all the
| time in front of a desk. But I'm not sure if I sit down, all
| the benefits gonna last. Maybe it's just a choice. Maybe I
| can sit down doing some different kind of things. Or maybe I
| can lay on my bed, just do something else. The gesture
| interface has to be rock solid. I agree. Especially you're
| already doing something more fine-tune level things.For
| example, you want to manipulate a 3D object, but I think we
| can, or the engineering can finally overcome those
| difficulties by using those optical algorithms to track, to
| kind of think about a new way to interact with computer.
| Actually, if you think about the way we communicate with
| computer, all we're talking about is the keyboard, but does
| the keyboard is the only solution to all the problem we have?
| I don't think that is the only problem. The battery lapsed
| two hours, I'm not sure what exactly they mean. If it's just
| two hours, maybe it's a replaceable charge or something like
| that, maybe we can bring a bigger external battery. I'm not
| sure, but if it's just only working for two hours, that's
| going to be some potential issues here.
| jandrese wrote:
| IMHO the biggest risk factor is that without a mass market
| version (running iPhone apps in a window doesn't count) the
| developers won't reach the critical mass you need to support
| a novel piece of hardware like this. $3500 is a shit ton to
| spend on a toy that lets you have a virtual Mickey Mouse
| standing next to a screen playing a Disney movie.
|
| If nobody is buying the product then developers have no
| incentive to buy one either. The only software for it will be
| demos from Apple and extremely expensive bespoke professional
| applications for businesses, and that market is far too small
| for Apple to ever recoup their R&D costs, much less ongoing
| expenses.
|
| The only way I see this working is if Apple themselves invent
| a killer application for the headset. Even then its going to
| struggle to find buyers at that price point. It doesn't
| matter how cool your hardware is if nobody can afford it.
| It's hard to see how they would even cut down the existing
| hardware to make a version for real people.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| What's different about it compared to Occulus or Samsung Gear
| or any other existing attempts at this?
|
| Virtual movie theaters and virtual monitors haven't really been
| compelling use cases for putting an ugly sweat box on your face
| so far. What about slapping an Apple logo on it and pricing it
| even further out of reach changes that in your mind?
| seanalltogether wrote:
| Most VR so far has been designed to isolate you from your
| surrounding environment, and is the opposite. Also the
| ability to use it without controllers makes the whole thing
| feel less intrusive/burdensome to use.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _What 's different about it compared to Occulus or Samsung
| Gear or any other existing attempts at this?_
|
| It's sexy. Also, it's Apple, which means-given the price tag-
| it's unlikely to be shit, and if it is, I'll have some
| semblance of support.
| beezlebroxxxxxx wrote:
| I think the:
|
| - existing apple ecosystem;
|
| - the fact that this looks far more AR focused than the VR
| focused stuff I've currently seen;
|
| - the public's perception of the Apple brand and its build
| quality (questionable if real, but an undeniable public
| perception nonetheless) could get around the "ugly sweat box"
| vibe you've described;
|
| - the willingness for app-makers to build for the ecosystem;
|
| - the 4k and (apparent) visual quality;
|
| ...could make this successful, or at least iPad-like in terms
| of dominating a market.
|
| Hard to know for sure though until we get some actual reviews
| and footage of people wearing it.
| steveoscaro wrote:
| I have an Oculus2 and a PSVR2, and the Apple headset seems
| like an entirely different thing. It's meant to replace your
| mac computer and your tv.
|
| Yes with the headsets I have, you can surf the web and
| technically try to write code, but it's not a good
| experience. And those displays basically still suck. You can
| see the pixels, and the lenses create weird effects. If Apple
| has solved this, and the presence of the screen and lenses is
| just "forgotten", it's going to be a huge step forward. It'll
| be a device to actually be productive on, let alone watch
| movies and play games, IMO.
| drrotmos wrote:
| IMHO this really is what's gonna make or break this
| product. Will the screens have good enough fidelity and not
| strain my eyes in such a way that I will want to wear the
| headset for my entire work day.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| People always drag out this line but how much time in VR
| do you actually have?
|
| I have hundreds of hours in VR, doing fiddly simulator
| things, and it's not an enjoyable experience, but rather
| something you put up with to get to experience something
| you wouldn't otherwise get to experience, like flying a
| real as it gets plane.
|
| A couple really nice monitors are $500. A laptop with a
| really nice built in screen is $2000, even if you want
| the apple logo on it.
|
| Having infinite floating windows in VR is actually pretty
| useless. Either they are all tiny and unreadable because
| you need INSANE resolution to get 1080p quality at normal
| viewing distance, or you have one giant screen pressed
| against your face and your eyes find that very
| uncomfortable. VR is tiring on your eyes, worse than
| looking at a screen all day.
|
| I wish rich kids would stop trying to attain a minority
| report style dream of computation and focus on making
| actual, usable, good UIs that are enjoyable, easy, and
| productive to work with. This is none of those.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| >Having infinite floating windows in VR is actually
| pretty useless. Either they are all tiny and unreadable
| because you need INSANE resolution to get 1080p quality
| at normal viewing distance, or you have one giant screen
| pressed against your face and your eyes find that very
| uncomfortable. VR is tiring on your eyes, worse than
| looking at a screen all day.
|
| Apple seem to think they have solved these issues. We'll
| see.
| balaji1 wrote:
| Gaming could be much be better on a VR/AR device, and a
| reason to put on a "ugly sweat box" initially. Apple did not
| go deep into that, only a brief segment about the Unity
| collab. Maybe gaming is not their forte right now.
|
| Apple Vision v3 will not be a sweat box. And even right now,
| Occulus interface has to evolve to match this. Controller has
| to be optional. It has to be AR.
| SirMaster wrote:
| Probably the fact that this uses microOLED at a much higher
| resolution than anything before.
|
| And that it's very light weight and more comfortable fitting
| and probably wont be a sweatbox.
| caconym_ wrote:
| > What about slapping an Apple logo on it and pricing it even
| further out of reach changes that in your mind?
|
| Probably the fact that Apple has an excellent track record of
| entering nascent consumer electronics markets late (e.g.
| iPod, iPhone, Apple Watch) at high price points, nailing the
| execution, and eventually dominating said markets with
| arguably superior products.
|
| It's the same story again and again. If you've already
| decided Apple is charging $3000 for "slapping an Apple logo
| on it" and nothing else, you may as well have been one of the
| people back in ~2001 who swore up and down that the iPod was
| just an overpriced late entry in a market full of mature,
| attractive offerings like the Archos Jukebox line. In
| retrospect, to be clear, you would have looked quite silly.
|
| I'm not saying this thing is absolutely going to be a
| success, but the problem with previous attempts at virtual
| displays has been that the execution is always shit, and
| Apple's greatest strength is nailing the execution. I don't
| think betting against them here is a good bet.
| ilaksh wrote:
| Thr fact that the battery is separate should be a huge
| improvement for comfort because one of the biggest problems
| with most existing devices is their weight. Another thing to
| check is how much heat the device transfers to the user. Or
| in general the comfort. Also the fact that you can easily see
| you surroundings should help.
| jansan wrote:
| The difference is the AR, which will eventually make it
| wearable in everyday life. When setting the perimeter, the
| Oculus already shows the surrounding using it's integrated
| cameras. This will be the future. I don't think the first
| version of Apple's AR mask will be a huge success, because it
| still looks too dorky. But in a few years you will see many
| people wearing sunglasses that double as phone screens all
| the time.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| > The difference is the AR, which will eventually make it
| wearable in everyday life
|
| In Apple's 10 minute video about this device the "AR" part
| came up exactly twice:
|
| 1) When the lady was interrupted by a friend to talk about
| sushi or something. This is literally Occulus' passthrough
| mode. It was a temporary "see around me" mode switch in
| practical usage.
|
| 2) The dad filming his kids. This was just depressing.
|
| All the other examples had the room around them, so the
| "AR" part, as a glorifed skybox. The person was isolated &
| alone.
|
| Like maybe Apple will figure out something that Microsoft's
| Hololens didn't. That's certainly possible. But they also
| didn't showcase any such examples, either.
| jansan wrote:
| Ok, I had the impression that those things are
| translucent, because the eyes were visible. I did not
| fully watch it, but I just found out that Apple is using
| a lentricular and OLED screen on the outside to display a
| 3D image of your face to make it look like the mask is
| transparent. This is some dystopian stuff.
| kjreact wrote:
| I don't think the dorky mask look will change any time
| soon. There's just too much electronics to fit into the
| system for it to shrink down to a pair of regular glasses.
|
| When the Apple Watch was introduced, I thought that the
| form factor would change after a few years. It's almost
| been ten years and it doesn't seem like Apple will be
| making any big form factor changes to the product.
|
| Apple will just have to make it fashionable to wear dorky
| scuba masks everywhere. Maybe the price tag will be
| sufficient...
| jansan wrote:
| You may be right. Remember when they used someone with
| extra large hands for presenting the first iPhone in
| order to make it look small? Now you can get the iPhone
| 14 is large and very large. We may get used to this if
| the product is sufficiently useful.
| EnragedParrot wrote:
| What compelling use cases did the average consumer see for
| carrying around a computer in their pocket before Apple
| released the iPhone? There were a bunch of devices on the
| market all _kinda_ doing what iPhone did, but Apple made it
| make sense for the average consumer.
| newZWhoDis wrote:
| Less space than a nomad, too
| kshacker wrote:
| Lame?
|
| For those downvoting, see the parent comment and also this:
| https://slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-
| releases-i...
|
| "Lame" was a historic comment and parent commenter should
| have included it :)
| sgt wrote:
| Usually Apple comes along and builds it so well that people
| will actually start using it. Oculus and the others are still
| a pretty niche thing.
| raydev wrote:
| > Usually Apple comes along and builds it so well that
| people will actually start using it
|
| Agreed, but Apple have put themselves in a weird spot with
| the $3500 USD price tag.
| andrei_says_ wrote:
| I think they'll be fine with first adopters, businesses,
| the rich.
|
| For people making 10x what we make, these are on the
| level of $300.
|
| And Apple gets to iterate and present v2 in a year or so,
| at 1/2 the price.
| kjreact wrote:
| Apple is probably going to have supply constraints for
| the first generation product so pricing it high makes
| sense.
| viscanti wrote:
| Not that weird of a spot. That's what it costs for the
| most premium experience they can launch with. They'd
| rather it be good than something everyone buys on day
| one. They can get costs down in future models as they
| scale and progress pushes down some of the costs. As
| iPhones become even more performant in the future they
| can also eventually offer a version that offloads more
| compute to that and bring costs down even more. Their
| goal is to show this is a new type of product that works
| at the level people expect for a completely new Apple
| product. They can probably afford to wait for a much
| lower priced mass consumer product.
| briandear wrote:
| Considering what I paid for my Apple XDR display, $3500
| is a bargain.
| billti wrote:
| It's also the "entry point" price for a HoloLens
| (https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/hololens/buy).
| Businesses will spend that on an AR/VR device that adds
| value to their use-cases. It seems pretty clear this is
| not intended for "mass market consumer adoption" at this
| point in time.
| raydev wrote:
| The Vision Pro is arguably less useful than your XDR
| since the VP can't run macOS. :p
| kjreact wrote:
| My take would be that it would be Apples track record of
| making software work well with the hardware, more seamlessly
| than either Samsung or Meta.
|
| Just look at the virtual avatar they demoed compared with
| Meta's. Apple went with a more professional looking avatar
| instead of a cartoony one.
|
| Another app that was shown was a Birds Eye view of a
| basketball game. I'd love to be able to watch a sporting
| event live from that perspective (if I could stomach the
| entry fee for the experience).
|
| I was on the fence about this product, thinking that there
| wouldn't be many good use cases, but their presentation gave
| some activities that I'd want to try on the hardware. Whereas
| Meta's presentation didn't show anything I was interested in.
|
| Apple is giving developers 6+ months to make even more
| interesting apps. I think there's a good chance that this
| could be a successful product. But I should hold my judgement
| until I've seen the caveats of this device (ie comfort,
| battery life, display quality, etc). I'm sure we'll see more
| in-depth looks in the coming months. We can judge it more
| fairly when these reviews come out.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| >Another app that was shown was a Birds Eye view of a
| basketball game.
|
| That was Disney's presentation not Apples. Am I the only
| one who thought that part was Magic Leap level total
| fantasy BS?
| kjreact wrote:
| I missed that it was part of the Disney presentation. In
| that case it may be just vaporware. Truthfully it would
| require a lot of infrastructure at the arena/stadium
| before it could even be realized. I'm not sure the sports
| team owners would be willing to pay for this expenditure
| without knowing the potential revenue it could generate.
| It'd also cannibalise some ticket sales, so it's not
| necessarily a profitable move for pro sports.
| tough wrote:
| If players position is already tracked adding avatars to
| it in real time onto a 3d visualization doesn't seem that
| far fetched.
|
| Some stadiums have cameras that fly over all the stadium
| but no idea if it was BS or not
| [deleted]
| ncallaway wrote:
| > Another app that was shown was a Birds Eye view of a
| basketball game
|
| Is there anything specific to the Vision Pro in that
| feature? Couldn't they just offer that as something that
| you could choose to watch on TV?
| EA wrote:
| When you watch live TV, you watch what one person decides
| you should be watching.
|
| With eye and head tracking in the headset, you can watch
| what you want to watch during live events and eventually
| in interactive motion pictures/motion environments.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| This is already a reality with esports and yet most
| people prefer to watch someone else drive the camera.
| Someone who is really good at doing that and who can
| "predict the future" to never miss a key moment (aka, the
| broadcast is on a slight delay).
|
| I don't see any reason live sports would be different
| here, do you? It'd be cool but it hardly seems
| "revolutionary", more like something you do once or twice
| for the novelty before going back to just not doing that.
| snapdeus wrote:
| Literally no one wants to do that. That's why it's
| someone's job to do this.
|
| This is just like how grocery stores have made us all
| become cashiers.
|
| I'm not doing that, it's work, and I'm not going to do
| work.
| skc wrote:
| Yes.
| kjreact wrote:
| > Is there anything specific to the Vision Pro in that
| feature? Couldn't they just offer that as something that
| you could choose to watch on TV?
|
| A TV wouldn't be apt at creating a 3D-ish AR viewing
| experience. It also doesn't have the controls to navigate
| such a scene easily. What I'm looking for is like a
| holographic 3D display of the game on my table top.
| SparkyMcUnicorn wrote:
| > ... bring the powerful capabilities of their Mac into
| Vision Pro wirelessly, creating an enormous, private, and
| portable 4K display with incredibly crisp text.
|
| If this "incredibly crisp text" is true, then I want it.
| Nobody has done this yet.
| zamadatix wrote:
| With a resolution of slightly over 4k resolution per eye
| for the entire view, on top of lenses and warping when
| rendering it into the space, I just can't see how this is
| actually possible. It may be better than many previous
| solutions but they were all so far off in text clarity
| that's not saying much. Of course, they could just set the
| zoom way up on Safari/the UI and say "look, it's so clear!"
| and be technically correct.
| afavour wrote:
| People are going to reply to you and say "what made the iPod
| different from the Nomad"... inarguably the iPod was hugely
| successful where the Nomad wasn't.
|
| I don't think it's a great comparison. The MP3 players in the
| pre-iPod era were all made by tiny players no-one had heard
| of. The Oculus in particular has absolutely massive backing
| and still hasn't amounted to a lot.
|
| I suspect the differentiator will be software, not hardware.
| In particular the willingness of third parties to create
| software. Apple has a good record there at least.
| jarjoura wrote:
| Oculus is accessible by targeting itself as a fun gadget.
| You buy it to play immersive games when you're at home
| alone, bored. It's also affordable and that is extremely
| important. You won't feel nearly as bad dropping a wad of
| cash on this if it turns out to be a dud.
|
| Apple's product, on the other hand, is extremely wonky. Who
| is this thing actually for? Based on the demos, it just
| looks like a second screen for my phone. It's also
| outrageously expensive. So Apple is asking me to seriously
| buy into the ecosystem and have confidence that this will
| be an important device in my collection.
|
| I don't know, to me this isn't like any previous Apple take
| on a well defined market. In fact, this is Apple's take on
| a very undefined market with an unknown trajectory. It kind
| of feels more like when Apple went off the beaten path and
| added a touch bar to the MacBook Pro. It was an interesting
| idea and a lot of very long man hours went into making it
| work, but at what cost? In the end, it turns out, people
| just wanted simple tactile keys.
| jeron wrote:
| >Apple's product, on the other hand, is extremely wonky.
| Who is this thing actually for? Based on the demos, it
| just looks like a second screen for my phone. It's also
| outrageously expensive. So Apple is asking me to
| seriously buy into the ecosystem and have confidence that
| this will be an important device in my collection.
|
| that's actually the playbook for new product launches for
| Apple. That was the same issue with Apple watch - they
| had no idea who it was for when they launched the first
| generation. It was just a watch with a screen that told
| time and gave you notifications. Then, they realized
| people loved using it for tracking health, and each
| generation they keep coming up with more and more ways to
| use it as an all-around health tracker. Now, Apple watch
| is as ubiquitous on people's wrists as iPhones are in
| people's hands
| jarjoura wrote:
| How so? The Watch was launched as a FitBit killer at the
| 1.0 keynote. There was a small segment from Jony Ives
| touting a ridiculously priced gold variant which was a
| complete mis-read of the market. I could see how Apple
| was nervous that their core audience was fashion
| conscious and smart watches were the domain of the
| biggest nerds out there.
|
| However, point still stands, they knew they wanted an
| iPod shuffle with health and personal safety device at
| launch. They even went all out with a Nike partnership to
| help promote it.
| ss2003 wrote:
| I hate the touch bar. I want my function keys back.
| George83728 wrote:
| cmdrtaco is wrongly mocked for his reaction to the original
| ipod. The original ipod flopped hard: https://en.wikipedia.
| org/wiki/IPod#/media/File:Ipod_sales_pe...
|
| It didn't catch on until several years and hardware
| iterations later.
| fzzzy wrote:
| Tiny companies nobody has heard of like Sony? Cmon.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| At the time early media players were relevant, and to the
| community they were relevant (people very into music
| tech), Sony was known as "that company that installs
| rootkits on your computer if you buy their CD"
| afavour wrote:
| IIRC Sony were an absolute mess at the time. Didn't want
| to cannibalise their Minidisc sales, had weird DRM...
| even in the geeky crowds I ran in (where Nomads
| definitely were seen) Sony MP3 players were a rarity.
| cmiles74 wrote:
| My recollection is that Sony's Memory Stick based
| products of this era all had weird DRM requirements that
| were a big hassle.
| tkanarsky wrote:
| I've said this before, but Apple's attention to detail might
| finally bridge the uncanny valley to actually good AR. I can
| elaborate a bit more when I get on my computer.
| jolux wrote:
| No controllers, no waving your arms about. Eye tracking and
| hand gestures for navigation. Screen on the front that shows
| your face to make it feel less isolating. I don't know that
| it'll be a success but it's a lot more than just putting an
| Apple logo on it.
| zamadatix wrote:
| The sweat box is actively cooled this time. I'm concerned
| about the price as well though, even if it is fantastic
| beyond all expectations of what was presented that's a really
| hard price for most to justify for the feature set shown.
| Showing things like true and proper Disney+ integration day 1
| gives hope for big name support vs just special one off demos
| for headsets of the past though. At the same time, they are
| going to need a lot more properly integrated apps for it to
| reach success status.
| mantenpanther wrote:
| Only if it's comfortable to wear and not sickening. It must be
| a huge improvement over current devices like PS VR2, which I
| can physically not tolerate for long.
| mellosouls wrote:
| This sounds like a take from somebody who doesn't realise
| that's already there in headsets like the Quest that this
| presumably won't match in numbers.
|
| What is brilliant here, are the specs giving some serious boost
| to the use cases already established by Meta/Oculus, NReal etc
| and services like Immersed, BigScreen etc.
|
| But please, less of that breathless "Apple have invented this
| new thing" tone, it's annoying when they haven't.
|
| Either do some basic research first, or if you have, then at
| least frame what you reckon is revolutionary in terms of the
| existing market.
|
| I am sure from the specs, if not the price, that this is going
| to kick up some dust, but its not obviously inventing anything
| that isn't there already.
| drdaeman wrote:
| Not only they don't realize it already exists, they don't
| realize how bad it is.
|
| There's never enough resolution (even with 8K headsets), eye
| strain from trying to focus on virtual objects is real, and
| camera passthrough always look fake (and may even cause mild
| nausea). Not to mention that most folks don't really train
| their neck muscles to support significant extra weight on
| their heads on front-back axis (we typically tilt our heads
| much less than lean forward or backward, so headphones are
| not comparable).
|
| I don't believe Apple have made some giant leap and included
| an autorefractor in there and made external cameras moveable
| and able to match you pupillary distance (and convergence!),
| then added some fancy magnetostrictive micro-mirror system to
| dynamically boost resolution at the areas you're focusing at.
| Not in this form factor, and if they would somehow magically
| make it they'd be boasting about it non-stop.
|
| If they showcase it in Apple Stores I would definitely take a
| peek, and I would like to be wrong - but I'm pretty sure it's
| a pricey gimmick that won't be anywhere comfortable for any
| prolonged use.
| epolanski wrote:
| > For personal/entertainment use it completely replaces the
| need for a TV, soundbar, or home cinema.
|
| You're making a bold assumption, that someone wants to wear
| this headset when relaxing. Also, a TV can be watched by
| multiple people, and a home cinema will obviously deliver
| better sound.
|
| > For business use, the days of multiple displays and screen
| management seem set to be a relic of the past. I look forward
| to coding in an IDE which isn't constrained to a physical
| device sat on my desk, or replying to emails "on the beach"
| versus under fluorescent lighting.
|
| The IDE is an interesting perspective I too as a developer am
| thinking about. But there's a reason you can be as productive
| in 2023 as in 1983 using emacs or vim. Because it's insanely
| hard to replace the simplicity of text buffers and a keyboard.
|
| > In response to the obvious criticisms (high price, battery
| life, form factor)... this is Gen 1. Look how quickly the
| iPhone and Apple Watch evolved between generations 1 to 3, and
| look how the price changed as production capabilities and
| economies of scale evolved.
|
| Smart watches have been anything but a groundbreaking
| technological revolution.
| scyzoryk_xyz wrote:
| > You're making a bold assumption, that someone wants to wear
| this headset when relaxing.
|
| Hey - the world's biggest computer company just went up on
| stage along with the director of the world's biggest
| entertainment conglomerate and made that 'bold assumption'.
| They're probably pretty careful about these sorts of things.
| gymbeaux wrote:
| There are MANY examples of The Walt Disney Company making
| poor decisions. The most recent one would have to be the
| "Star Wars Hotel" that cost $1,200/night PER PERSON. In
| what world can enough Americans afford to fill up a hotel
| every night at that price? They did what all companies do-
| they got greedy. Now they have a $300M write-off as they
| tear it down.
|
| DIS stock is taking a dump right now because Disney+, it
| turns out, isn't the savior we all thought it was (and were
| led to believe it was) during the pandemic when the Parks
| division wasn't bringing in the cash. ESPN is dead weight.
| They have more debt than ever thanks to the pandemic.
| scyzoryk_xyz wrote:
| I did not say they're making the right decision. I merely
| pointed out that the parent comment poked at this being a
| bold assumption.
|
| They might be wrong, they might be making a bad play. But
| they've also probably devoted a reasonable amount of
| resources at finding answers to questions like whether
| people will want to use these or not. So, they probably
| didn't make "bold assumptions".
| tolmasky wrote:
| It takes very little for Bob Iger to say he will make
| Disney+ available on the Vision Pro. It takes very little
| to deliver a streaming platform to a new device in general,
| but even less for one that uses the same frameworks as one
| of your primary existing devices. Most of what they showed
| was just showing you Disney+ content on a floating screen.
| I highly doubt they have invested that much into any sort
| of experience that is only possible on the Vision Pro
| (hence limiting anything that came close to that as a
| generic vaporware "What if?" trailer at the end).
|
| With respect to the CEO of that company, I mean, sure. But
| you kind of take that as a given. It's not like he's only
| been right, and certainly his leadership so far has been
| business oriented, vs. "wave of the future" oriented. A
| good example is how the AirPods ended up being an arguably
| bigger success than the Watch (and how that hasn't really
| been fully capitalized on). The good news is that the
| world's biggest company is precisely the kind of place that
| can afford to iterate on something like this in the public.
| So if the theory is that the "dream" of AR is only possible
| by getting stuff out there to iterate on, then they
| certainly now have a good shot.
| bityard wrote:
| Pure anecdata of course and I'm far from the average
| person, but I personally do not like to wear headphones if
| I can avoid it. (And yes, I have good headphones.) I can't
| even imagine having a screen strapped to my face.
| Fricken wrote:
| I can imagine having a screen strapped to my face. I
| can't imagine a killer app that makes it worth the
| trouble & cost. I was hoping apple could help me out with
| my limited imagination, but they're pushing Apple Vision
| for watching movies, surfing the internet and facetime,
| so not really.
| sho_hn wrote:
| Disney has nothing to lose here, and Apple can take a
| failure, too.
|
| Apple has produced plenty of devices that didn't pan out.
|
| Let's not get too hyped away.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| >Apple has produced plenty of devices that didn't pan
| out.
|
| Have they? They've launched particular versions of
| existing products that didn't sell too well, but have
| they ever launched a device which was was fundamentally
| new and didn't eventually sell a ton of units?
| nemo wrote:
| HomePod
|
| Pippin
|
| Apple III
|
| Apple Lisa
|
| iPod HiFi
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| I was just thinking of the last few decades but yeah fair
| enough I had forgotten about the HomePod.
| robbiep wrote:
| I don't get this HomePod hate. I have the big (old gen)
| and small one, and they rock. We're in allocated housing
| at the moment for my fiancees work and they have a shitty
| tv. I wouldn't be able to hear the thing if it wasn't
| playing through my HomePod. And that's before the
| benefits of it as a speaker
| importantbrian wrote:
| The Newton would be the quintessential example.
| sho_hn wrote:
| I know you're going to want me to post the Apple Newton
| to disagree with, but I'm not that easy to catch!
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Pippin
| kjreact wrote:
| > You're making a bold assumption, that someone wants to wear
| this headset when relaxing.
|
| Well Apple showed someone using the headset while lying down
| in bed. I'd say that Apple is making a bold statement about
| the comfort of their product. We'll need to wait for hands on
| reviews to determine if it indeed is as comfortable as Apple
| implies it is.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| They also showed a model sitting on a 15k couch wearing
| probably a 3-5k turtleneck dress....
| dsr_ wrote:
| as she gently strokes the air up and down.
| blitzar wrote:
| > Well Apple showed someone using the headset while lying
| down in bed.
|
| The box of Wheaties showed someone shooting the winning
| buzzer beating home run touch down in double overtime to
| win the world series of superbowl cups. Somehow I doubt
| that, due to the bowl of Wheaties I had for breakfast, my
| afternoon will look much like that.
| tomcam wrote:
| Noted. I will eat 2 bowls of Wheaties
| hparadiz wrote:
| > You're making a bold assumption, that someone wants to wear
| this headset when relaxing.
|
| I've seen people pass out in VRChat with their headsets on.
| Some people on VRC are on there for 12+ hours a day. It's a
| fascinating sub culture I was totally shocked to learn about.
| People drink and do drugs while listening to music at a
| virtual rave. Multiple rooms full every Friday, Saturday
| 80-120 people in the room hanging out. I found myself up till
| 6 am lost in the music.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| I used to do exactly that when the pandemic started, but
| like, is that enough for a $3k headset? I paid $2k for my
| setup but I was already heavily committed to various
| simulation game genres.
|
| 120 people is not enough for an entire headset division,
| and since the main reason most people don't like doing that
| is that they don't really enjoy having the headset on, I
| don't know what apple can do to change that.
| hparadiz wrote:
| Depends on the GPU performance. An index needs to be
| powered by a whole desktop GPU.
| pivo wrote:
| > it's insanely hard to replace the simplicity of text
| buffers and a keyboard
|
| Totally agree. I just want to use this to replace my big
| bulky monitor that I can't take with me wherever I go and
| that makes my small place look a little more junky.
| rco8786 wrote:
| > You're making a bold assumption, that someone wants to wear
| this headset when relaxing.
|
| _Raises hand_. I 'm in for that. I'm a VR fan but my soapbox
| has always been that AR is the true future.
|
| > Also, a TV can be watched by multiple people, and a home
| cinema will obviously deliver better sound.
|
| In the same way that when the iPhone came out there were
| individual devices that could do each feature better than the
| iPhone could, yes :)
|
| If you look at video consumption, "individual" devices
| (phones, tablets, laptops) make up about 50% of viewing time.
| TV the rest. I don't think the multiple people angle is going
| to kill this considering how much content is consumed
| individually already.
|
| A home cinema also has to be researched, purchased
| separately, takes up space, etc. Any pair of $200 Bose
| headphones sounds better than the old iPhone ear pods...and
| yet...
|
| > it's insanely hard to replace the simplicity of text
| buffers and a keyboard.
|
| We're talking about replacing monitors, not text buffers or
| keyboards!
| wslh wrote:
| > ... Also, a TV can be watched by multiple people ...
|
| I will point to this article: "Why Americans are lonelier and
| its effects on our health" [1] that claims that "some surveys
| reveal that around 60 percent of people in the U.S. right now
| report feeling lonely on a pretty regular basis. And that's
| pretty devastating from a public health perspective".
|
| I don't know the real number but it connect with the market
| potential. Also, Apple is really great on hitting the mark.
| Playing with words, I don't think Mark is as good as Apple.
|
| [1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/why-americans-are-
| lonelier....
| pxtail wrote:
| But isn't this VR/AR kit going to contribute even more to
| the loneliness - contribute and feed itself on the trend?
|
| Despite positive upbeat music it was kind of sad to watch
| people alone in their sparsely furnished environments
| without personal touch, viewing favorite pictures on helmet
| instead of printed on the wall, father with the face hidden
| behind this helmet during kid birthday party, etc
| wslh wrote:
| Probably yes, we were talking about the success of the
| product not the society. That is another topic where we
| can also include mobile phones, streaming services, etc.
| doctoboggan wrote:
| For me it could go either way. I am willing to put up with
| wearing a headset if it unlocks some new use cases. But we
| really need to know the specs. I haven't seen anyone mention
| a field of view, refresh rate, pixel per degree, etc. And
| even with these specs I would need to actually try it to get
| a holistic feel for the product and its software.
| sho_hn wrote:
| > Also, a TV can be watched by multiple people, and a home
| cinema will obviously deliver better sound.
|
| I was extremely surprised that shared reality was completely
| absent from the presentation. Apparently the sensors on these
| devices don't enable creating a coordinate system that
| multiple devices can collaborate on/in. You can't look at the
| same objects in space together.
|
| This is hard stuff, but I'm stunned they're shipping it
| before solving that problem.
| Miraste wrote:
| It's not the sensors. Meta headsets can do this with much
| worse sensors by using shared anchors, which as someone
| else mentioned is already a feature in ARKit. Why they
| didn't mention this or integrate it into the OS I don't
| know.
| krmblg wrote:
| Wouldn't this be addressed automagically by using the same
| "anchors" when using the appropriate tech stack (i.e.
| ARKit)?
|
| https://developer.apple.com/documentation/arkit/aranchor
| pr0zac wrote:
| You'd think it would because of that but you'd also think
| if it was supported they'd mention it, if only to provide
| defense against the "only for friendless nerds that live
| alone" criticism, albeit at an absurd price point.
| comment_ran wrote:
| We're really missing the point here. Yes, that device
| can't do better. You can't do that with your friends
| together. But there's some similar in America right now.
| You can just jump in and in 2 or 4 minutes, and that kind
| of experience. Why to bother this kind of thing, this new
| tech? Doing things together is good, I think that's the
| main selling point of these devices.
| caconym_ wrote:
| > I'm stunned they're shipping it before solving that
| problem
|
| Are you really? Outside of everybody sitting on the couch
| watching a movie together, which will be an extremely
| marginal use case for this thing anyway--are you seriously
| going to buy all of (spouse, kids, friends) their own $3500
| headset?--shared-reality seems very niche for consumer
| applications, which are clearly what they're targeting.
| sho_hn wrote:
| I really, honestly am!
|
| I think without shared reality in place, the public
| verdict on this device will be that it's a loneliness
| enabler, or has you wear your loneliness on your face. Or
| rather, on a screen strapped to your face. It's going to
| be _undesirable_ , the most damning quality of any
| consumer item. Nobody will envy their peers for having
| one.
| caconym_ wrote:
| People say this about smartphones, too, and yet adoption
| is practically universal. If the product is worth using,
| people will use it, and the social friction will fade.
| The reason products like Google Glass never moved beyond
| pariah status is that they _weren 't_ really worth using,
| so they were only ever used by "tech bros" who were
| already cultural pariahs, and who in so using outed
| themselves as such.
|
| Besides which, nobody is looking into my home and calling
| my various screens "loneliness enablers". Not that I
| would give a shit if they were, though I might invest in
| some blinds or drapes.
| sho_hn wrote:
| It's about perception. None of those screen inherently
| prevent anyone else from sharing your experience, or
| outright advertise escapism as a use case.
|
| I'm saying the "Apple goggles" can so easily fall victim
| this perception because those qualities are so front-and-
| center with it.
| caconym_ wrote:
| > I'm saying the "Apple goggles" can so easily fall
| victim this perception because those qualities are so
| front-and-center with it.
|
| And I'm saying nobody will ultimately give a crap if the
| tech works as well as Apple wants it to. Our social
| spaces have been utterly transformed by screens and
| networked technology in the last few decades, and while
| there is always some pushback, progress marches on for
| better or worse.
| docmars wrote:
| Especially with as much emphasis they put on SharePlay in
| the iPhone presentation. Quite a neat feature. For the few
| households that will splurge $14,000 for a family of 4 to
| watch movies together once a month, I'd hope it would have
| this feature!
| [deleted]
| pdabbadabba wrote:
| > a home cinema will obviously deliver better sound.
|
| Will it, though? Of course you _could_ build a home theater
| with better sound, but I 'd bet that the spatial audio built
| into AirPods delivers better sound that most peoples' home
| theater setups (which is generally just a TV with built in
| sound or a mediocre soundbar).
| beltsazar wrote:
| Except those people who have "mediocre soundbars" can't
| afford buying a $3.5K VR headset. And those who have a
| spare budget of $3.5K to enhance their TV watching
| experience will invest the money on a better TV and a
| surround speaker setup.
| carbine wrote:
| I think you might be over-extrapolating your own POV. I
| have a mediocre soundbar and can afford the Vision Pro.
| I'm not likely to upgrade my soundbar anytime soon (I
| don't really care), but I'm very likely to buy a Vision
| Pro.
|
| can't imagine people will only be buying it for movie
| watching.
| pdabbadabba wrote:
| > Except those people who have "mediocre soundbars" can't
| afford buying a $3.5K VR headset.
|
| There are many many people for whom money is not the
| limiting factor. It's because they don't have the space,
| the technical wherewithal to set it up, the motivation to
| make it happen, or some combination of all three.
| kjreact wrote:
| I want an IMAX viewing experience with booming surround
| effects and I only have time to watch when the kids are
| all in bed. Compared with a house large enough to have a
| dedicated sound-proof theatre room, $3500 doesn't sound
| too expensive.
|
| Also not everyone lives in a house, I'm sure Manhattan
| condo owners can afford the price of the theatre gear,
| but cannot afford the space required for them to be used
| optimally. Wealthy people don't all live in mansions.
| addisonl wrote:
| You can't get a "booming" sound without a sub.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| Of course it will. This is basic physics.
| kjreact wrote:
| > Of course it will. This is basic physics.
|
| But does everyone have the space/room dimensions to have
| a proper surround sound setup? Pesky physics restrict you
| here as well.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| The average American or British living room with even a
| cheap surround system is going to run rings around
| anything in-ear or on-ear.
|
| There's many reasons that people warn newbies not to mix
| or master on cans and to use speakers.
|
| For people who care about going beyond stereo, budget is
| going to be a much larger problem for most folks than
| space or technical knowhow. And anybody who cares about
| going beyond stereo probably cares about quality.
| catiopatio wrote:
| For the price of a single Apple Vision Pro, I can buy a 65"
| 4K TV, a Dolby Atmos surround-sound system from Sonos, and
| still have a bit left over.
|
| And you'll need a Vision Pro for each person watching.
| pdabbadabba wrote:
| Like I said, "you could build a home theater with better
| sound." But most people haven't and won't. It requires
| time, technical expertise, and a lot of space. And with
| that you _only_ get a home theater. And you can 't travel
| with it (I love the idea of using one on a plane).
|
| But I'm sympathetic to the social-watching issue. I don't
| love the idea of watching movies in a headset while my
| wife sits next to me on the sofa doing something else (or
| even watching the same movie on a screen). But I also
| don't love the idea of buying two. (And that's without
| even thinking about larger families.)
|
| I think home theater will be a big part of the appeal,
| but it won't succeed if replacing a home theater is the
| only thing it does well.
| secabeen wrote:
| There's also a physical limit on bass sound from small
| head speakers. Much of bass sound is felt in the chest as
| much as in the ear, and the little speakers on the device
| are limited there. iPods are the same of course, and they
| do okay with sound, but we accept a lot of limitations on
| portable devices.
| throw74775 wrote:
| Yes, but all you'll have is a big smart tv. Visio pro
| does a few things a TV doesn't.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| If someone can afford the Vision Pro, I don't think
| buying a TV is going to be a problem for them, and they
| almost certainly already have one.
| rabuse wrote:
| Can you take all that with you anywhere you go though?
| Terretta wrote:
| Note that 65" is very different from 100" and most
| people's movie experience at home is far too small
| relative to the directors' intents.
|
| The Sonos w/ sub + rear surrounds and an 85" OLED TV with
| these latencies will put you in the price point of this
| thing.
|
| If you're apart, both people would need a room, TV, and
| Sonos system to share the experience. So each has that
| "need one per person" problem depending whether colocated
| or not.
| hparadiz wrote:
| I'm more excited to use this for games and VRChat. My
| Valve Index needs my whole gaming desktop to power it
| which is actually pretty much the price of an Apple
| Vision Pro.
| numpad0 wrote:
| I don't think we are at a point in human technology where
| any noise-cancelling headphones sound better than cheap
| wired counterparts... they feel amazing by rather deceptive
| engineering, but it only lasts until you go back to
| standard non-cancelling speakers.
| neuronic wrote:
| By Gen3 in 5 years, people will begin to buy these like
| iPhones and then multiple people will be able to watch via
| SharePlay.
|
| 3D images are probably coming to iPhone 15 or iPhone 16 so
| the posts about "who's gonna wear this to take pictures" are
| already moot.
|
| This is a developer/enthusiast focused niche release
| providing perfect beta testing grounds while technology will
| shrink this device to a smaller and more practical form
| factor.
|
| In 3-4 years, the current Vision Pro will be the standard
| Apple Vision product with a smaller form factor while a new
| Pro product will have more advanced features and lose its
| external battery.
|
| I also think that Apple Vision will be successful but Gen1 is
| not where its at for the vast majority of users.
| bluescrn wrote:
| Give it a decade, and the demand for immersive escapism
| will be greater than ever, if anyone can afford it, as
| western civilization continues its decline/collapse.
| Demmme wrote:
| Everyone thought 3.4k was just a rumor and it will be
| lower.
|
| A good experience is still expensive and even apple only
| made it with 2h runtime.
|
| It will take perhaps more or something really
| revolutionary.
|
| After all you need 4 to watch anything as a family and
| people don't even mind watching movies on their phones!
|
| Apple also has to believe for so long in this while not
| being successful with it (my guess).
| joking wrote:
| good catch about needing 4 of them for a family... will
| they implement multiuser in vision OS or you will have to
| buy one for each member as you are supposed to do with
| the ipads?
| paul_f wrote:
| I have to wonder about a device that won't allow you to
| watch a 2-hour movie without running out of battery and
| having to plug it in. I guess Oppenheimer is a no-go.
| zimpenfish wrote:
| > even apple only made it with 2h runtime
|
| Using a tiny battery pack. I'm assuming (hoping) that
| you'll be able to use something bigger that provides
| USB-C power and get a correspondingly longer life.
| Demmme wrote:
| It looked like an longer one and apple can't break
| physics. It has two 4k HDR displays build in and a M2 and
| a R2.
|
| I'm really curious if they have overheating limitations.
| mgh2 wrote:
| $3k: replaces a laptop, TV and computer
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khMcq66_HeU
| hinkley wrote:
| > Smart watches have been anything but a groundbreaking
| technological revolution.
|
| I think Apple has made a tactical error here. The days of the
| shrinking iPhone are long gone, but not forgotten. It was the
| iPhone 3G that was a turning point for people who hadn't
| bought an iPhone yet. It was smaller with better battery
| life.
|
| If the Apple Watch 3 had followed a similar pattern, they
| would have had to skip adding the next additional sensor to
| the device, but I think in the long term that would have just
| delayed us one design cycle but still given us a thinner and
| lighter watch, which we would have needed for a deeper
| impact.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Apple needs to do 3 things for the Vision Pro to be
| successful.
|
| 1. Convince enough people to buy one via halo use cases
|
| 2. Leverage or buy developer adoption
|
| 3. Create a decent enough developer experience to produce
| high quality apps
|
| On 2 & 3, Apple has a proven track record, or at least
| amassing enough market share to force developers to ignore
| deficiencies in 3.
|
| Which means 1 is going to be make-or-break.
|
| The Apple Watch is a great analogy here, because it was
| _evolutionary_ rather than revolutionary.
|
| It did not let you do anything you couldn't before. It did
| let you do it better.
|
| Consequently, this won't be (and doesn't need to be) an
| iPhone level smash success. It just needs to be volume and
| financially self-sufficient enough to get them to iteration
| N+X.
|
| Because iteration N+X is "We shrink the iPhone down to a
| minimally-screened compute/network node, and the Vision SE
| becomes everyone's must-have companion, and then Apple owns
| a better-than-iPhone platform."
|
| I think Apple made the right move in trumpeting its non-
| work use cases, because Apple has let macOS atrophy for
| enterprise use. And priced-for-work is a trap market they
| don't need to pursue (see: Microsoft).
|
| But I don't know if most people want a better consumptive
| device $3500-badly... time, will tell.
| llm_nerd wrote:
| Regarding #2 and #3, Apple has been working on this for
| years. ARKit for instance, is hugely gimmicky if not
| silly on iPhones, and LIDAR on the same had incredibly
| limited real world utility for that device. Yet for years
| they've been deploying millions of equipped devices,
| building it out, expanding the SDKs, doing developer
| outreach, and so on. They've even built shared AR spaces
| when the viewport is just a phone, again despite it being
| pretty goofy and of limited value.
|
| They've been building towards this for years.
|
| I suspect for most apps supporting the Vision Pro will be
| supporting variable resolutions (for resizable windows)
| and clicking a checkbox on the targets.
| mike_hearn wrote:
| Surely $3500 and "Pro" in the product name implies they
| think it'll mostly be used for work? I didn't quite
| understand why they branded it that way given the heavy
| consumer focus in the demos. It implies that they
| intended for it to be a consumer device for a long time
| and got cold feet at the end when they realized they
| couldn't reduce the price.
| ohgodplsno wrote:
| I will happily go on record to say that you're critically wrong
| and that the only reason this will ever have any usage is the
| Apple Reality Distortion Field.
|
| I speak having used most available VR devices available these
| past few years, and currently owning a Valve Index:
|
| Watching movies: wearing something over your eyes and on your
| head like that for so long _fucking sucks_. It's heavy/hot
| enough when you're doing something that takes your attention.
| Watching a movie is fun for the first time, then you realize
| that being able to walk around, look at other things etc is
| infinitely better. Not to mention the fact that if you ever
| want to watch with someone else, well they better have 3.5k
| available. that makes it a non starter for literally anyone
| hoping to, you know, have people over.
|
| - For work: it fucking sucks. You know what's worse than having
| two screens taking up your entire sight? Having to physically
| turn your head to see more screens. It is physically sickening
| to have your entire attention taken up like that.
|
| - Form factor: my dude the last thing I want in public is to
| look like I'm wearing swimming goggles. Also, two hours is
| absolutely pathetic.
|
| - Price: the first iPhone cost $600. The cheapest new iPhone 14
| is $1000, the most expensive is like 2000. It got worse, not
| better.
|
| It's going to be a fun, overpriced toy and it'll be just like
| every VR device people currently own: hanging on your wall and
| used once every two weeks, at best.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| samwillis wrote:
| The accessibility of this product is going to be transformative
| in _industry_. There have been similar AR headsets for woking
| in some industrial sectors, but this makes it possible for all
| companies to develop apps specific to their work place. Every
| factory, every distribution centre, every construction site,
| every industrial site, every hospital, can have this integrated
| to guide their workforce in complex tasks.
|
| Imagine this for surgeries, or complex construction tasks, even
| just finding items in a warehouse.
|
| This is going to be massive in the workspace, thats where I
| think people probably underestimate it.
|
| We may all end up with one of these - or the none "pro" version
| - at home, just as we have iPads laying around. But many of us
| are going to end ups waring these for many hours a day during
| work.
|
| Taking of a headset when we go home will end up being a joy.
| atonse wrote:
| For me 100% of the excitement is about the bajillion business
| ideas I've had hoping that VR would become more popular, when
| it just simply didn't get there.
|
| Industry is where I'm a lot more excited.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| Google Glass tried to pivot towards industrial use (eg,
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IK-zU51MU4 ) - it didn't
| seem to go very well.
| rabuse wrote:
| Are we really going to compare a Google product with an
| Apple product? It's night and day.
| JoeJonathan wrote:
| Speaking as a total non-expert here: assuming workspaces
| _look_ good, I think this will entirely depend on software.
| What will it be like to use this with a keyboard? Will the OS
| be as siloed as iOS?
|
| This morning, my mac wouldn't boot. I tried to write on my
| iPad instead. It was a nightmare: too cumbersome to move
| between apps, Zotero nearly unworkable, hard to navigate
| different file versions. If the OS works more like iOS than
| macOS, I can't imagine it being as useful as computers save
| for very specific applications.
| arcatech wrote:
| I REALLY don't want a doctor performing surgery on me with
| this thing on their face.
| gretch wrote:
| You think you don't until one day there's a stat that AR
| assisted surgery is 50% more successful.
|
| Ask yourself - do you like it when your surgeon is using
| CAT scans, MRIs, blood/protein testing?
|
| Do you like it when your surgeon is wearing magnification
| glasses?
|
| Do you think fighter pilots with AR huds with tactical info
| perform better than fighter pilots with just their eye?
| heavyset_go wrote:
| I genuinely can't tell what posts are satire or not in
| this thread.
| bitterspeak wrote:
| Tons of minimally invasive procedures are performed through
| the Davinci surgical robot where the surgeon is literally
| hunched over with his head buried ina computer screen. As
| long as there is some medical benefit, I don't see this
| sort of technology interaction as being something new.
| [deleted]
| vsareto wrote:
| >This is going to be massive in the workspace, thats where I
| think people probably underestimate it.
|
| I don't think companies are going to spring this much for a
| headset and laptop until there's very obvious benefits, but
| maybe I've just been short-changed with shitty equipment my
| whole career.
|
| Companies trying to get people to go back to the office, then
| ordering them VR headsets will be the height of tech irony.
| chaostheory wrote:
| Hot desking will be much easier when people will be wearing
| their computer AND monitors.
|
| You can further reduce furniture and physical office costs
|
| Apple also isn't the only one with an XR headset. Meta's is
| considerably weaker, but it's $999
| Demmme wrote:
| The price is to high for companies.
|
| Laptop budget is 1-3k.
|
| And people steal expensive shit. Alone the stealing is a deal
| breaker alone.
|
| And we have working cheap AR glasses.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| >Alone the stealing is a deal breaker alone.
|
| Judging from the video it doesn't work outside anyway so
| you'll be fine.
| alexb_ wrote:
| What about $3500 says "accessibility" to you? You're just re-
| vomiting out all of the same promises VR companies have been
| making for the past half decade. No company is going to spend
| $3500 on a tool that easily breaks for low stakes jobs and is
| untested/unreliable for high stakes jobs.
| mcculloughrt wrote:
| I work in construction. $3500 is a paltry, pocket change
| amount of money compared to project budgets.
|
| Standard single-building commercial / institutional new
| builds can be tens of millions to low hundred million,
| "big" projects are often north of a quarter billion
| dollars, and well over a billion is not unusual for so-
| called "mega projects". Risk (from defects / mistakes) is
| often roughly proportional to budget. The placement of
| seemingly minor and easy to miss elements at the initial
| critical stages of a concrete pour in a high rise, for
| example, is pretty high stakes with rework costing hundreds
| of thousands to potentially millions. We have processes for
| mitigating that of course, but none that approach it in
| such a direct and observable way as AR, and none are
| incompatible with being done alongside AR. Paying $3500 +
| software for something that helps mitigate that risk in a
| totally new and complementary way is very very interesting
| to many companies.
|
| edit: To be clear, I'm not convinced that this particular
| device is revolutionary compared to those that already
| exist, which have their own challenges. I'm just objecting
| to the idea that there isn't a market for it at that price
| even WITH challenges.
| [deleted]
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| You should probably try it before making this kind of
| statement.
|
| The perfect version of this tech -could- be what you describe.
| But so far there are quite a few unknowns about the real
| experience.
| confoundcofound wrote:
| Do you think people will enjoy living with a headset strapped
| to their face? The shots of that dad playing with his daughters
| while wearing the device seemed like a stretch that I'm
| surprised Apple took. This is the company that takes its "Human
| Interface Guidelines" seriously.
| peyton wrote:
| I dunno, beats pulling out a phone and fumbling with the
| record button.
| r053bud wrote:
| Ah! So the solution to that problem is to have a mask
| strapped to your face with 2 hour battery life. Makes
| sense. Yeah that sounds better than my iPhone that fits in
| my pocket and lasts all day. I can deal with the occasional
| fumble to find the record button.
| oezi wrote:
| I think the remote worker in a hotel was a more likely take.
|
| A lot will depend on the quality of the virtual avatar
| generated for you while in a video call.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| I didn't think people would enjoy looking at a 6 inch screen
| while hunched over for every second of their waking lives,
| but here we are.
| confoundcofound wrote:
| Difference being I straighten myself occasionally and look
| at you in the eyes.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| woah you must be really outgoing
| outworlder wrote:
| > Do you think people will enjoy living with a headset
| strapped to their face?
|
| Yes, while they are working on something. I've often wanted
| to 'take my screen with me' as I moved to a different
| location.
| dboreham wrote:
| Windows has had Remote Desktop for 20 years.
| bsaul wrote:
| Yes, that part also shocked me. It looks like they've
| completely lost their mind, and don't realize they're
| shooting a remake of black mirror..
| astrange wrote:
| Like 1984, Black Mirror isn't a dystopia because of
| technology, but because it's in England. If you leave I
| expect everything's fine. Also solves being converted into
| Cybermen for the 100th time.
| basedmember wrote:
| This is the funniest comment I've ever read on HN. After
| 3 months I've spent in London a year ago, I can never
| understand while people online hate England so much.
| l33t233372 wrote:
| It's like the Ohio of Europe
| 1024core wrote:
| > For personal/entertainment use it largely replaces the need
| for a TV, soundbar, or home cinema.
|
| TV viewing is often a social experience: friends gathering in
| front of a TV to watch a sporting event (say, a World Cup
| soccer match, or your favorite team's football game, or an NBA
| finals game). This takes away that aspect. I'm not sure if this
| is a change we really need.
| zimpenfish wrote:
| > TV viewing is often a social experience:
|
| Sure but "for personal use" kinda excludes "social
| experience" here.
|
| > it largely replaces the need for a TV, soundbar, or home
| cinema
|
| In my previous flat, living along, a big TV just didn't fit
| anywhere. A sound system would also have annoyed the
| neighbours. Something like this would have been perfect for
| getting that 4K HDR viewing experience.
| anonymouse008 wrote:
| You're speaking mips and bits...
|
| This is not what got Apple to where it was. It was recognizing
| what we wanted to do to go further, individually and together,
| and amplified that with technology.
|
| This literally amplifies your ass to the couch. I'm shocked.
| Stunned. And sad.
| jw1224 wrote:
| > This literally amplifies your ass to the couch. I'm
| shocked. Stunned. And sad.
|
| Were you "shocked/stunned/sad" about Apple TV? A product
| which physically relies on your ass being sat on the couch?
|
| Think a little bigger here! This goes well beyond
| entertainment value. Imagine the general business uses in
| industry, manufacturing, medicine, conferencing,
| telecommunications, let alone any form of interpersonal
| interaction over long distances...
|
| These are all things we take for granted with FaceTime,
| Google, GPT... All these are new but ubiquitous technologies,
| which allow us to enhance our human abilities and connect
| with each other in new and novel ways.
| [deleted]
| anonymouse008 wrote:
| You and I both know the TV was not Apple's 'One more
| thing...' to such a cringy degree.
|
| Preface: I've been in the VR/AR space a long time. I
| started a company with a friend around the launch of DK1 -
| we wanted to sell VR Computer Boxes. We had so many dumb
| but beautifully naive ideas.
|
| I will only offer high level themes (although incomplete)
| that should hopefully explain why I take such issue with
| this release:
|
| We already have the best vision system on the planet, 'our
| eyes'.
|
| Spatial Computing in humans is not vision and audio alone -
| proprioception underlies all.
|
| What you cover with a headset, you cannot faithfully
| recreate with cameras and software.
|
| Use the brilliant chipset advantage to bring super 'low
| cost' computing embodiments to every corner of life - then
| integrate with devs
|
| Ambient Computing is the next iteration of 'mac at the
| center of your digital life'
|
| AirTags, Beacons, and AppClips don't get the corporate
| strategic attention they deserve
|
| Apple Watch should be 'the wand' for life out in the real
| world, with AppClips, Beacons and such
| meling wrote:
| I agree. This was more amazing than I had expected upfront. I
| can envision myself using this for developing code as well, but
| I think I will have a hard time convincing my boss...
| outworlder wrote:
| > I will happily go on the record as saying that this will be
| as revolutionary as the iPhone, perhaps even more so.
|
| It seems to have the potential. The UX seems incredible. Little
| details like using eyes as a pointer make it for a far better
| experience (no, moving your head to point is not the same).
| Looking at your Macbook to pull apps from it is the sort of
| thing that can make it intuitive for the average user. A proper
| review of what this could do would take an article.
|
| I think the main things we need to know are:
|
| * What sort of apps can we use? Is this IOS-like, or can I run
| XCode on it? Having to own the headset plus a macbook is not
| going to make or break it, but it changes the value of the
| device at its current price point.
|
| * Can we comfortably use it for 8+ hours a day?
|
| * Is text really crisp enough for productivity usage?
|
| I don't think this version is quite there yet, but give it a
| few iterations and we may be able to ditch physical monitors
| altogether. I've been waiting for that for a while.
|
| At $3499 it's quite a gamble. At $999 it would have been a no-
| brainer, as that's the price of a phone. It does have way too
| much hardware for a lower price point, so it's understandable.
| But the more devices that exist, the greater the network
| effects.
| wintogreen74 wrote:
| >> Can we comfortably use it for 8+ hours a day?
|
| With 2 hours of battery life this is not a problem.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| In the video you could see someone using it while there was
| a wire going into his pocket, presumably that's a battery
| extender.
| notJim wrote:
| It's indefinite if plugged in. You'd be in your office or
| wherever with the device plugged in for productivity use.
| Miraste wrote:
| I'm not sold on eyes as a pointer just yet. The Quest Pro can
| do this and it does not feel great. Based on experience with
| a lot of other headsets:
|
| > Can we comfortably use it for 8+ hours a day?
|
| No. Even if the ergonomics are perfect, the screens aren't
| good enough for this.
|
| > Is text really crisp enough for productivity usage?
|
| If they match the leaked resolution, no.
| whynotminot wrote:
| What's the leaked resolution?
| oezi wrote:
| They now published 24m pixel total, 12m per eye, i.e. 4k
| per eye.
| whynotminot wrote:
| 4K is roughly 8 million pixels. I wonder if they're
| including the front display in their pixel count. Or
| there actually is significantly better than 4K per eye
| happening here.
|
| At any rate, it's a lot of pixels. Not sure what GP is
| complaining about.
| notJim wrote:
| > No. Even if the ergonomics are perfect, the screens
| aren't good enough for this.
|
| Is > 4k not enough for this? Looks to be almost double the
| Quest Pro resolution.
| Miraste wrote:
| Sadly no. I've used AR glasses that have double the
| pixels per degree than the Quest Pro (done by using a
| smaller FOV). It looks like 1080p on maybe a 32" desktop
| monitor. You _can_ read but it 's not a fun experience.
| Apple's version will depend on what FOV they use, but
| it's going to look pixelated regardless. There's a reason
| they didn't use their Retina branding.
| pier25 wrote:
| > _For personal /entertainment use it largely replaces the need
| for a TV, soundbar, or home cinema._
|
| It remains to be seen if the experience is better than a large
| OLED TV.
|
| In terms of sound I seriously doubt it. Maybe if it had large
| planar drivers but I doubt you can use large headphones with
| it. If it's meant to be used with crappy Airpods the sound is
| going to be nowhere comparable to a home theater.
| alexb_ wrote:
| I will happily go on the record as saying that this will be as
| revolutionary as the Apple TV. Perhaps even less so (if such a
| thing is possible).
| stocknoob wrote:
| Once people get an AppleTV, do they go back to a
| chromcast/roku/firestick/media pc?
|
| It has a higher MSRP than the others, but once you get one...
| jejeyyy77 wrote:
| lol, except the Apple TV is awesome...?
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Set top boxes are a dime a dozen. A $50 Roku stick can
| serve the purposes of a vast majority of TV watchers.
| twobitshifter wrote:
| It serves the purpose but h2h Apple TV is way better.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Seriously? You still stuck in the 2d world!
| mithr wrote:
| I wouldn't really make a statement like the above, and I
| can't say I necessarily agree with it... that being said,
| other folks on this thread are kinda missing the point OP
| made: it's not that Apple TV isn't _good_. It 's that it
| isn't, and never really was, _revolutionary_.
|
| It's an arguably best-in-class app-based TV watching
| experience. But its market share is pretty small years after
| launch, it hasn't caused much change/adaptation in the market
| as a whole as a result of existing, and it's not really at
| the center of any kind of cultural conversation.
|
| I am really curious to learn more details about Vision Pro
| (like... how much does it weigh?), and would be even more
| curious to learn about the market fit research Apple must
| have done to believe there's a place for this device,
| especially at this price point. The biggest omission for me
| was the placement of the headset as device on which to view
| movies, and see pictures of your kids, while at the same time
| completely sidestepping the question of how you'd do that
| _together with your family_ , which is how these activities
| are typically performed in a household with children.
| fsloth wrote:
| Apple TV is excellent? Is there a better device? (If you
| don't want to use the apps bundled with tv).
| mryingster wrote:
| Unironically, the Apple TV is my favorite Apple device. It
| does exactly what it says it does, is inexpensive, and has a
| good interface. It just works.
| [deleted]
| ra7 wrote:
| And after years of neglect, they brought the one feature I
| really wanted in the Apple TV -- ability to do FaceTime
| calls on the big screen.
| ghaff wrote:
| It's sort of evolved to the "What's that Chromecast thing
| again?" for me. (Which I thought was super-underrated.) And
| I guess I could maybe upgrade my big TV which would be an
| absolute hassle and is perfectly good for my purposes--and
| might not even be better at this point. Not a frequently in
| my hand thing but for ~$100 and really nice, perfectly
| good.
| thefourthchime wrote:
| And most importantly, they're not selling you with tracking
| or ads. You bought a thing, you get a thing. No BS. besides
| that, the apps all work and have fewer bugs, unlike
| everything else I've used like it.
| pmontra wrote:
| Apple TV is inexpensive and you hide it close to the TV.
| This one costs more than $3000 and you have to wear it on
| your face all the time. Masks work well only when we're
| alone or if everybody is wearing one. If not, they use to
| cancel the wearer from social interactions.
| schappim wrote:
| I think that is what they're trying to achieve with the
| avatar and oled eyesight display. The jury is out.
| moelf wrote:
| Apple TV is one of those apple devices you can't use unless
| you're "apple enough" -- you can't even set it up without
| having an iOS device to do 2FA.
| khazhoux wrote:
| Correct. Apple products are really not meant to be used
| as one-offs if you are otherwise in Android/whatever
| ecosystem.
| KptMarchewa wrote:
| I'm happily using macbook, and would not use it if it
| required me to use ios or any other device.
| jw1224 wrote:
| Fully agree! Their "hobby" has turned into possibly the
| best experience in their lineup (from a UX perspective).
| Exuma wrote:
| You are high as a kite. AppleTV is one of the greatest things
| in my househould. The UI is world's beyond whatever ad-filled
| garbage "smartOS" my TV uses.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| True, but that bar is so low that you need a metal detector
| to find it.
| Xerox9213 wrote:
| [dead]
| Taywee wrote:
| It's hard to find a UI worse than that of your average
| Smart TV. They're in a league of their own when it comes to
| spectacularly terrible UIs.
| dunham wrote:
| How about pre-iphone cell phones? It's been a while, but
| I remember them having specularly bad UI and cheering
| Apple's entry on that point alone.
| adamwk wrote:
| Somehow it's still the only smart TV with < 1s input delay
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| No wireless. Less pixels than an 8K TV. Lame.
| civilitty wrote:
| Using a product I already paid for without getting served any
| ads is pretty revolutionary /s
| jonwinstanley wrote:
| Apple TV is great, I've bought a few over the years
| basisword wrote:
| Apple TV is easily my favourite Apple product. Of all the
| Apple products it's the one that works flawlessly and gets
| out of my way. I could give up my Mac and switch to Windows
| before I would switch to an Apple TV competitor.
| pipeline_peak wrote:
| > Apple TV is easily my favourite Apple product
|
| It's a great Apple product for people who already own Apple
| products.
|
| It's like filling your tire with a Mercedes branded pump.
| rstupek wrote:
| That's not at all true. It works just fine without owning
| any other Apple product. How do you think it requires you
| own an Apple product?
| pipeline_peak wrote:
| Can you use Netflix, Hulu, etc with it through Android?
| Or are you stuck with that wimpy remote that looks like a
| 1st gen ipod shuffle? If that's true, I'll admit you can
| use it, but that is a painful, dated experience. "click
| left, click up, click up, click left"
| rstupek wrote:
| Yes you can use all of those with the included remote
| which is easy to use and quite responsive. And all of
| them (minus Netflix) surface the shows you're watching up
| to "watch now" so you don't have to dig into any of them
| to continue watch your shows. I'm not aware of any use of
| an iphone which makes using the Apple TV easier.
| twobitshifter wrote:
| You should try the remote, it's blazingly fast and makes
| any other TV feel like junk. You just swipe no clicking
| needed. If you need to type there's voice to text built
| in to the remote to either say or spell what you want.
| nerdix wrote:
| There was an issue where you couldn't accept accept an
| updated iCloud TOS without an iPhone. You could dismiss
| the prompt but it would keep nagging you whenever you
| turned the device on. I think it's fixed now.
|
| In general, using the Apple TV I get the impression that
| Apple PMs are probably deep in the Apple bubble and the
| idea that someone might not have an iPhone is
| inconceivable to them.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| Apple doesn't have PMs in the sense you're thinking of.
| This was a simply a bug.
| Philip-J-Fry wrote:
| I used to think Apple TV was unimpressive. I had an Android
| TV which turned to shit after like 3 years. Apple TV though?
| Runs like a dream, still gets updates, has nice integrations
| with my iPhone. It's one of the best "plug and play" Apple
| devices there is. It "just works".
|
| I went from finding it unimpressive to it being my first
| recommendation for anyone getting a TV. Screw regular smart
| TV software, just get the TV with the best panel and use
| Apple TV. So long as the TV doesn't break, you won't need to
| upgrade for a long long time.
| nerdix wrote:
| I have a 2019 Shield Pro (so 4 years old) and the 2023
| AppleTV 4k. I've had issues with both. My AppleTV
| definitely does not just work. Apps crash all the time and
| occasionally requires a restart. I have different issues on
| the Shield which also occasionally requires restart
| rafael_c wrote:
| Have you tried Chromecast 4k, though? I've bought one, as
| my LG TV's webOS became so sluggish that it became pretty
| much unusable.
|
| I have an Apple TV 4k in the living room and it's great,
| but I find myself drawn to the Chromecast experience way
| more. Apple TV is more refined, but Chromecast's remote is
| far better than ATV's (1st gen, at least) and Google's
| voice assistant is obviously far smarter (especially if
| you're multilingual).
| jackson1442 wrote:
| Are you talking about Google TV? I haven't used that one,
| but I've used Chromecast 4k and was not impressed. It
| doesn't have a remote - or really a TV UI at all - which
| was my biggest gripe.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| The original Apple TV remote was awful. It was the
| achilles heel of the product. The newer silver Apple TV
| remote with the round click/touch surface is what it
| should have been; it's worth trying if that's your
| primary pain point.
| oldandboring wrote:
| My family is all-Google so we have 5 Google TV devices.
| We're not dissatisfied enough to get rid of them, but
| it's pretty shocking to me how poorly it integrates with
| other Google services. I just keep finding ways in which
| it's clear that Google TV was developed in a silo
| relative to other Google services. Plus, Google's "Family
| Link" parental controls are so poorly designed it makes
| me wonder if anyone at Google actually has kids.
|
| Granted, I am not an Apple user at all, so it's possible
| there would be similar frustrations on that side, but
| anecdotally I hear that Apple is way better about these
| sorts of things.
| deadmutex wrote:
| Were they same price though? E.g. I won't compare a Lucid
| to a Corolla.
|
| Fwiw, my Google TV runs well too.
| danieldk wrote:
| We have a two month old high-end Sony TV with Google TV
| and a second gen 4k Apple TV. They are not really
| comparable. The Apple TV is super smooth and has great
| apps. The Google TV, in comparison, is clunky, the apps
| are meh, and you have to wait ages for major OS updates
| (while investing TVs, I looked at historical OS updates).
| Heck even a new TV is on a two year old OS with months
| old security updates.
|
| But the Apple TV really shines with the integration in
| the Apple ecosystem. AirPlay, SharePlay, AirPods,
| HomePod, Apple Music, Apple Arcade, etc. the integration
| is fantastic.
| nerdix wrote:
| That's still a bad comparison. You should be comparing a
| comparably priced stand alone device to the AppleTV. The
| built-in OS is never as good as decent stand alone
| devices even on $3000 TVs.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Are you including the remote which, for free, comes with no
| mute button?
| ddoolin wrote:
| If you're referring to the Apple TV remote, it does have a
| dedicated mute button.
| timcederman wrote:
| The mute button on the bottom left?
| https://store.storeimages.cdn-apple.com/4982/as-
| images.apple...
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| > - For personal/entertainment use it largely replaces the need
| for a TV, soundbar, or home cinema.
|
| I don't know about others in this thread, but for me the
| satisfaction of watching a movie alone is extremely low - to
| the point I don't do it at all.
| verdverm wrote:
| Small, comfortable smart glasses enabling Hololens 2 like UX, I
| agree.
|
| Bulky, expensive passthrough? No, there are better, cheaper,
| more open options than this on the market. If it was going to
| change things, we'd be seeing people using this capability
| already.
|
| The main hold up here is technology advancement, not quite
| where it needs to be yet, but the field is showing the progress
| needed to reach it.
| deanc wrote:
| We've had all these things since the very first VR headsets. I
| remember sitting in a movie theatre setting trying to play a
| 1080P movie and it looking like a potato.
|
| Forgetting the AR/VR debate for a minute, the thing holding
| these back from wide adoption has been resolution and comfort.
| I have yet to use an XR device where I can simply play a video
| without it being jarringly blurry and pixelated. I've yet to
| use an XR device that isn't a chore to wear and sweaty
| (although I do trust Apple to address this one).
|
| Let's see. The proof will be in the pudding when I try one of
| these in an Apple store next year.
| air7 wrote:
| I'm willing to take the opposite "bet", and say that I think
| this will receive very little traction.
|
| The single reason being that it's uncomfortable to use. That's
| it. It's an "Emperor's New Clothes" type saying: It doesn't
| matter how impressive the capabilities are, if it's
| uncomfortable, people will, after the initial allure fades,
| just not use it.
|
| IMO The only viable future for VR/AR is when the form factor
| will come down to normal looking/weighting glasses that I might
| look around for while having them on.
| Hippocrates wrote:
| I agree.
|
| I spent a ton of money configuring my home office. Many
| displays, giant motorized desk, articulating arms, cable
| management, etc. Easily over $3500, and I still don't feel like
| it's ergonomically great. It certainly can't be brought
| anywhere. It occupies a whole room.
|
| Now I am thinking I might not need that bulky stuff at all, and
| if I don't need the displays and big desk then maybe I don't
| need the office. If I don't need the home office then maybe I
| should be shopping a home that's around 75-100k cheaper with
| one less room.
|
| I've often wanted to work outside from my deck but then I don't
| have my screen real estate and I get tons of glare. This could
| solve that.
|
| We've long complained about the degradation of the in-office
| experience. These days it's all open-floor plans with a fixed
| monitor set and no privacy. If I could put these on and have a
| huge display with a beach in the background, I wouldn't as much
| mind sitting 2 feet away from coworkers.
|
| The benefits of something like this on flights and in airports
| seems obvious. Its not really weird, considering savvy
| travelers swaddle themselves in AirPods Max and bizarre neck-
| sling-pillow apparatuses already.
| [deleted]
| fnord77 wrote:
| A TV is often a social device. this thing is not
| elorant wrote:
| iPhone price went up with subsequent generations. So I wouldn't
| count on Apple to drop the price at the near future.
| LUmBULtERA wrote:
| Apple likely started with the "Pro" moniker fully intending
| for non-pro versions to come out at lower price points.
| KallDrexx wrote:
| > - In response to the obvious criticisms (high price, battery
| life, form factor, weird eyeball thing)... this is Gen 1. Look
| how quickly the iPhone and Apple Watch evolved between
| generations 1 to 3, and look how the price changed as
| production capabilities and economies of scale evolved.
|
| The original iPhone released for $599, which is ~$876 2023
| dollars based on CPI. So, while most of your bullet points
| about iPhone improving is true, the iPhone is the wrong thing
| to point to for economies of scale making Apple products
| cheaper over time.
| nabakin wrote:
| > I will happily go on the record as saying that this will be
| as revolutionary as the iPhone, perhaps even more so.
|
| > Look how quickly the iPhone and Apple Watch evolved between
| generations 1 to 3
|
| I would not compare the iPhone to the Apple Watch. They were on
| completely different orders of magnitude of evolution.
|
| I could see the Apple Vision Pro being half as popular as the
| Apple Watch (primarily due to the price tag) and I think
| there's a good chance it finds its market, but I think
| comparing it to the iPhone is way off base.
| doctoboggan wrote:
| Agreed, I think this is going to be big, but it does very much
| have the feel of a first apple product. Especially wearing it
| to record 3d videos, I am sure now that there will be a 3d
| camera on the next iPhone pro.
| c7DJTLrn wrote:
| How can you say that before trying? Have you ever tried VR? You
| can see the pixels, it's not at all immersive. I find it hard
| to believe that Apple have somehow invented revolutionary
| display technology before Meta/Oculus who have had about decade
| to do R&D. Not to mention that "inside-out" tracking is nowhere
| as good as shown as show at the WWDC keynote.
| justinator wrote:
| Oh wow an anonymous hn user makes an optimist statement about
| new technology - lots riding on that!
| jw1224 wrote:
| You can invest in my opinions, from just $3999(tm)!
| znagengast wrote:
| Compared to how much progress the iPhone made from initial
| launch to now, the potential for this product line is very
| exciting.
| rngname22 wrote:
| Biggest notes:
|
| - 3d camera built-in to the device is huge, photo and video got
| so big online because smartphones meant we all had cameras on us
| and they made sharing those media easier, we may finally see
| stereo photo and video content go beyond adult content if
| consumers can record stereo video with this device they already
| have and upload to YouTube, Tiktok, etc
|
| - Microgestures as input like two finger pinch and flicking up
| the hand are really wise. Gorilla arms syndrome sucks and means
| most people prefer to sit there and play Call of Duty rather than
| jump around and play Beat Saber or Wii Bowling.
|
| - FOV seems to be full field of view, unlike Hololens and Magic
| Leap
| oezi wrote:
| Did they say anything about Lidar and room mapping accuracy?
| The gestures seems very minute. I am astounded they can pick
| those up well.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| I could see myself enjoying this for work - insane screen real
| estate! And for catchijg up with family abroad IF we can see each
| other in 3D. How do you see each others face though? Can it
| reconstruct your face using AI or something (it already is
| looking at your eyes)
| tdba wrote:
| The external facing screen conveying the user's eyes and a sense
| of what they are looking at is a simple but really great idea
| that makes this device feel much more faithful to the idea of
| augmented reality than any predecessor.
| riccardomc wrote:
| How do I make a zoom call with this thing?
| jablongo wrote:
| The tech is amazing, but also ridiculous. Think about how much
| time and cost went into developing these features: - Creepy Eyes
| fake transparency (a work around for the fact that you look dumb
| wearing ski goggles on your face) - The realistic 3d facetime
| avatar (a work around for the fact that you look dumb wearing ski
| goggles on your face, creepy eyes isn't a good enough work around
| for facetime, and you need an external camera to do facetime).
|
| None of the use cases seemed to compellingly improve productivity
| or well being, they just close the gap between the digital and
| physical w/ no benefit. I'd have been more convinced if it was
| depicted helping a mechanic assemble an engine with AI
| annotations and advice, but instead almost all of the demos
| seemed dystopian.
|
| The eye tracking technology involves shining infrared light at
| your eyes at all times - not an expert but I can't help but
| wonder if that is going to have long term effects.
| https://ehs.lbl.gov/resource/documents/radiation-protection/....
| It is ironic that Apple Health is launching an eye-health
| initiative which reminds kids to keep their device far enough
| from their face to prevent eye damage, and then is releasing
| another device that is covering your entire field of vision at
| like 2 centimeters away from your eyeballs (Edit: this last part
| is a non issue because the focal point is not so close due to the
| lenses).
| bogtog wrote:
| > The eye tracking technology involves shining infrared light
| at your eyes at all times - not an expert but I can't help but
| wonder if that is going to have long term effects.
|
| For what it's worth, infrared beams and cameras is standard for
| psychology research using eye-tracking. Psychological studies
| are only 30-minutes long, but I've never heard anybody mention
| risks of this, and IRBs do not require mentioning anything like
| that in consent forms.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| The presence tracking technology in Face ID iPhones uses
| infrared beams (not sure if it's the same as what's in the
| Vision Pro), and some people's eyes are in fact sensitive to
| this, resulting in eyestrain when used over a long period of
| time.
|
| You can turn this feature off to get standard idle lock
| screen timeout behavior, and still continue to use Face ID; I
| don't know if there's a workaround on the Vision Pro)
| activitypea wrote:
| > Creepy Eyes fake transparency (a work around for the fact
| that you look dumb wearing ski goggles on your face) - The
| realistic 3d facetime avatar (a work around for the fact that
| you look dumb wearing ski goggles on your face, creepy eyes
| isn't a good enough work around for facetime, and you need an
| external camera to do facetime).
|
| And transparency mode on modern headphones is a waste of time
| since you can just take them off. I agree both the demoed
| features suck and I don't want them in my conference calls, but
| stuff like that is a necessary bridge for a new product
| category. Hard to call that wasted effort.
| simse wrote:
| > And transparency mode on modern headphones is a waste of
| time since you can just take them off.
|
| Unless you want to continue listening to what's playing
| through the headphones. I enjoy listening to both the nature
| and quiet music when I go on walks.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| >It is ironic that Apple Health is launching an eye-health
| initiative which reminds kids to keep their device far enough
| from their face to prevent eye damage, and then is releasing
| another device that is covering your entire field of vision at
| like 2 centimeters away from your eyeballs.
|
| That's not how this works though. VR goggles have the focal
| point at least 20 feet from your eyes, it's way better for you
| than having a phone in front of your face.
| [deleted]
| rcarr wrote:
| Personally I think it's going to be super awesome when you can
| join an online TTRPG and you can change your animation to match
| your character, as well as having all your character sheets,
| maps and a battle map in front of you all at once.
|
| Imagine seeing the characters of Critical Role brought to life
| in real time!
| willis936 wrote:
| You likely get a lot more infrared in your eyes by going
| outside, and also a much higher amount of UV which is what
| actually causes damage.
|
| As long as it's just a gentle/diffuse flood there is no cause
| for concern. When they start introducing scanning lasers then
| it's time to sit up in the seat.
| [deleted]
| asdff wrote:
| What kind of sucks about tech is you start realizing people
| mainly just do the same stuff they did 25 years ago with it.
| Only today, the hardware has to be 1000x as powerful to run all
| the shitty bloaty software that's still just serving email,
| rendering spreadsheets, chat, images, videos, news, online
| shopping, etc, as its ever been. It's like we've been in this
| arms race for sexier and more resource demanding window
| dressing, versus something that I actually couldn't do before,
| and there has been absolutely no letting up.
| [deleted]
| porsager wrote:
| I'm just looking forward to being able to work/focus without the
| people around me always disturbing me, not thinking I'm doing
| anything important.. I hope this outside eye thing can be tweaked
| so I can use them as an "availability marker"
| ecliptik wrote:
| Can't wait to run GopherVR [1] on this.
|
| 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GopherVR
| sekai wrote:
| Useful metric to gauge potential success of an innovation: will
| it make consuming porn more enjoyable / transcendental?
| tennisflyi wrote:
| I think if Apple leans in to it, porn might prop it up.
| eastbound wrote:
| Apple is too prude to authorize that.
|
| Maybe Apple's strategy relies on EU's sideloading law... to
| make porn both persona non-grata and available in VR. They
| can deny it's here, and blame it all on EU, and let parents
| decide whether they give the "PUK" code to their teenager,
| and that's a winning trio.
| riffraff wrote:
| VR porn has been around for years. I do not own VR goggles so I
| can't comment on how enjoyable it is.
| GravityLabs wrote:
| Amazing day for Apple. What an incredible company and what
| incredible products. So excited to buy one of these next year.
| Thanks Apple!!!
| mouzogu wrote:
| controlling the UI with your eyes and fingers is cool.
|
| but the issue I always had with VR is at that point when I
| realise i can't actually touch or feel any of it.
| coryaf wrote:
| Can we tell if it will be possible to develop with anything other
| than Swift?
|
| For reference, Apple says that it will have "familiar tools and
| frameworks like Xcode, SwiftUI, RealityKit, and ARKit, as well as
| support for Unity and the new 3D-content preparation app Reality
| Composer Pro"
|
| My guess is that since we can use other frameworks like react
| native on iOS that you could eventually do things with something
| like Python or JS, but someone will need to create some
| frameworks to interface with their APIs. Any thoughts?
| VisionNoob wrote:
| It's hard not to be impressed by it. From a design standpoint, it
| feels magnitudes more human and thoughtful than everything else.
| It will help open the world of "spatial computing" to the
| everyday consumer (who has the money), not restricting it to the
| VR people who have already grown used to the limitations of
| current headsets and may not see how cool this handset-free, see-
| through-ish device is. The fact that existing apps already work
| on it is amazing, and who knows what new apps this will inspire.
| I'm excited.
| jarek83 wrote:
| Name with "Pro" in it already, might suggest lower-tier versions
| coming in some future?
|
| Device looks promising, and I wonder if they plan to allow 2
| devices to show the same content simultaneously to say watch 3D
| movies with someone else in the same room.
|
| Some say $3499 is a high price, but being able to carry huge
| design studio with you is heck of a value to me.
| stephanerangaya wrote:
| There's SharePlay for that
| ryandrake wrote:
| I've never spent even $1500 on a single tech product before,
| let alone $3500. They might as well have made it $9999. Its
| pricing puts it in the business buyer / wealthy Apple
| enthusiast league with Mac Pro, not consumer hardware. This is
| not priced for the market of middle class consumers worried
| about a recession.
|
| The Quest 3 is $499. This headset looks GREAT but is it really
| 7X greater than the Quest 3?
| crazygringo wrote:
| Tech is so cheap now. When the Macintosh II came out in 1987
| [1]:
|
| > _When introduced, a basic system with monitor and 20 MB
| hard drive cost US$5,498 (equivalent to $14,160 in 2022).
| With a 13-inch color monitor and 8-bit display card the price
| was around US$7,145 (equivalent to $18,400 in 2022)._
|
| Even the Commodore 64 was expensive [2]:
|
| > _Volume production started in early 1982, marketing in
| August for US$595 (equivalent to $1,800 in 2022)._
|
| If the experience is worth it and there's no cheaper
| competitor, people have the money for these things.
|
| And honestly, as a big user of the Quest 2 -- the Quest 3
| isn't anywhere close to the same ballpark as this. Apple
| Vision Pro looks absolutely more than 7x better, the only
| question is whether it's _worth_ it for you.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_II
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_64
| petesergeant wrote:
| > let alone $3500. They might as well have made it $9999
|
| I'll buy it at $3,500, but not at $9,999
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| I'm totally getting a quest for fitness. This thing doesn't
| look like it is designed for fitness at all, although I might
| get one in the future if (a) I have disposable income for it
| and (b) the experiences are compelling? $3500 isn't that much
| these days (unfortunately).
| lewisgodowski wrote:
| Sounds like a great use for SharePlay! (:
| justinator wrote:
| _> might suggest lower-tier versions coming in some future?_
|
| First it has to not bomb.
| EnragedParrot wrote:
| I get the impression this model is intended to introduce the
| product line to the market and give developers something to
| build on while Apple fine-tunes the hardware. The thing is way
| overpriced for the average consumer but the tech inside it is
| wild. I expect we'll see more consumer-friendly models in
| 2024-2025.
| lozenge wrote:
| It's shipping in 2024, surely they won't release a new model
| in the same year.
| dabluecaboose wrote:
| It's supposed to ship Q1 2024 according to the keynote. I
| wouldn't be surprised if a cheaper model becomes available
| around Christmas 2024
| solarmist wrote:
| I think this is long game material. And we won't see a
| "consumer" version for at least two more years. Maybe
| Christmas 2025, but I feel like that's super optimistic.
| dabluecaboose wrote:
| I remember when the iPhone came out, and one kid in my
| high school got one cause his dad was a wealthy
| businessman. Everyone thought it was super cool but it
| was definitely not consumer-friendly at the time (No app
| store, default stocks app, expensive and carrier-locked)
|
| I think this headset has potential, but we're definitely
| not there with the first generation.
| justicz wrote:
| This is exactly what I think is going on as well.
| russdill wrote:
| 23M pixels across the field of vision of two eyes doesn't meet
| the requirements of a design studio. A retina display is
| minimum 60 pixels per degree. This will be around 30.
| nomel wrote:
| No FOV was included in the announcement. These numbers are
| fabricated.
| fumar wrote:
| What about of distance and and field of view? I haven't seen
| any metrics to complete the picture.
| two_handfuls wrote:
| Agreed - we don't know what the actual PPD will be, but it
| will surely fall short of 60 given that the VR display covers
| more of your field of view than a 4K monitor in front of you.
|
| That said, it'll still be higher than the current VR headsets
| and I expect many people will find it sufficient for their
| work.
| agnokapathetic wrote:
| Foveated rendering + active optics can make the fovea 2x the
| peripheral.
| dvwobuq wrote:
| > Some say $3499 is a high price
|
| As a golfer I can assure you plenty of people will happily
| spend that amount and more on their hobby.
| epolanski wrote:
| Yeah, Apple doesn't make products for niche hobbyists though.
|
| This isn't remarkable or xReal.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| It was quite odd that they branded it Pro but then demonstrated
| 90% consumer applications for it. Very mixed messaging about
| who the target market is.
| bwv848 wrote:
| 'Pro' as in 'Prototype' I guess.
| 1letterunixname wrote:
| That's already making an assumption that this is a valid
| category that isn't doomed to failure like every other attempt
| since 1985.
|
| Enter the story of the Nintendo Power Glove.
| solarmist wrote:
| Did you ever use the power glove? I had one and it was the
| worst piece of tech I've ever had from a major company.
| paxys wrote:
| The hardware is no doubt impressive, as expected, but I just
| can't see myself in any of the situations they keep showing in
| VR/AR demos.
|
| Does someone really sit on their couch, put on a massive headset,
| and scroll through their vacation photos? Does someone watch an
| entire 2+ hour movie with a sweaty headset strapped to them (and
| plugged into a socket) instead of on a couch with their
| family/friends? Would I want to be in a group call with generated
| avatars of people rather than their actual faces? If the kids are
| having a fun moment would I want to run inside, grab my headset,
| strap it on and record a video, or just go join them? Would I
| rather work on this all day instead of a laptop?
|
| And the one thing I could maybe see this being useful for -
| gaming - was barely even mentioned in their keynote.
|
| If I'm dropping $3,500 and cutting myself off from the outside
| world (and no, that weird eye display thing doesn't count), a
| half-assed substitute for consuming the same content as I would
| on any other screen isn't going to cut it. Show me the actual
| future, in terms of software/content/communication/immersiveness,
| _then_ we 'll talk.
| mikenew wrote:
| I find it pretty hilarious that VR started off as a product for
| gamers, designed by gamers, and funded by gamers. And even
| before it made it to market, it was bought up by Facebook who
| said "no no no, forget games, we're going to give you
| _experiences_ ". And it's been a parade of uninteresting,
| nobody-actually-wanted-this products and ideas ever since.
|
| By far the most compelling things you can do in VR are games.
| Modded Beat Saber is incredible (and a total pain in the ass
| now that Facebook bought the game and tries to release a mod-
| breaking update every few weeks), VR Chat (a moddable,
| nerd/furry/whatever/anything goes playground), and Half Life:
| Alyx, a AAA game delivered by a gaming company. EDIT: almost
| forgot Phasmophobia. Hearing all your friends (and yourself)
| scream like little girls in unison is a priceless experience.
|
| I think Apple designed an incredible piece of hardware here,
| and I really would like to put on a headset and have as much
| virtual desktop space as I want while I'm sitting on a beach.
| But what I really want are games. That's what everyone has
| _always_ wanted from this, and yet somehow the whole VR space
| has been taken over by these lame corporate execs who have
| never touched a game more serious than Candy Crush in their
| life, insisting they know better.
| usea wrote:
| Apple's reality distortion field could be the secret sauce
| that gets people to overcome many of the issues you
| described, and to purchase a VR product even if they don't
| make any sense to use.
| swyx wrote:
| i just have stock Beat Saber and am interested in modding.
| what mods do you recommend?
| b33j0r wrote:
| It's for bringing employees back into the office who are
| never coming back into the office!
|
| In our Titanium tier, you can even eye-track how often your
| employees glance at their phones!
|
| ...
|
| What happened here is that VR/AR have always been nerd
| dreams. But it's always been expensive, or uncomfortable to
| use. Nerds funded rounds 1-3.
|
| Now we're at the point where it's board meetings and people
| making presentations about workplace reintegration. Aka
| employee monitoring and nudging.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| The actual concept of VR was basically done the second the
| Vive came out. Now you can have really good immersion for a
| Flight Simulator game that won't come out for a few years and
| nobody really knew it would happen yet, and the couple
| driving simulation games on PC that somehow haven't died, and
| a smattering of immersive FPS games.
|
| Nothing else really benefits from the increased immersion,
| and everything struggles with the discomfort, nausea, cost,
| loneliness, and extra development effort of VR.
|
| VR isn't the next generation of graphics, it's just the
| display equivalent of a really powerful direct drive racing
| wheel with load cell brake or that airbus branded joystick
| that costs $500 bucks. It's for turbo nerds.
| mikenew wrote:
| You're missing something. Yes it's for turbo nerds, but
| it's _also_ for ultra casuals.
|
| I have shown Beat Saber to probably around 30 people at
| this point. The game is set up in the living room with the
| TV mirroring the headset and the audio coming through the
| living room speakers. So it feels like a party environment
| with everyone trading off with watching and playing.
| Without even a single exception, every person who has tried
| it has absolutely loved it. Even several people who have
| never touched a digital game of any kind in their life, and
| took all manner of convincing to even try it at all.
|
| In any other game you play, there is always some mapping of
| inputs into actions. Doesn't matter if it's MKB or game
| controller or touch screen; you have to learn that
| deflecting a joystick moves the player camera, or pressing
| "A" causes your character to jump. But in VR, at least in
| games like Beat Saber, you simple move your body in exactly
| the way you'd expect. You don't press a button at the right
| time to slice a block, you just _slice the block_. Couple
| that with the immersion you get in both sound and visuals,
| and it adds up to something that feels absolutely magical.
|
| Yes, many things do struggle with clunky movement, nausea,
| etc. There are many games that I have no desire to play in
| VR. But the stuff that shines bright shines _really_
| bright, and I think there 's a huge amount of potential
| there.
| riffraff wrote:
| Do you recall the Kinect? Casuals loved it!
|
| But then, of course, very few of them went and bought an
| Xbox + Kinect to use it.
| OkGoDoIt wrote:
| And it cost an order of magnitude less than the vision
| pro
| phkahler wrote:
| Have them slide one Saber down the other. It's the best
| haptic feedback in VR.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| I've played BeatSaber for the first time just last night,
| and had a similar experience: party atmosphere, everyone
| who joined in loved it, even people who don't game. It
| felt natural and fun.
|
| And 30 minutes later, we were all bored, put the headset
| to rest, and forgot it even exists.
|
| Everything I've seen from VR so far is on the ultra
| casual side, arcade games or slightly more. Nothing as
| complex as Minecraft, not to mention some AAA RPG or
| Action game, seems even slightly plausible at the moment.
| Even HL: Alyx is ultimately a visually stunning version
| of those old on-rails shooters more than a sequel to
| HL2's extraordinary gameplay.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Sounds like Rock Band. But everyone could participate at
| the same time.
| BaculumMeumEst wrote:
| I think you're really understating the nausea and
| discomfort. Maybe this is a first step towards mass
| adoption, but it will not happen unless significant
| improvement is made to the user comfort, now matter how
| great some VR experiences are.
| RhodesianHunter wrote:
| Have you used any of the newer models?
| MetaWhirledPeas wrote:
| It's getting there iteratively. The headsets are getting
| lighter and more comfortable.
|
| The nausea won't be going away though. There will always
| be a class of apps/games that cause nausea for many
| people, because it's caused by a decoupling of virtual
| movement from real movement, not from any technological
| shortcoming. Any game or app that does this will make
| some people want to upchuck
| pseudosavant wrote:
| I've had similar experiences with friends and Beat Saber,
| but how many of those 30 friends enjoyed the experience
| enough to get VR themselves? If your experience is like
| mine? Zero.
|
| It is a cool novelty. Cool experiences while using it but
| the least popular gaming device in the house. Even my
| kids' low end Atom-based laptops get more gaming use for
| chess.com and Minecraft.
| LocalPCGuy wrote:
| The real money isn't in VR right now though. The real money
| is in AR. Does this fit that? Not sure, but there are
| hundreds of use cases for something like this in the
| workplace (and not just for developers/desk workers). Think
| the person who needs to reference a manual while working on
| something (machinery, car, top of a telephone pole, etc.).
| Just a single example, but I feel that is the kind of market
| that the executives are aiming at cause they know for
| businesses, the cost is immaterial if it solves their issue
| or makes it so 1 person can do the job of 2. Not endorsing it
| either, fwiw, just saying, that has to be part of the
| thinking. The gaming market just isn't big enough, especially
| when you figure in the cost of the equipment (even at half
| the cost).
| paxys wrote:
| That was the idea behind HoloLens, and they tried to make
| it work for a decade, but ultimately that flopped as well.
| No one wants to fix a machine or a telephone pole or
| whatever else with a massive headset strapped to their
| head. These are just pointless scenarios dreamed up by
| techies who have never done any of those jobs in their
| life.
|
| If such a headset were to be commercially successful gaming
| and porn are the only areas that need targeting, but those
| are also ones that large corporations are least interested
| in.
| paul7986 wrote:
| Once this headset's form factor shrinks down to sunglass
| size it will be the next iPhone. Especially with
| innovators creating apps that enhanced current life
| experiences like...
|
| - Play real life ping pong, tennis, card games, etc ..
| glasses keeps & displays score in your view
|
| - Rewind ... how did this building look ten, twenty, 100
| years ago
|
| - Who am I talking to at a conference.. their name
| appears above them
|
| - Lots more and better innovative ideas to come too
| valcron1000 wrote:
| > Once this headset's form factor shrinks down to
| sunglass size it will be the next iPhone.
|
| So true. The company that is able to do so will have such
| an advantage over the competitors it won't even be fair.
| I sure as hell will be developing apps for such device.
| Potential is unlimited
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| Can it even shrink that much?
|
| Optics killed HoloLens.
| [deleted]
| chazeon wrote:
| Apple themselves clearly know their bad reputation in the
| gaming community, and their lock down model for selling
| software will also not be embraced by many gamers. In this
| respect a $399 Steamdeck is a better device than Apple's
| piece with 10x the price.
| arcticbull wrote:
| ... released by Steam, a company with a lock down model for
| selling software. The gaming world has long embraced the
| App Store model. In fact, I'd argue the macOS and iOS App
| Stores were probably inspired by Steam.
| ztrww wrote:
| The difference being is that Valve is competing a
| (mostly) open market. Clearly they are offering enough
| value to earn their 30%?
| gisely wrote:
| Not really an open market when one company has as large a
| share of sales as steam. Valve may have a different ethos
| from Apple, but both agree on principle of extracting
| monopoly rents.
| everyone wrote:
| Yeah Valve/Steam seem relatively decent/ethical now (eg.
| Steam deck being a PC u can install what u want on and
| modify and repair), but it's just cus the average tech
| company has gotten so bad. When I 1st saw steam I was
| appalled, its a DRM system, a program running on my
| system that has no function and I dont want, + a bunch of
| online or social features I dont give a shit about.. and
| none of that has changed.
| Jochim wrote:
| The alternative to Steam used to be limited use CD keys.
| Steam's not perfect but it's better than hoping you
| haven't re-installed the thing you paid for one too many
| times.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Unfortunately, even beyond DRM, online competitive gaming
| is both an extremely popular hobby AND the most direct
| use case for trusted computing outside of top secret
| work. There simply can't be a fun, popular online
| competitive game without strict verification of the
| client software to keep out cheating, so Steam offers an
| extremely valuable service in this alone (as do other DRM
| schemes).
| CyberDildonics wrote:
| You realize the company is called Valve right?
| km3r wrote:
| Having an app store != locked down. AFAIK, you can run
| any software you want on a Steam deck without any hacking
| needed. Can you say the same for any non macOS apple
| product?
| xattt wrote:
| Steam Games are a one-and-done deal, while App Store
| games are slimy with subscription mildew.
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| Steam and Apple models are extremely different. What you
| buy on Steam can't be launched outside of Steam but Steam
| is happy to serve as a launcher for content coming from
| outside of it and will allow said content to use its
| extra functionalities (controller support and chat
| notably). Valve hardware is always notoriously open. The
| deck runs and allows you to access Linux.
|
| Apple is completely different and outside of MacOS
| strictly controls everything.
| drdaeman wrote:
| > What you buy on Steam can't be launched outside of
| Steam
|
| Not true. Steam has a lot of DRM-free games that can be
| bought on Steam Store and are typically started through
| Steam client but do not really require Steam to be
| running. They're simply not integrated with Steam in any
| way.
| Jochim wrote:
| AFAIK Steam doesn't require developers to use their DRM
| and there are absolutely games that you can purchase
| through Steam and launch independently with just the exe.
| bparsons wrote:
| You can boot most games you buy on steam from the folder.
| It is extremely weak DRM.
| api wrote:
| Companies like Meta are trying to push what they want this to
| be about, and it's not games. Its ads, completely immersive
| ads and the addictive infinite feed model perfected by TikTok
| applied to VR and AR to push those ads. The ad market is
| significantly larger than the game market.
|
| We'll see what Apple does with this. It's a chance for them
| to redeem themselves in the gaming market a bit if they make
| it good for games, which as you say is what everyone actually
| wants from this technology.
| m463 wrote:
| "You're not the target market"
|
| sigh.
|
| this seems to be the way the world is going.
|
| The market for what the tech world seems to be producing is
| people who can be easily swayed from their own vision to the
| company vision, and have little expectations of (actual)
| privacy, of actual utility, and just adapt to what they get.
|
| It's hard to push back against this sort of thing.
|
| Mindful people don't to be limited by the scenarios the
| manufacturer has allowed. They don't want to ask permission,
| to be locked-in, to have subscriptions, to have surveillance,
| and advertisements.
| etempleton wrote:
| But who is the target market for this? I like to think I am
| usually pretty good at saying this isn't for me but it is
| for demo Y. It isn't clear here, but if I take the
| marketing video and the price point and put two and two
| together the target audience is people with a trust fund.
| Not upper class, but multi-millionaire inherited wealth
| types. The kind that travel a lot and so something like
| this makes a lot of sense when on a plane or in a hotel
| room.
|
| For everyone else though? It is too much money and too
| little utility. I am sure it will come down in price, but I
| still don't see it unless they let you plug it into a PC
| and use it like a normal VR headset for games, because
| those are the only people that will shell out over a grand
| for a headset.
| KuriousCat wrote:
| What are the 'self assembled PC' equivalents in this space?
| justinator wrote:
| Ugh - so much of what you say resonates with me.
|
| This is certainly the future (VR) but I'm not really
| interested in it. I'm interested in just being outdoors
| (not indoors). I want to feel rain, and cold. I want to
| know I can't just escape.
|
| Others not so much, and all you need is a little bit of
| money. The brain doesn't know the difference. Doesn't know
| you're in a dead neighborhood in suburbia in a house that
| looks like all your neighbors you don't talk to anyways,
| far from any restaurants or public spaces. We have this
| now. Food and other items are being delivered to our doors.
| So on and so forth - I'm not going to belabor my personal
| view of a future hellscape of rich tech countries.
| ajmurmann wrote:
| It's astonishing how much you see this sentiment online,
| but no impact from it anywhere. Sure there is pushback on
| this sentiment online as well, but just from how much
| it's expressed online, you' expect at least like 30% of
| new developments to be more dense, mixed-use that
| encourages community, walking etc. Yet, somehow it feels
| closer to 1%. I wonder if that's because online is a
| small bubble or because the people engaged in zoning and
| planning are in a bubble or the venn diagram just has
| little overlap.
| justinator wrote:
| I mean real estate and development is a whole 'nother
| thing. Demand is wholly outstripping supply for places
| you want to actually live in, so you get what you get and
| you get to be happy about it.
| comment_ran wrote:
| Unfortunately, this is the reality. Most people will
| choose the comfort over those discomfort. Just like the
| 99% moving matrix, going to select the blue pills over
| the red pills. Even the people who choose the red pill
| change their mind. It's just a big lever to enlarge those
| points.
| jchoca wrote:
| Facebook bought it up because they saw the opportunity for
| that sweet behavioral surplus and just couldn't pass it up.
| narag wrote:
| _By far the most compelling things you can do in VR are
| games._
|
| What about porn?
| radicaldreamer wrote:
| There's a reason Kojima was on stage and it isn't just to
| announce Death Stranding is coming to the Mac. The key part
| was future games for Apple platforms...
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| I just want to experience Tribes:Ascend on a good VR headset
| without a tethered computer. Is that too much to ask?
| cptaj wrote:
| This. Drives. Me. NUTS.
|
| Just make games! Its that simple. Those are the experiences,
| those are the killer apps, they are the metaverse! They
| literally just need to get out of the way with their
| corporate bullshit.
| LightBug1 wrote:
| Yeah, actually you're on to something. I admired the
| hardware but you just nailed the feeling I was getting from
| this presentation but couldn't describe.
|
| It's the old print magazine adverts for the Atari ST or
| Amiga or early PC's... and shown on the screen was a
| spreadsheet...(and don't get me wrong, I love a good
| spreadsheet, but.... )
| cubefox wrote:
| I think any games released for that system will be
| crippled by the controls, like smartphone games. Gestures
| and eye tracking are probably just as imprecise as
| touchscreens.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Hum, AFAIK VR started off as aimless experimental tech, was
| repurposed for data visualization first, and only after a
| reasonable amount of success there it was pushed for gamers.
|
| And then gamers unanimously rejected it, but it found a quite
| cozy niche in CAD.
|
| That's just to say that it has probably a lot of other
| serious uses. But yeah, as soon as it's actually good, games
| will probably be most popular one. Anyway, I agree, the
| serious uses will almost certainly not include pretending you
| are in a circle with your coworkers' avatars.
| Melatonic wrote:
| Seriously - VR gaming was awesome years ago if you had the
| hardware and continues to be awesome.
| programmarchy wrote:
| I don't care about games at all. Have never put on a VR
| headset. But I will likely pre-order Vision for a better
| productivity workflow. Apple will get the OS right, whereas
| Meta never had a chance.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Oh good, just wait until you get regular headaches from
| attempting to decipher the text on your virtual screen. It
| works terribly. VR is an awful, desperate, not fit for
| purpose replacement for even a single 1080p monitor.
| LtdJorge wrote:
| 23Mp is a freaking lot, tho
| paxys wrote:
| That's just marketing nonsense. You get 23MP if you
| combine both displays in the headset. Well guess what,
| they show the same picture, so the actual resolution is
| half that. And out of that only the pixels in the center
| are going to be sharp enough to be usable (notice that
| none of the demos ever extended the picture all the way
| to the edge).
| geysersam wrote:
| > VR is an awful, desperate, not fit for purpose
| replacement for even a single 1080p monitor.
|
| But for how much longer? I can really see the benefit of
| having "more space" when working on a computer.
|
| We're peeking through needle holes, small screens mostly
| covered by bars and menues. If we're lucky the context we
| need for our task fits on two large screens.
|
| I believe this strains our working memory more than we
| understand. Making us do thing slower, worse and with
| more effort.
|
| VR has the potential to unlock much more "space" that we
| can navigate in a way that is much more natural to us.
|
| Not sure if the tech is up to the task today or if it
| will be in 10 years. But the value proposition is clear.
| godelski wrote:
| Not to mention that the screen is becoming a bigger and
| bigger part of the mass of the computer. I wouldn't
| expect to like this first product but 5-10 years down the
| line it isn't unreasonable to believe that your computer
| is your phone, you take it everywhere with you, and your
| monitor is your glasses (benefit if you already wear
| glasses). That sounds pretty cool. Keyboard is the next
| big thing imo, because virtual typing sucks and I need
| something tactile. We'll probably need to rethink the
| entire concept though.
|
| My main concern is about collaboration. Specifically, a
| fear with Apple lockin. When you pair program you can
| just sit down at either computer. Will we have an open
| protocol to share screens (or specific apps in screens
| like modern screenshare does)? Will is be semi-open like
| the current MMS system where Apple makes you look at a
| potato? My concern is about how these can be used to
| further isolate ourselves and break our fundamental
| social structure. But part of that will be how we use
| them, along with the decisions these companies make. I
| just hope Apple doesn't lock everyone in, but I'm not
| going to hold my breath.
| tagami wrote:
| voice replaces typing
| godelski wrote:
| Oh that sounds like hell to me if I'm being honest. It
| would be okay for stnadard routines "write a for loop
| that increments variable foobar" (LLMs help here) but be
| a fucking nightmare for debugging or fine grained work.
| geysersam wrote:
| Counter point: why hasn't voice controlled office apps or
| code editors taken off already? Is it inertia or is voice
| control just not that useful?
| wyre wrote:
| AFAIK it hasn't been accurate enough until recently. I've
| heard OpenAI's whisper is great text to speech and I
| think I read today iOS 17 is updating their speech-to-
| text as well.
|
| Also, I'm not an office worker but I would imagine
| working with speech to text around everyone else using
| speech to text would be a hellish and annoying scenario.
| Work from home alleviates that.
|
| It reads that a lot of the control of visionOS is speech
| based as well and Apple should be smart enough to know if
| it doesn't work well the entire product will flop and Tim
| Apple's entire legacy will likely be over.
| llampx wrote:
| The same designers who are designing your web and app
| experience will also design your AR and VR experience.
| geysersam wrote:
| I think designers are doing a good job. They just don't
| have great material to work with.
| bl0rg wrote:
| May I ask which headsets you've tried? I was stunned by
| the visual clarity of even a Pico 4, and I expect the
| vision pro to be far clearer.
| vGPU wrote:
| I have a vive pro 2. Text is unreadable. Absolutely
| terrible lenses.
| ricardobeat wrote:
| There is nothing on the market that gets close to what
| Apple is releasing here. The total resolution is nearly
| three times 4k. They don't mention FOV, but the
| description implies something approaching 180 degrees,
| and this being Apple, plus foveated rendering as a
| feature, you can assume smooth rendering somewhere
| between 120-240hz.
| jsheard wrote:
| "23 million pixels across two displays" = sqrt(23 million
| / 2) = 3391x3391 per eye assuming square panels.
|
| That's less horizontal resolution than a 4K monitor
| (3840x2160) stretched across your _entire_ field of view.
| ricardobeat wrote:
| It's not as simple as that though, with your head and
| eyes in constant movement and two separate screens with a
| high refresh rate. The G2 or Vive have 50% less density
| and it's already quite hard to distinguish individual
| pixels.
| msvan wrote:
| A 4K monitor has 8.3M pixels, so you could equivalently
| say that it's ~three 4K monitors.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| jdkoeck wrote:
| You obviously haven't watched the keynote.
| swarnie wrote:
| Tim, if this is your alt account you're legally obligated
| to say so.
| detrites wrote:
| Consider trying any VR headset first, the interface has a
| few unanticipated effects for many people. Eg, nausea,
| headaches, dizzyness etc. A "productivity workflow" might
| only last half an hour before you're fatigued from its
| innate unnaturalness.
| BulgarianIdiot wrote:
| Better productivity workflow: a sweaty device you need to
| carry on your head, with a cable with a battery pack, for
| the spectacular 2 hours battery life, reproducing low-
| resolution virtual displays around you, which you are
| supposed to very productively operate by clumsily making
| finger gestures around the display (instead of on them).
|
| Yeah, I'll keep my monitors, mouse and keyboard, and my
| smartphone, thanks.
| hollerith wrote:
| You need the battery pack only if you want more than the
| 2 hours of battery life the device itself gets.
|
| ADDED. Since I am getting downvoted, here is a cite:
|
| https://www.laptopmag.com/news/apple-vision-pro-is-here-
| and-...
|
| >Up to 2 hours of battery life without the battery pack.
| (Yes, there's a battery back that can be attached to
| Vision Pro.)
| liamwire wrote:
| You misunderstand, it's two hours with the battery pack
| connected, there's no internal battery that's intended
| for standalone use.
| geysersam wrote:
| Whatever happened to that Google glass tech? Didn't look
| as "sweaty" as those bigger VR sets.
|
| > Yeah, I'll keep my monitors, mouse and keyboard, and my
| smartphone, thanks.
|
| I don't see why we'd need to replace both input- and
| output devices at the same time. Improve the output first
| and maybe the input later.
| drdaeman wrote:
| > Whatever happened to that Google glass tech?
|
| Inability to overlay graphics over the real world. We
| only know how to do so additively (shine some light in
| the eye to make things bright), but AFAIK there is no
| solution to effectively and dynamically black out some
| part of the picture you see.
|
| Also, at the time, people had freaked out about wearing
| cameras in public. (I wonder if I need to purchase some
| popcorn to watch how it'll go for this one, or if it's
| gonna be different.)
| floren wrote:
| > Also, at the time, people had freaked out about wearing
| cameras in public. (I wonder if I need to purchase some
| popcorn to watch how it'll go for this one, or if it's
| gonna be different.)
|
| My prediction is that it's going to be A Thing to wear
| this at all times, even if your battery is dead, similar
| to the way The Kids These Days have their airpods in
| 24/7. Pressure your mom until she finally gets you a pair
| ("free" with 10 year Verizon contract)
| safarimonkey wrote:
| Magic Leap 2 has a segmented dimmer that works fairly
| well. It's a small probably-LCD panel that sits in front
| of your eye. It lets the headset black out part of your
| view, leaving a kinda blurry shadow around objects.
| [deleted]
| jknoepfler wrote:
| Having made a serious attempt at a virtual workspace for
| development myself, I'll just say: it's ok, but there are a
| lot of challenges.
|
| To develop, I need an actual fully-featured operating
| system with a terminal, a full suite of tools and
| libraries, and an application ecosystem.
|
| To date, proxying all of that through a desktop/laptop to a
| virtual display or virtual remote desktop is clunky at
| best. Reading in VR is unpleasant. Typing in VR is
| unpleasant. Juggling controllers in VR is unpleasant.
| Wearing a headset for more than an hour or two is gross -
| you will really need to spend time and effort keeping the
| bits that touch your face clean. Cords are a hassle and the
| weird constant slight resistance starts to drive me nuts
| after awhile. For me there wasn't a hard deal-breaking
| issue, just a death by a thousand cuts.
|
| Don't get me wrong - you can absolutely do it. For myself,
| it fell far short of the friction-free space for deep
| productivity I was after.
|
| Also, again speaking personally, there is no way in hell
| I'm going to show up to work video meeting as a cartoon
| avatar (or turn my camera off). So meetings sort of break
| the whole thing.
|
| Maybe this product will solve a lot of those friction
| points. I think that would be great, personally, but I'm
| skeptical.
| skatanski wrote:
| That's a very good point. VR Chat is the magical quirky
| "META" experience, which is already there. Straight from
| either Gibsons novels or Ghost in the Shell. Apple seems to
| be more in line with more gated, streamlined and polished
| experiences, than what's in VR Chat. Its a similar story with
| the Sony VR HeadSet.
| johnfernow wrote:
| I am a huge fan of VR gaming: some of my best gaming
| experiences ever have been in VR (notably Resident Evil 7 on
| PSVR1 and RE8 on PSVR2).
|
| Even still, I acknowledge putting on a VR headset comes with
| some notable downsides: those sacrifices are 100% worth it
| for _some_ games because it enables an incredible experience
| you can 't otherwise have. Sure, you can play a modded
| version of Half-Life: Alyx without VR, but you're going to
| have a much worse experience and a lot less fun. Same for
| RecRoom and plenty of other titles.
|
| But for work? I'm 100% willing to put up with a little
| discomfort for an hour or two if I'm having a great time; I'm
| less willing to do that for 8 hours a day when my job can be
| completed in a far more comfortable manner.
|
| Comfort no doubt could be improved upon, but even still, I
| like to see the world with my own eyes. VR is a nice brief
| escape, and it doesn't have to be a solo activity: playing
| RecRoom or Zenith with friends is a lot of fun! I even bring
| my Quest 2 over to my friends' house IRL and play Zenith in
| the same room with him. But it's not much of an escape if
| that's what you spend your whole day in.
|
| There are many activities that are a ton of fun for short
| periods of time, but if done all day, are miserable. I enjoy
| gaming quite a bit, but I dread the idea of being a pro-gamer
| who Streams on Twitch 10-12 hours a day playing one title to
| get good: that'd suck all the fun out of the activity for me
| and I'd much rather just work a more regular job like web
| development. I see the same being true for VR: I enjoy it a
| lot for an hour or two a day at most, but being in it all day
| could cause me to hate it.
| wpietri wrote:
| A question I ask of all VR gaming enthusiasts: how much
| time do you spend on VR games versus other games?
|
| A while back I rented an Oculus Quest. For the first week,
| it was the hot property in the house. By the end of the
| second, the kids were back on their Switches and nobody
| even noticed when I returned it. Asking around, I know a
| bunch of people who _own_ VR gear of one form or another,
| but I still haven 't met anybody for whom it's a daily
| driver, or who spends most of their gaming time using it.
| lttlrck wrote:
| In my case well over 90% - for simracing. Pancake mode
| doesn't come close for me, it's an entirely different
| experience.
|
| However more than 2 hours straight is far more tiring in
| VR but for me that's due to eye fatigue rather than the
| HMD.
| wpietri wrote:
| Thanks. And how much actual time is that? In, say, hours
| per week?
| ajmurmann wrote:
| Is it an issue that you cannot see your hands on the
| wheel and the buttons that the wheel has for more complex
| cars like F1 with a ton of settings?
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| About ~1h20m per day in a two-days-on-one-day-off
| interval in modded PC version of Beat Saber with custom
| song maps on a Quest 2 with "frankenquest" setup. It's
| surprisingly decent cardio. Been doing it for over a year
| at this point and have racked up several hundred hours of
| playtime.
| wpietri wrote:
| Thanks! The fitness use case seems to be one thing that
| creates long-term users. It's surprising to me that's not
| a bigger part of VR marketing.
|
| Although interestingly, I suspect this is less about
| facehugger 3D and more about motion-sensitive
| controllers. For example, consider this person who has
| been playing Fitness Boxing on the Switch for 3 years
| straight: https://www.reddit.com/r/NintendoSwitch/comment
| s/t3sk6j/a_lo...
| cptaj wrote:
| The fact that you cant walk around in the games really is
| a dealbreaker. It would be a nobrainer for all consoles
| if it werent for that unfortunate detail
| twic wrote:
| I'm pretty sure the whole VR industry is an op by Big
| Closet to sell more closets.
| chaostheory wrote:
| I use my Quest pro to play video games that trick me into
| cardio workouts. Due to my body tiring out and the
| battery life, I play a max of two hours a day.
|
| It probably eats up less than half of my video game time.
| I find that I play less video games now since VR is a
| different experience from pupetting an avatar with a game
| controller. You tend to use your whole body, which is
| great if you cant find the motivation to workout.
| wpietri wrote:
| That makes sense.
|
| One of the interesting questions for me is whether VR
| will get other platforms to take this use case more
| seriously. I have a Switch and regularly play Fitness
| Boxing. It's great in that I'm much more likely to stick
| with the workout versus just doing calisthenics on my
| own. But the fitness catalog is limited. I'd love for the
| next generation of the Switch to include better motion
| control so that movement games can be richer.
| chaostheory wrote:
| Good news: nearly every VR game on the Quest (that isn't
| 3rd person) is a fitness app even though it's
| unintentional. There is a ton of variety. Feel like
| boxing one day, slashing ninjas the next, rowing a boat,
| riding a bike, slashing boxes with lightsabers, dodging
| bullets like neo; all of that is possible and the variety
| is nice even with the small market VR has now. (I believe
| that will be the same with Apple Vision)
|
| I think the quest 2's price point is back to being close
| to the Nintendo switch.
|
| As a personal anecdote, I lost 15 lbs playing VR video
| games. Every time I don't have the motivation to workout,
| I just tell myself that I'm just going to play some video
| games.
| wpietri wrote:
| Sure! But I would enjoy most or all of those the same way
| I play Fitness Boxing: with a screen. I think what makes
| VR good for fitness is the motion controllers, not the
| facehugger stereoscopy.
|
| Conversely, when I rented the Quest, the kids ended up
| playing Beat Saber by sitting on the couch and twitching
| their wrists. They liked it, but they didn't find the
| motion part compelling. So although I totally believe you
| and others get fitness value out of VR, I just think
| that's not an intrinsic to VR.
| DarkmSparks wrote:
| I have 9000 hours in steamVR... on linux. I can never go
| back to 2D tbh.
|
| This headset looks like it finally brings the full
| experience and more out of the dev only space.
| 0zemp2c wrote:
| [dead]
| hparadiz wrote:
| Okay I need details. What distro and headset? What are
| you using it for?
|
| I've been playing with an Index on Gentoo but it's been a
| buggy mess and I really just wanna use it for VRChat
| without having to boot into Windows.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| I used to spend a lot of time in Pavlov. Was playing PavZ
| pretty much every day. Then one day I stopped, and
| haven't really been back. There's definitely a lot of
| activation energy that goes into "getting into VR" and
| once you're out, you don't really want to put in the
| effort to get back in. HL Alyx was a big motivator for
| me, but I haven't felt like that for other games yet.
| Gigachad wrote:
| I have a vive original and played about 200 hours of vr
| games. Haven't taken it out of the box for years though
| because I don't have the space for it anymore and just
| don't really care about VR gaming that much.
| wpietri wrote:
| Yeah, I hear that a fair bit. That's the kind of thing
| that makes me think it's like 3D movies: a fun novelty,
| but not a sea change.
| kroltan wrote:
| As someone who has >1000 hours in VR (and is also a game
| developer), the simple answer is that there really have
| been only maybe a dozen games. And lots of mostly
| identical alternatives.
|
| Boneworks/HL:Alyx/Pavlov: Shooter, VRChat/RecRoom/etc:
| Social, Beat Saber/Harmonix somethingsomething: Rythm,
| The Room, Jet Island... Where each of those alternatives
| have lots of mechanical convergence, so it "feels" like
| playing the same game if you overlook the button mapping
| of the controllers.
|
| The tech works perfectly fine, but there are so many
| caveats and limitations that the possible design space is
| quite limited, or there has been too much inbreeding.
| Plus, developing for VR is much more expensive as a
| baseline because of the increased limitations, so you end
| up with generally lower quality games than a traditional
| medium.
|
| All in all, I would say that in a scale from "Pong"
| (1972) to "Outer Wilds" (2019) we are maybe just after
| "Wolfenstein 3D" (1992) in relation to the VR gaming
| landscape: Games are fun, but most of everything is
| really bad and played out of a lack of better options, or
| a clone of something actually cool.
|
| ---
|
| My point here is I don't entirely agree with you it's a
| novelty, I would say it's more of a _variation_ that can
| become a staple with many people, but will never* be the
| main /only medium. Pizza, not bread&butter.
|
| (And yes, that's half the definition of a novelty, but
| that's why I say I don't _entirely_ agree with calling it
| such)
|
| * Unless we invent the actual Matrix "full-body immersion
| with motor suspension" tech or something functionally
| equivalent (and I'm not even saying that's a good idea).
| drited wrote:
| Infinite is my answer. I sit down all day at my desk job.
| I like to move in my free time. VR gets me up and moving,
| I love that. I don't play console or PC games at all.
| wpietri wrote:
| Thanks! And how much time is that?
| underlipton wrote:
| Everyone read that one Vernor Vinge novel and decided to get
| on the gravy train before Chicago gets nuked. /s
|
| Speaking more seriously: I think you're right in the short-
| term, wrong in the long-term, but getting at a fundamental
| truth, which is that *applications* are what will drive
| development and adoption. And they have to be fully-formed
| and wedded to the form factor, while still being accessible.
|
| AR/VR _will_ revolutionize general computing, but if you can
| 't figure out _how_ yet - clearly, they have not - the focus
| should be on the applications that _are_ already well-
| envisioned (and, in the past few years, as you 've said,
| well-executed) on the platform.
|
| Further, it helps if the killer-app is emotionally engaging,
| allows and anticipates the failure of the user within the
| app's internal UX logic, and doesn't interfere with a user's
| crucial assets or processes (related to work, health, etc.)
| until the platform's kinks are worked out.
|
| Sounds like games fit the bill quite nicely. It is truly
| weird that execs taking home eight figures or more can't (or
| refuse to) wrap their heads around that. Gaming is anathema
| amongst a certain portion of the population, I suppose.
| gumby wrote:
| Obligatory pedantry: True Names was a novella, not a full
| novel. And the better for it.
|
| Or you were referring to Rainbow's End in which case I'm
| embarrassed about my comment.
|
| More seriously: I was really excited by True Names when it
| was published (and a bunch of us at MIT talked about it a
| lot) but by the time Snow Crash came out it seemed pretty
| obvious that real world metaphors weren't really desirable
| in virtual environments. Certainly the web and its abortive
| competitors (like apple eWorld, and many others) made it
| clear for those not paying attention: nobody wanted to
| "walk" from Gap to Williams Sonoma in some virtual mall:
| they just wanted to click over and get satisfaction. Nobody
| likes long boring travel in an open video game; a little is
| OK to avoid breaking the spell, but soon something has to
| happen or you need a convenient elevator. The same applies
| to movies.
|
| BTW you're 100% right about gaming being the killer app.
| Once people are used to that perhaps they'll want to do
| other things. But without a reason to develop the right
| metaphors, affordances, and experiences, there's "no there
| there".
| underlipton wrote:
| >Or you were referring to Rainbow's End in which case I'm
| embarrassed about my comment.
|
| Sorry, Gumby, it's the Play-Doh press for you.
|
| I feel you. RE is probably going to end up being wrong
| about a lot of things, too; in particular, Vinge even
| kind of hinted at how the lack of haptics would cause the
| "mirror world" and virtual object schemas to break down,
| at least as far as immersion and utility go. Ultimately,
| I don't think we get to the world he described without
| the tech that was just nascent within it. That's
| analogous to the inapplicability of real-world
| translation metaphors to the pop-into-existence data
| stream that is the web, as you said. I realized this the
| moment that I reached out to touch the 3D model of a
| character I'd created and nothing was there.
|
| Gaming short-circuits perception and gives leeway in a
| lot of ways that are conducive to a haptic-less
| experience, though. Good movement and animation can make
| up for a lack of embodiment that would kill a more
| serious experience (Second Life as a virtual office or
| retail branch...), and while animation is much less
| reliable of a tool for VR, I'm sure that other
| affordances can be found if devs are allowed to just...
| play around with it (pun intended).
|
| The presentation kind of disappointed me because I didn't
| see an understanding of the situation that they face.
| floren wrote:
| > Certainly the web and its abortive competitors (like
| apple eWorld, and many others) made it clear for those
| not paying attention: nobody wanted to "walk" from Gap to
| Williams Sonoma in some virtual mall: they just wanted to
| click over and get satisfaction. Nobody likes long boring
| travel in an open video game; a little is OK to avoid
| breaking the spell, but soon something has to happen or
| you need a convenient elevator. The same applies to
| movies.
|
| What's funny is that I think (having not experienced it)
| that I _would_ like to basically set various files and
| applications around a virtual space, because I 'm
| eternally frustrated with all window managers and other
| 2d application management tools. I just don't want to
| wander through someone _else 's_ "carefully curated" hall
| of t-shirt JPEGs.
| underlipton wrote:
| People seriously underestimate the potential
| entertainment or even utility of being able to take your
| digital photo collection and, just, spread them all
| around your floor or walls or whatever. Grab them, stack
| them, group them with natural gestures. After that, the
| next time you open a PC-based photo manager, you will
| feel trapped, poking around a bucket full of files with a
| stick.
| wpietri wrote:
| > AR/VR will revolutionize general computing
|
| People keep thinking that stereoscopic 3D will
| revolutionize things, but they've been consistently wrong
| about that for more than 170 years.
|
| It starts with the Brewster Stereoscope [1] which was shown
| at the Great Exhibition of 1851. [2] It was a huge success,
| and in following years hundreds of thousands of viewers
| were sold, with lots of content following. Eventually the
| fad blew over, ending up as antique-shop fodder.
|
| Next up was the ViewMaster; the US Department of Defense
| bought 100,000 units because it was going to revolutionize
| military training. Then came the 1950s wave of anaglyph 3D
| movies, the 1990s VR boom and bust, the Avatar-driven
| resurrection of 3D movies in 2009, which was quickly
| followed by a wave of enthusiasm for 3D TV. Then, most
| recently we have the resurrection of VR, this time with the
| Metaverse attached.
|
| I think 3D _worlds_ have revolutionized a chunk of gaming,
| from Quake to Minecraft and onward. But the available
| evidence suggests that stereoscopic 3D _interfaces_ are an
| idea much more popular in theory than in practice. As best
| I can tell, the most representative 3D technology is not
| facehugger VR, but those Magic Eye stereograms [3] that go
| in and out of popularity. They are a fun novelty, but they
| never transform everything. There 's a big hype cycle and
| everybody gets excited, but after a bit of use they quickly
| go back to 2D and most are just fine with it.
|
| [1] https://stereosite.com/collecting/the-brewster-
| stereoscope-i...
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Exhibition
|
| [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Eye
| StrictDabbler wrote:
| Yeah, I said this about videophones in 2002 or so. I was
| sure I was right. Videophones had been reinvented five
| times over. You could only use it at home, sitting on the
| couch, giving it your full attention. Who would want to
| have regular conversations that way enough to pay for a
| videophone with limited compatibility?
|
| Now I go to the supermarket and people are holding their
| phones out at arm's length having FaceTime conversations
| at full volume with their adult kids.
|
| Once 3-D works and integrates with physical objects it's
| going to be a big deal. We just keep failing at that.
|
| Social stuff changes.
| wpietri wrote:
| The reason I think videophones is a bad comparison is
| that video conferencing systems were economically
| successful in the corporate space well before you started
| saying that about videophones. There was a demonstrated
| value proposition; it's just that costs had to come way
| down for consumers to find it worth it. (Which I suspect
| demonstrates that that don't care very much about it, in
| that they pay $0 for video calls in both up-front and
| per-minute terms.)
|
| But even if you were right, _some_ social stuff changing
| isn 't proof that _other_ social things will change soon.
| It 's just as plausible to me that the cost, in terms of
| money and inconvenience, will have to drop just as far
| for VR as it did for video calls. Meaning that it would
| have to be included in every phone or every pair of
| glasses for free and with approximately no additional
| effort to use. Which is something that we are surely
| decades away from.
| geysersam wrote:
| On the other hand, isn't it quite typical for good ideas
| to be recognized as such many times before the technology
| is actually mature to implement them properly?
|
| Edit: most morbid example that comes to mind - flying
| machines.
| wpietri wrote:
| That can be true, but you see the same pattern with bad
| ideas. Look at perpetual motion machines. People keep
| trying to invent them, but that doesn't prove they'll
| eventually succeed.
|
| We could also consider jetpacks and flying cars and food
| pills. People have been inventing and re-inventing them
| for years. I'm sure if I looked I could find new
| generations of people taking another swing at it who
| haven't really reckoned with why all the previous waves
| failed.
| geysersam wrote:
| > but that doesn't prove they'll eventually succeed
|
| Of course it doesn't _prove_ anything. But there 's
| certainly a difference between the "hardness" of
| designing sufficiently high quality 3D glasses using well
| known technology, and doing something that breaks a
| physical law.
| wpietri wrote:
| My point with perpetual motion machines isn't that good
| VR violates physical laws. It's that some ideas are
| attractive enough that people will keep trying and
| failing to make them real, without bothering to look at
| why the other attempts failed.
| geysersam wrote:
| In your opinion, why did the other attempts fail?
|
| My impression is that even 2D screens are still rather
| lacking (they're big, heavy, very bright, need a big
| power source, rather expensive, sometimes difficult to
| interact with). In many situations a book or some papers
| are still superior to "virtual 2D reality".
|
| Not sure if this indicates VR is conceptually flawed or
| if it means we're just still early in the development of
| the technology.
| wpietri wrote:
| In my opinion, the other attempts happened because people
| think 3D is cool. Both as a concept and as a novel
| experience. And the other attempts failed because they
| went out and built a lot of stuff based on that coolness,
| without testing to see whether there was lasting value.
|
| And we certainly see that repeating here. Magic Leap
| burned $3.5 billion. I'm not sure how many tens of
| billions Meta has spent on vision of a Metaverse. But
| what's pretty clear is that so far there's very little
| long-term usage, very little value creation.
|
| Might it work someday? Sure. But it's perfectly plausible
| that it will remain a practical failure until something
| like the holodeck or programmable matter becomes a
| reality. So it could be another 170 years before VR is a
| success.
| underlipton wrote:
| >People keep thinking that stereoscopic 3D will
| revolutionize things
|
| I'm not one of them. The revolutionary aspect of
| AR/VR/XR/MR/WhateveR (or, at least, one of them) is the
| ability to uncouple appearance or apparent make-up from
| function. It does for physical objects what the web did
| for paper.
| andybak wrote:
| Stereoscopy is not the same as 6DOF. If I shut one eye in
| VR, it's still VR.
| wpietri wrote:
| I agree that stereoscopy isn't _the only_ thing going on.
| But are you saying there are VR headsets that don 't have
| stereoscopic 3D, and that I should therefore change my
| analysis?
| andybak wrote:
| I think 6dof - that is _spatial_ experiences and
| interactions are genuinely new.
|
| I think any analysis that tries to lump this in with 3D
| TVs and View-Masters isn't terribly illuminating.
| wpietri wrote:
| I don't think spatial experiences are particularly new.
|
| Quake was the first game I recall playing that was
| intensely spatial. So much so that after a couple of
| hours playing I had trouble readjusting to meatspace; the
| positional part of my brain was still carrying enough of
| the virtual world that i was easily disoriented. The same
| thing happened to me with Minecraft. Years later, I still
| have vivid spatial recall of some of the bases and mines
| I built.
|
| You could certainly argue that VR controllers are an
| exciting step forward in spatial interaction. But things
| like the Wii and the Switch's (less capable) motion
| control mean they're only a step forward, not a leap. And
| that also makes clear that motion control and VR are
| separable concepts. I look forward to seeing the fancier
| controllers migrate to other platforms to see how that
| goes.
|
| So I think what makes facehugger VR unique is
| stereoscopy. And stereoscopic 3D is a thing with a long
| history of faddish excitement followed by a total crash.
| You could argue that's not relevant here, but an awful
| lot of VR advocates make their cases in terms of 3D.
| KuriousCat wrote:
| It sounds like companies are trying to bring work to a
| playground and at the same time can't make compelling games
| that can beat Beat saber...
| baron816 wrote:
| I think immersive experiences is the way to go. Imagine being
| able to experience a bunch of (idealized) historical events--
| celebrating Allied victory in WWII, walking through a market
| in Ancient Rome up to the Colosseum to watch a match, walking
| around your city before people settled it, etc.
|
| The tech isn't quite there yet, but we may not be that far
| off of some aspects of it with generative AI. Those
| experiences would certainly be boosted if you could walk up
| to anyone and they'd have a unique personality and would be
| able to have a full conversation with you.
| alliao wrote:
| while I share the same sentiment, it is hard if not
| impossible, if gamers became permanently attached to VR/AR
| tech and then try to bring everyone else onboard. that's why
| apple went in with high prices first, got to make it look
| sexy/cool/elusive while the tech matures, then only release
| to general public at affordable prices when it's 99% there;
| like macbook air.
| asdff wrote:
| If anything that sort of thing backfired with the
| plummeting demand for the mac line after the the ungodly
| expensive mac pro caster wheels and such.
| [deleted]
| r3trohack3r wrote:
| > I find it pretty hilarious that VR started off as a product
| for gamers, designed by gamers, and funded by gamers. By far
| the most compelling things you can do in VR are games.
|
| Going to have to disagree with you there. The most compelling
| use case for VR is porn. The most compelling cover story for
| buying a device for porn will be games.
|
| AFAICT the most prolific and reliably deployed cardboard
| (previous gen VR) experiences ended up being porn.
| blacksmith_tb wrote:
| However Apple has been hostile to that particular content
| so I wouldn't expect it to be marketed with that in mind...
| cpncrunch wrote:
| Porn will never work. See the Dara Obriain skit for a
| hilarious explanation why.
| gcanyon wrote:
| I'm curious what you think of https://moonrider.xyz ?
|
| I just use it for virtual workouts, so I use the "punch" not
| the "saber" mode, but it works great for that.
| beezle wrote:
| Nobody really likes wearing ski goggles, especially for many
| hours. I can't begin to imagine how annoying it will be to wear
| something heavier. Hope it has some type of ventilation system!
|
| Perhaps a HN opthamologist can chime in - what are the long
| term effects on vision likely to be from wearing/using a device
| like this for extended periods of time every day?
| [deleted]
| codelord wrote:
| I think if the hardware is good and even more importantly
| developer tools are easy to use and better than competition
| this could be successful. It doesn't really matter what Apple
| shows in their demo what the use cases are. Does anyone share
| heart-beats on Apple watch? No. Yet, Apple Watch is a best
| selling product.
| zebnyc wrote:
| Regarding the photo library, I can speak for my wife. We have a
| kindergartener and one of my wife's favorite activities is to
| watch pictures / videos of our kid in bed. She can do this for
| hours on end to entertain herself.
|
| She also likes to watch movies on an iphone instead of a big
| screen cause she can use it while performing other tasks
| (cooking, cleaning etc). She has always said no to a larger
| form factor like a iPad but I think this might be a good use
| case for her.
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _Does someone watch an entire 2+ hour movie with a sweaty
| headset strapped to them_
|
| I just want to say, _absolutely_. Except it 's not sweaty.
|
| You're not going to do it in a social situation -- it's not
| replacing a movie the family watches together -- but in your
| bedroom or home alone absolutely. Just recline on your
| bed/couch and watch an IMAX-sized screen in the sky above you.
| Surround sound in your AirPods.
|
| I already do it with my Quest 2 and it's glorious. It's hard to
| imagine how good the experience is until you've tried it.
|
| And I'm convinced that within a few years, it's going to become
| the main way of watching movies together with
| friends/family/lovers when you're geographically apart --
| whether 2,000 miles or 2 miles.
| nocontextpls wrote:
| I own a Quest 2 and it's far from glorious. The resolution
| makes everything a blurry mess, and the lenses make anything
| off-center even more blurry.
|
| It DOES get sweaty, hot, and it leaves pressure marks on your
| face.
|
| My 65" 4k OLED TV and shelf speakers absolutely destroy the
| Quest 2. I have also owned an HTC Vive and a Valve Index.
|
| I would rather do nothing than use any of them for media
| consumption.
| crazygringo wrote:
| If you use an app like SkyBox you can make sure the screen
| is outputting full 1080p detail by adjusting the size and
| rendering quality of the virtual screen. Nothing is blurry
| or messy at all -- I've actually compared against stills
| from the same video on my laptop. Each eye is 1920 pixels
| wide but it's effectively a bit wider since you have two
| eyes without total overlap between the two images, so it
| matches up for 1080p pretty perfectly. (And you can watch
| 4K content but you're only going to get effective 1080p
| resolution.)
|
| I'm happy you have a 65" 4K TV but not everyone does, and
| the vast majority of content out there is only 1080p as
| well. And my AirPods Pro, with noise cancelling, together
| with the Quest's own spatial audio, absolutely destroy any
| regular speakers I've ever owned. And everything can be as
| loud as I want without disturbing anyone's sleep or study.
|
| > _It DOES get sweaty, hot, and it leaves pressure marks on
| your face._
|
| I guess we have different experiences, but it sounds to me
| like your strap is possibly much too tight. None of those
| things happen to me. But I'm also using it in a room-
| temperature environment -- I'm sure it would get sweaty and
| hot if it were 90degF indoors or something.
| nocontextpls wrote:
| > If you use an app like SkyBox you make sure the screen
| is outputting full 1080p detail. Nothing is blurry or
| messy at all. You can do the math if you don't believe
| me.
|
| 1080p detail? Are you aware this detail is spread all
| over your field of vision? ~18 pixels per degree is
| laughable quality. And let's not talk about the Screen
| Door Effect!
|
| > The vast majority of content out there is only 1080p
|
| What???
|
| > And my AirPods Pro, with noise cancelling, together
| with the Quest's own spatial audio, absolutely destroy
| any regular speakers I've ever owned.
|
| You probably haven't owned many speakers, then.
|
| > I guess we have different experiences, but it sounds to
| me like your strap is possibly much too tight.
|
| If you don't wear it tight, it's easy for it to move
| slightly and you lose the sweet spot of the lenses, which
| is very narrow, increasing blurriness even further.
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _1080p detail? Are you aware this detail is spread all
| over your field of vision?_
|
| I'm aware that the field of view on the Quest 2 is fairly
| narrow, so expanding the virtual screen to the full width
| of the field of view winds up to actual 1080p yes. And
| it's a great comfortable size for a virtual screen.
| You're free to confirm the math yourself.
|
| >> _The vast majority of content out there is only 1080p_
|
| > _What???_
|
| That's factual. Even most new TV shows aren't in 4K yet,
| nor is most of the movie catalog.
|
| > _You probably haven 't owned many speakers, then._
|
| Right, I've dropped a few hundred on speakers. I'm much
| happier dropping a couple hundred on AirPods than many
| thousands on speakers to get the same quality... that I
| can't even use at the same volume because it would bother
| people.
|
| I don't know why you're being so antagonistic here.
| dahwolf wrote:
| I must be old-fashioned or even anti-social, but what exactly
| is the point of watching a movie together remotely? Does it
| become some kind of group debate that constantly interrupts
| the movie?
| crazygringo wrote:
| With comedies you're laughing together and it's awesome. I
| did that constantly during COVID with friends. Especially
| great for reality TV shows, you can pause and make jokes
| about what's going on.
|
| It's really fun to pause and chat about what's happening
| and then resume. Yes it's constantly interrupting the movie
| but that's the whole point. But because you pause you're
| not missing dialog or anything.
|
| I mean, do you not see a difference in watching something
| on a couch with friends vs. watching the same thing by
| yourself?
| allenu wrote:
| I'm in the camp that sees the whole thing as a novelty. I
| didn't see any use cases that made me go "Ooh, I need this in
| my life." I already have multiple screens around me. If I'm
| watching TV and want to look something up, I can open up my
| laptop or look at my phone.
|
| The nice thing about those are I can physically close the
| laptop or turn off the phone. With a virtual screen, I have to
| use some UI to do it. I know it doesn't seem like much of a
| difference, but to me, there's enough lag and lack of real feel
| of control that I'd prefer a real object than a virtual one.
|
| Interacting with app windows in 3D space also doesn't feel any
| faster than just using a flat window on a flat screen. I'm
| already super productive using keyboard + mouse and a flat
| display, so I don't see how using my voice and turning my head
| to look at things in a virtual space is any better.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| To be fair when the iPhone 1 came out nobody really said they
| need it in their lives vs a Nokia or BB
| [deleted]
| allenu wrote:
| For me, it's hard to make direct comparisons with the world
| of then. Today, everybody has so many devices and are so
| used to tech all around them every waking moment. An AR
| headset doesn't feel like a huge leap in additional day-to-
| day functionality compared with what a smartphone gave us
| at the time.
| netsharc wrote:
| As this comparison says[1], people got from Wright
| Brothers to 747 in a very short time and thought we'd be
| space travellers soon after that, but hey, a 747 was good
| enough.
|
| [1] https://idlewords.com/talks/web_design_first_100_year
| s.htm
| entrox wrote:
| > To be fair when the iPhone 1 came out nobody really said
| they need it in their lives vs a Nokia or BB
|
| That's not how I remember it, that original keynote was
| magical. The benefits of the iPhone over current devices
| (both phones and MP3 players) were crystal-clear, the only
| damper being high price together with tying it to an AT&T
| contract.
|
| While impressive technologically, this on the other hand
| gives rather creepy vibes - the whole presentation looks
| like a Black Mirror episode.
| mikeg8 wrote:
| I don't remember it that way at all. The screen resolution.
| Touchscreen keyboard. Pinch and zoom, safari web browsing
| etc was all so much better than Nokia and BB offerings and
| many people immediately wanted the first iPhone. The
| earliest adopters would be hounded to show off their phone
| to family and friends.
| tinus_hn wrote:
| No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame.
| drited wrote:
| I would totally rather work on this all day instead of being
| hunched over a laptop. The freedom of posture, and the
| expansiveness of the desktop real estate blow laptop
| productivity out of the water in my opinion.
| thefz wrote:
| AR/VR is still a solution in search of a problem and will be
| for a long time.
|
| This is one of the most laughable launches and devices I have
| ever witnessed in my life.
| the_watcher wrote:
| It would very obviously be useful for work if you can actually
| get high res, effectively unlimited monitor space. Maybe not
| for everyone, but people already spend $3500+ on monitor setups
| somewhat regularly (and employers definitely do this). Apple
| themselves sell a single monitor that costs $2300 when fully
| spec'd out (5k, but the point is that they know what people
| spend on monitors). I can't figure out why that wasn't the
| highlight of the demo, since that's just very clearly the
| easiest way to sell a $3500 device with this specific set of
| features.
|
| The recording video of a kid's birthday was one of the most
| ridiculous thing's I've ever seen. I'd maybe record my kid with
| something like this every once in a while, but I certainly
| wouldn't be wearing ski goggles while he blows out candles.
| coryfklein wrote:
| This "unlimited monitor space" is a complete non-selling
| point for me.
|
| Being a wealthy software engineer, my monitor space is not
| bottlenecked by my budget or desk space, but by my literal
| neck. Constantly rotating my head back and forth from one
| monitor to another is, quite literally, a pain.
|
| For me the sweet spot is a single curved monitor right in
| front of me. If I need more "desktop space" I add another
| Space with Mission Control. And with keyboard shortcuts I can
| move between Spaces nearly as fast as I can rotate my head
| around.
|
| So what am I going to do with a VR headset if I ever got one?
| Put the active app straight in front of me just like I do
| with my normal monitor. I'm not going to put my terminal at
| some odd angle 25deg above my head and crane my head back
| when I want to run a command in it. I won't put the Weather
| app 90deg to my right, obscuring what is currently a nice
| picture window looking out on my yard.
|
| For me, VR needs that "killer app" to justify the high
| pricing and inconvenience of use, and I just don't see one
| yet. I don't expect one any time soon either; if VR was going
| to get a killer app, it would have shown up by now.
| qup wrote:
| Not only swiveling your head around, but doing it with a
| couple pounds strapped to it. People's necks are going to
| be swole.
|
| That being said, I've always wanted a wearable monitor so I
| can lay in bed (or stand, or lay in my hammock, or just
| have some variety). The chair is bad, and I've spent way
| too many years (literally) in it. I need options.
|
| I'm a terminal nerd, though, so I don't care too much about
| all the 4k etc.
| threeseed wrote:
| Most developers don't have mobility issues. They have 2 / 3
| large monitors (or laptop + monitor).
|
| And so in this case they have the ability to access them
| anywhere, anytime.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| Not wanting to turn your head 90 degrees to see your 13th
| monitor is not a "mobility issue".
| threeseed wrote:
| Or you could not be ridiculous and just use 2 or 3
| monitors like everyone does today.
|
| At least you have the option to put monitors above and
| below as well.
|
| And completely swap configurations for different use
| cases e.g. coding versus gaming.
| zippergz wrote:
| "Everyone" does not use 2 or 3 monitors. Certainly among
| the software engineers I interact with regularly (at top
| US tech companies), having multiple monitors is the
| minority, not the majority.
|
| I agree with the parent that any setup that requires me
| to turn my head to see all of my screen space is a
| downgrade, not an upgrade. Even a monitor that's too big
| (above 30 inches or so at normal desk viewing distance)
| is bad.
|
| If you like it, go for it, but don't act like it's the
| only or even most common way to work, even for
| developers.
| jsight wrote:
| I just think you are thinking of the monitors in an overly
| literal way.
|
| Imagine a calendar on the wall, but with your meetings and
| everything dynamic instead of just a static calendar. And
| it adjusts to show your next meeting extra large as it
| approaches. No you see useful information in your
| periphery.
|
| Or perhaps you have application monitoring dashboards on
| another wall. You don't look at them all the time, but a
| dedicated space wouldn't be a bad thing.
|
| I see a lot of potential here in the future.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| Aren't you a case in point then?
|
| > the sweet spot is a single curved monitor right in front
| of me
|
| So you can have that. Exactly the right monitor size,
| curvature, location - in every room of the house, on the
| train, at work, in the cafe etc. People with ergonomic
| challenges are, I would have thought, a perfect market for
| this.
| ray__ wrote:
| Yes, I agree with this. I'll only be buying one of these if
| it means I can replace my work displays with it-I'd happily
| pay the exorbitant price if it meant being able to have the
| equivalent of an unlimited high-res display anywhere, at any
| time. The lack of sub-pixel rendering on macOS means that I'm
| already forced to buy an expensive 5K display for every place
| that I plan to do work; a headset like this is a bargain in
| comparison. Obviously this means that the headset will have
| to be comfortable enough to use for long periods of time and
| have high enough resolution to compete with a hiDPI display.
| I doubt that this device will be able to deliver on both of
| those fronts.
| bredren wrote:
| I am OP on the XDR Pro Display owner's thread over in the
| Macrumors Forums.
|
| Last week I asked XDR owners about their thoughts for
| possibly replacing their high end XDR monitor(s) with virtual
| displays in the Apple Vision Pro (I called it Apple Reality)
|
| The question and replies cover some of the considerations
| around this replacement and there are ongoing replies now
| that some of the specs are known:
|
| https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/pro-display-xdr-
| owners-...
| yowzadave wrote:
| The tech on this thing is so cool and so useless! People will
| buy them, try them out, and then a month later realize they
| didn't actually use it at all and return them to the store.
| dwhitney wrote:
| Yeah that was silly, but aren't all of the new iPhone cameras
| 3D cameras? People take photos/videos all of the time. Now
| you can immerse yourself in them. I think it's pretty cool
| bredren wrote:
| Presumably the current and next iPhone Pros can capture 3D
| video.
|
| I don't know why this wouldn't have been ridiculous,
| because it really is ridiculous to suggest this would be
| worn by a parent during a young child's happy birthday
| singing and blowing out the candles.
|
| This idea seemed like way too much of a stretch for this
| intro. They had to know this, so I am very curious what the
| reasoning was for why they included it.
| xp84 wrote:
| Current iPhone Pros? How would they? Their cameras are
| super close together and different focal lengths (or
| whatever the correct term is for "they're 1x, 3x and
| 0.5x").
|
| I share your immediate skepticism that wearing one of
| these during any moments you'd like to relive later seems
| preposterous. May as well just be DVRing the "moments"
| with your goggles and be watching a movie on the inside,
| because that's how present you would seem. Unless the
| entire family all had their goggles on ("Apple Vision Pro
| Family, starting at $9,999!") and you are all actually
| experiencing a remote moment virtually!
| jayd16 wrote:
| > Does someone really sit on their couch, put on a massive
| headset, and scroll through their vacation photos?
|
| Right now they pull open a (what was once massive) laptop and
| scroll through vacation photos.
|
| > If the kids are having a fun moment would I want to run
| inside, grab my headset, strap it on and record a video, or
| just go join them
|
| Same as running inside to grab the camcorder, no?
|
| >Would I rather work on this all day instead of a laptop?
|
| If I got multiple monitors from a laptop on any desk then I
| would find that pretty compelling.
| PascLeRasc wrote:
| Recent phones like the 3GS have a camcorder built in and fit
| in a pocket.
| jayd16 wrote:
| Indeed, but its not like the scenario described has never
| happened. If anything, the camcorder dad was a very popular
| trope.
| bredren wrote:
| >Same as running inside to grab the camcorder, no?
|
| Presumably new iPhone will record 3d video.
| johnfn wrote:
| > Does someone really sit on their couch, put on a massive
| headset, and scroll through their vacation photos? Does someone
| watch an entire 2+ hour movie with a sweaty headset strapped to
| them (and plugged into a socket) instead of on a couch with
| their family/friends?
|
| Not saying that I like it, but a very large swath of people
| mindlessly scroll instagram for hours a day, or watch movies on
| their laptop.
| OJFord wrote:
| > (and no, that weird eye display thing doesn't count)
|
| That weird eye display thing is the only novel thing here, as
| far as I can tell? I actually thought that was pretty neat.
| (Not 3.5k suddenly-I'm-interested-in-VR neat, but still.)
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| I have a 360 go pro. That does make the headset worth it.
| 30minAdayHN wrote:
| I always wanted something like this. I lived in small
| apartments where I cannot have large screens. I always thought
| having a good VR / AR headset will unlock a huge screen which I
| don't have access to otherwise.
|
| Of course, it's anyone's speculation and numbers will give us
| answers in future.
|
| I see very similar parallel to headphones imo - why would
| anyone wear a device instead of listening to amazing speakers.
| I feel the same for vision.
| nipponese wrote:
| > Does someone really sit on their couch, put on a massive
| headset, and scroll through their vacation photos?
|
| If your photos are: 1. 3D movies 2. viewed in a collaborative
| setting instead of trying to show your stupid phone to everyone
| at the table, one at a time
|
| yes, you are going to view photos in headset.
| oblio wrote:
| Historically, I think it dates back to Jobs not liking them,
| Apple doesn't really care about games. It begrudgingly accepts
| them on the platform as second rate citizens since there's a
| lot of money involved.
| richardw wrote:
| Unity as a partner. This thing hasn't arrived yet. It'll
| definitely have games.
|
| Personally this is the first AR kit I've vaguely wanted. The
| software, hardware and partner list makes this a game changer.
| There are more like me.
| ztrww wrote:
| > Unity as a partner.
|
| Shovelware games drowning in ads and iAPs?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Does someone watch an entire 2+ hour movie with a sweaty
| headset strapped to them (and plugged into a socket) instead of
| on a couch with their family /friends?_
|
| Flights. This might become a must-have for the jet-setting
| class. That not only makes Apples first-year numbers, it
| fertilizes the market for developers.
| hindsightbias wrote:
| There was a lot of negativity online about the iPad and
| iWatch. I knew they'd all be successful the first time I
| boarded a flight after their intro.
|
| Everyone in first class had one. As first class goes, so goes
| at least America.
| utopcell wrote:
| That's an arbitrary over-generalization. I'm sure first
| class was carrying blackberries long after 2007.
| [deleted]
| fumar wrote:
| Fair comparison, I felt the same about the AirPods. What
| these three devices have in common? They are not pro
| devices and their physicality is portable and easily
| accessible. Is the same true for the Vision Pro? I am
| purposefully excluding price.
| moooo99 wrote:
| But it fertilizes the market for what kind of developers?
| Currently I see no real convincing reason why this should be
| substantially different than existing headsets except for a
| better operating system experience.
|
| I can see this being an exceptional gaming device if the
| screen specs are anything to go by. But any game that would
| justify spending the substantial premium for that device
| would likely need an extra PC with really beefy specs,
| bumping the price up even higher, further limiting the target
| audience.
|
| I've read other peoples thoughts about 3D modelling usecases.
| For most CAD related use-cases this thing is almost
| definitely overspeced considering the shitty textures most
| CAD prototypes utilize. Maybe it would be cool for
| architecture studios, but thats also a fairly limited
| audience.
|
| I'm sure developers will come up with very creative use-cases
| for that device, but I cant imagine most of them being as
| impactful in the average persons everyday life as the
| introduction of the iPhone was. What I'm very certain is that
| this device is launching at a bad time economically. 3.5k is
| a significant expense, even for people with higher incomes.
| In a time where disposable incomes shrink and uncertainty is
| continuing to stress many employees, I don't think as many
| people would be willing to drop the 3.5k on that device as
| maybe 3 years ago.
|
| But hey, maybe this comment will age as poorly as the famous
| dropbox one.
| xp84 wrote:
| Completely agree with your points here. I personally see
| nearly zero times when I would use this given what I've
| seen so far. I imagined consuming content with the cheap
| Oculus Go would be cool, but mine has been gathering dust
| for years.
|
| This Apple device seems like a moonshot. I am actually
| really glad for them to use some of their $100B+ of cash to
| take a shot at this product rather than other things that
| might be more sure-fire profit makers. I think _if_ there
| is a killer app for AR /VR, we haven't seen it yet, and
| also, it'll be mind-blowing. But I think the chance of that
| happening anytime in the next 5 years is minimal. It's a
| low probability of something really awesome, so I'm rooting
| for it even though Apple is overall not my favorite
| company.
| threeseed wrote:
| Existing headsets are predominately VR.
|
| This is the first true mixed reality headset as it allows
| you to gradually transition between VR to AR. That's going
| to make the headset a lot more usable outside or in
| collaborative environments.
| haberman wrote:
| On flights you want noise cancellation. Maybe you could pair
| these with noise-cancelling AirPods, but then would you still
| get the "spatial audio"?
| jtmarmon wrote:
| 1. Airpod pros have spatial audio
|
| 2. Their presentation showed someone using it with airpods
| on a plane
|
| https://twitter.com/techAU/status/1665790510093697024
| cj wrote:
| How do airpods compare with noise canceling Bose over the
| ear? (Genuine question, not rhetorical)
| swores wrote:
| Two years ago they were better than the best in-ear noise
| cancelling earphones Bose had. I've not kept up to date
| or tried Bose since then so maybe they've got even better
| (they weren't bad, just not as good as Airpods Pro, IMO).
| yurishimo wrote:
| AirPods ate some of the most highly rated wireless
| earphones at the moment. Compared to full size Bose, I
| would say they are 90% comparable.
| xp84 wrote:
| I kept picturing someone, having turned the "immersiveness"
| crown to the max and put on noise-cancellation, sitting in a
| window seat, smiling and calmly watching Ted Lasso all the
| way down while everyone around them braces for impact and
| grabs their life preservers!
| hadlock wrote:
| VR movies in economy maybe. To tune out the awful experience
| of sitting in a 17" wide seat with not nearly enough leg
| room.
|
| Nobody is paying business or first class prices and wearing a
| VR headset. Certainly not devoting carry on baggage space for
| it.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Nobody is paying business or first class prices and
| wearing a VR headset. Certainly not devoting carry on
| baggage space for it._
|
| Why not? The screens aren't that great. And I may want to
| watch my own content.
| threeseed wrote:
| I fly business class all the time and would absolutely use
| this.
|
| I get to watch my own content on a significantly larger and
| better quality screen.
| grogenaut wrote:
| My M2 air works great on flights no matter the seat
| configuration and I'm not small person. Costs a lot less than
| the ar as well.
| gnicholas wrote:
| For productivity, the M2 MBA is great. But for movie-
| watching, this is no comparison. I'm not a member of "the
| jet-setting class", but I completely agree that this is
| going to be de rigueur for those folks. I wouldn't be
| surprised if first class cabins came with free rentals in
| the near future.
| yurishimo wrote:
| They need a better story for the lenses for that to
| become a reality. Anyone who needs corrective lenses will
| need to bring their own and my guess is they are going to
| cost around $500. I'll eat my shoe if they are less than
| half of that cost.
| azinman2 wrote:
| Flights is one of the most compelling use cases for me
| personally. I'm tall and would love this. I also could
| use my ergonomic keyboard while looking up and ahead.
| cj wrote:
| Maybe, but you'd need to wear bulky Bose on top of the VR
| headset to get decent audio quality + noise cancelation.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _you 'd need to wear bulky Bose on top of the VR headset
| to get decent audio quality + noise cancelation_
|
| I have a Bose and AirPods Pros, and I can't say one is a
| class above the other.
| numpad0 wrote:
| XReal(Nreal) glasses are much cheaper and lighter and with
| good reputations for that use case.
| freedomben wrote:
| Does anyone know what is the privacy status of XReal? I
| would like to buy one, but I'm quite concerned about
| privacy.
| [deleted]
| snackwalrus wrote:
| I also thought flights were a compelling use case until I saw
| that the battery life was "up to" a whopping 2 hours
| dwighttk wrote:
| on a flight you just plug it into your seat
| notatoad wrote:
| i can certainly see the appeal of a VR headset on flights,
| but if that's all i'm buying it for why would i go for a
| $3500 apple device instead of a $299 headset from meta?
|
| can i even use noise-cancelling headphones with the reality
| pro, or is it locked to the built-in spacial audio headest?
| because i'd rather block out the noise than the peripheral
| vision on a plane.
| [deleted]
| threeseed wrote:
| a) Meta Quest is heavier, bulkier with significantly
| poorer quality displays.
|
| b) You can use any earphones you like. There are videos
| of people using the AirPods Pro which are the best noise
| cancelling IEMs on the market today.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _a) Meta Quest is heavier, bulkier with significantly
| poorer quality displays_
|
| It's also made by Facebook. We tend to underestimate the
| power of brands in tech. There are few places I've seen
| as loud of a status-signaling system than commercial
| aviation.
| azinman2 wrote:
| The screens are totally different, as are the apps.
| generaljargon wrote:
| Aside from the in-seat power, I think another likely
| solution will be third parties like Belkin making a less
| "apple-esque" but longer lasting battery that's compatible
| with the magnetic connector. The OEM solution looks quite
| small as is. [1]
|
| 1 https://www.apple.com/v/apple-vision-
| pro/a/images/overview/d...
| gnicholas wrote:
| Interesting, it doesn't show a way to charge that brick.
| I assumed it would have USB-C for charging, though
| perhaps MagSafe makes more sense given the propensity of
| the user to stand up and start walking without realizing
| he's plugged into the wall!
|
| I also wonder if it will use the other type of MagSafe
| (like on the iPhone) charging. I could see the argument
| for convenience, but presumably this would be
| significantly slower charging than over USB-C.
| jdprgm wrote:
| Two extra batteries will likely be trivial cost in the
| context of a $3500 device, not sure why this isn't clear to
| everyone critiquing the battery life?
| doctoboggan wrote:
| Unless it's plugged in, in which case it can be used
| indefinitely. Many planes today allow you to plug in
| devices from your seat.
| loeg wrote:
| Usually very limited amperage, almost certainly
| insufficient to keep this thing going indefinitely.
| yurishimo wrote:
| This is not true. Most seats have a 120/240v receptacle
| that can keep laptops charged while in use.
|
| You're forgetting this thing uses a mostly passive M2
| chip. Not to mention I'm sure they designed it so it
| could be powered from the USB c ports on their laptops.
| The headset won't use anywhere near the amount of power
| you seem to be implying.
| bagels wrote:
| Many also do not. Maybe even most?
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| Then you get to use it for 2 hours. Most domestic flights
| only have two hours or so of time when you're allowed to
| use your laptop.
| mmcclure wrote:
| I typically fly one airline so it could just be their
| planes, but I don't remember the last plane I was on that
| didn't have outlets[1]. And certainly the folks that can
| drop $3,500 on this are more likely to either be in
| business class or flying "nicer" airlines, so plug access
| feels like a non-issue to me.
|
| [1] That being said, the number of times a plug has been
| able to support a charging brick directly is...miniscule.
| They're usually so worn out that they can't support the
| weight, so I have to carry the extension just for that
| reason.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| All the most enjoyable stuff I've done in VR has involved, at
| a minimum, lots of arm movement, and typically also leg
| movement as well. Think Beat Saber, or Half-Life: Alyx. I
| don't really see this working in a seated plane environment.
| RandallBrown wrote:
| We're talking about watching movies, not playing rhythm
| games.
|
| Is it going to be worth $3500 to have a better movie
| experience on an airplane? Absolutely not. Is it going to
| be awesome? Probably.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| It depends on how often you fly. I can see a frequent
| flyer benefiting from this, or maybe airlines will just
| had them out to their biz class flyers.
| justapassenger wrote:
| They focus on AR experiences, so doesn't fit into flights.
| Why would I need to see my sweaty passenger?
| dwighttk wrote:
| there's a lot of graded levels of visible background in the
| keynote
| swores wrote:
| They've said there's a "crown" (like on their watches) on
| the headset you can turn to adjust seeing your surroundings
| or not. And there's a video demonstrating that on the page
| this thread links to. So no, you're not stuck seeing your
| surroundings if you don't want to see them.
| mithr wrote:
| > Does someone really sit on their couch, put on a massive
| headset, and scroll through their vacation photos? Does someone
| watch an entire 2+ hour movie with a sweaty headset strapped to
| them (and plugged into a socket) instead of on a couch with
| their family/friends?
|
| This was exactly my biggest question. In what situation do you
| sit and watch family photos of a vacation with your kids _alone
| on your couch_? In almost all cases, you 're doing that with
| your family, or showing them to someone else. And if you've got
| a family (as many people in the ads did!) you're also watching
| movies together with them most of the time. Apple completely
| sidestepped talking about how other people might be able to
| share your experience. Even if this is amazing for actual work,
| and you're working in a physical office (as the guy in the ad
| did! as Apple requires all employees do a few days a week!),
| how will you show your coworker what you're working on? They
| also conspicuously focused on manufacturing, presentations, and
| conferencing as their office use cases, and _not_ coding,
| despite repeatedly stating that small text looks very clear.
|
| As for the "running inside and grabbing a headset" aspect, it
| felt like they were implying that people will wear this
| everywhere they go (which they similarly imply won't feel weird
| exactly due to the weird eye display thing), so you'll
| _already_ be wearing the headset. But that feels like a very,
| very ambitious goal, that right now seems ridiculously unlikely
| /niche.
| jumpkick wrote:
| Regarding looking at family photos alone, this is typically
| only done in a film, when you, a character, have experienced
| some terrible tragedy.
| pxc wrote:
| > Does someone watch an entire 2+ hour movie with a sweaty
| headset strapped to them (and plugged into a socket) instead of
| on a couch with their family/friends?
|
| My mom does this because she's legally blind and the best
| assistive devices she can use for movies are AR goggles that do
| magnification/zoom. It's the only way she can make out a human
| face in a film.
|
| I've worn them for parts of movies as well just to try them and
| it's really not so bad. The calculus here will obviously be
| different for people with normal vision, but I figured this
| experience with a similar use case was worth noting.
| tootie wrote:
| AR is so, so, so difficult and so much more than just good
| resolution. If they are trying to do passthrough camera then
| the framerate has to be super high while also delivering all
| that 4k video. The problems with opacity and occlusion of real
| and superimposed objects is almost impossible to make it truly
| immersive. I think their trick is likely going to be in the
| software and in the interaction modes. You can't strap this to
| your head and ride a bike with heads up display, this will be a
| seated experience with a controlled environment. And it may do
| that one job very, very well.
| drrotmos wrote:
| > Would I rather work on this all day instead of a laptop?
|
| That really is the $3,500 question. Can I see myself preferring
| to work streaming my Mac's screen to a Vision Pro for my IDE,
| having and things like Slack and e-mail off to the side running
| on the headset? I don't know, but if I can, this seems worth it
| to me.
| rtkwe wrote:
| It really depends on how the fake screens actually look in
| use. You need a decent multiple of the number of pixels in
| the screen you want to emulate on your AR glasses to be able
| to pull it off well and so far we haven't really gotten it. I
| do not see myself getting these till they're a third or less
| the price either unless they're issued to me for work for
| some reason.
| wnolens wrote:
| These days I've moved over to pomodoro technique to be able
| to get _any_ work done in the face of WFH distractions and
| general indifference to my work.
|
| So strapping on immersive goggles for 30m-1h chunks and
| taking lots of breaks actually fits my current work model
| perfectly and might improve my productivity.
|
| It all comes down to.. how clear is text?
| ARandumGuy wrote:
| All day is the key component. Most VR headsets recommend
| taking breaks every half hour, which isn't just a "cover your
| ass" warning. I know I can't use my personal headset for much
| longer without feeling woozy after I take it off.
|
| By comparison, I'm at my laptop for 7+ hours just for work. I
| would need to see compelling evidence that the Vision Pro is
| safe and comfortable to use for that long before I'd even
| consider replacing my laptop. And if it can't replace the
| computers or displays I use, then it's just a $3,500 gimmick.
| asdff wrote:
| To be fair you are supposed to get up, walk around, and
| refocus your eyes on something far away every 20 mins or so
| no matter what computer you are using.
| qintl55 wrote:
| They say that the battery on that is ~2 hours (?) So
| probably not for work yet.
| mostlysimilar wrote:
| It can be plugged in for all-day use.
| gnicholas wrote:
| I work sitting in a chair, looking at a screen. If I were
| to work using one of these, I would just plug it in like
| my computer and screen currently are. Though it would be
| nice to go outside and work in my hammock, on a gigantic
| floating screen!
| RandallBrown wrote:
| Depending on your work, I imagine you'll still want a
| desk for typing.
|
| I can't imagine writing code using only my voice.
| gnicholas wrote:
| I have a lap desk with a BT keyboard and trackpad. I
| assume I'd want to bring the keyboard to my imaginary
| hammock desk. The trackpad (and lap desk) might not be
| necessary, assuming that pointer manipulation can be done
| via gestures.
|
| I agree that dictation would not be enough for most
| people. I don't code, but writing emails is not a fun
| experience with Apple's current speech-to-text offerings.
| c1b wrote:
| Its AR
| asdff wrote:
| You can buy two or three and swap them out. Chicken
| scratch for a company when engineers cost so much these
| days anyhow.
| utopcell wrote:
| The problem is not the cost, it's the experience. You
| _could_ be carrying multiple laptop batteries with you
| also. It would make the laptop itself lighter and
| thinner, but it would be a larger hassle overall.
| xp84 wrote:
| I was disappointed to see that the battery cord, with the
| magnetic headset-side connector, seemed hardwired at the
| battery end. Though this is very in character for Apple.
| You can bet that each "battery with proprietary cord
| tail" will be at least $199. Look what they charge for an
| iPhone "battery pack" -- a $2 ring of magnets, a $5
| battery, and a bit of plastic = $99.
|
| Given the initial cost is so high, it's both frustrating
| that they will continue to nickel and dime you, and at
| the same time unlikely that someone dropping that kind of
| money will even blink at buying an accessory which
| actually is less than the sales tax on the device itself.
| mgrandl wrote:
| I can 100% see myself preferring working on this thing over a
| Mac, as long as I don't need a Mac to host my dev
| environment.
| byteware wrote:
| I mean, depending on the work using it as a thin client
| would make the most sense imo, compiling still takes a toll
| on the battery life even with m2 magic
| ignoramous wrote:
| Exactly. You know it is worth it when corp pays for the
| gadgets ;)
|
| I mean, how terribly over-priced is the Mac, and yet...
| paxys wrote:
| A bigger question is - does it support mouse input? Because
| none of their demos showed it, and without it the headset is
| basically dead on arrival for any real work.
| anamexis wrote:
| I don't think that's self-evident. If the eye tracking is
| really good, it could obviate the need for a mouse.
| beebeepka wrote:
| Why would it obviate the need for a mouse? I can focus on
| something and expect my cursor elsewhere. Especially in
| games
| anamexis wrote:
| Because any time you're doing fine-grained work with your
| cursor, you're looking at it. I'm not talking about
| games.
| beebeepka wrote:
| I can see where you are coming from but it doesn't make
| too much sense to me. Why can't we have both.
| xp84 wrote:
| it seemed pretty obvious we do have both. It showed a
| "magic trackpad" being used. Seems like it supports
| pointing devices normally.
| [deleted]
| youreincorrect wrote:
| My bigger worry is how I would type, if that's at all
| possible. My assumption, like the sibling comment notes, is
| that eye tracking would replace mouse input.
|
| And I'm not yet typing code by talking to a computer. Maybe
| AI will work for 'typing' by talking and using copilot or
| some similar tech, but I've yet to try that and am not that
| confident that software has caught up to allow me to
| navigate folders and files within a codebase, edit the
| code, restart any servers if that's necessary, test (run
| tests, or visit a page, or send a curl request), post a
| pull request, etc. All of the disjoint steps I need to do
| to work, which change depending on the task, would need to
| work confidently in a system like this for me to switch
| over. And if speech is the way forward, I think my wife is
| going to be pretty upset with me since I WFH.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| They're positioning this as a productivity product.
| You'll probably be able to just use a keyboard. Get ready
| to learn to type without looking at the keys I guess, but
| I think most people already can with only a few issues.
|
| Imo most useful case for this is watching youtube in bed,
| I'd just keep a bluetooth keyboard/mouse on my
| nightstand.
| anthonymckay wrote:
| "Get ready to learn to type without looking at the keys I
| guess"
|
| Why wouldn't you be able to look at the keys? This is AR,
| you can see everything around you still, including a
| physical keyboard right in front of you.
| mostlysimilar wrote:
| You can pair a bluetooth keyboard and mouse, it was shown
| in the keynote.
| youreincorrect wrote:
| If I'm just going to use this sitting at my desk, I'll
| stick with my monitor instead.
| mostlysimilar wrote:
| That's fair. My monitor is a constrained space. If this
| headset is light and comfortable and can give me
| unlimited real estate without compromising on text
| clarity and resolution, I'd happily wear it all day at my
| desk.
| youreincorrect wrote:
| Hey, I think that's fair too.
| filoleg wrote:
| The beautiful part is that the headset makes any desk (at
| my apartment, when visiting parents, in the office, etc.)
| my desk, which is exactly the same every time no matter
| where I am. Without bajillion cables and with
| instantaneous setup time. And would allow me to not worry
| about the physical constraints of the surface and take up
| no actual physical space on the desk.
| caconym_ wrote:
| You can use a Bluetooth keyboard pretty much anywhere you
| can sit with it on your lap or a table in front of you.
| One might legitimately worry about looking like a huge
| dork in public, but for a lot of people I imagine there
| is a lot of appeal to a device that can throw up a
| virtual array of multiple monitors anywhere they want to
| sit down and get some work done.
| l33t233372 wrote:
| Yes let me just rip the keyboard I carry with me out of
| my back pocket.
| caconym_ wrote:
| Well, you do you, but if I were using a headset like this
| as a laptop replacement I would put it and the keyboard
| in a backpack. You know, just like how I carry my laptop
| around today.
| zebnyc wrote:
| Maybe they will sell you an iGlove )in the future) to go
| along with this so that you can type / click on your
| virtual keyboard & mouse
| swores wrote:
| They've already made it clear that you can do that
| without a glove... (as well as optionally using physical
| devices instead).
| tracerbulletx wrote:
| They mentioned the magic trackpad, so I can't imagine a
| mouse wouldn't also work.
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| > You're able to place multiple apps in the real world
| space and can type with either voice or a virtual keyboard,
| but you can also use Bluetooth keyboards and trackpads, and
| with a glance at your Mac, you can use it on a large
| virtual display.
|
| https://www.macworld.com/article/1940428/apple-vision-pro-
| de...
| MacsHeadroom wrote:
| They showed a demo with Bluetooth touchpad (and keyboard)
| input.
| spudlyo wrote:
| The demo I saw showed a guy at a standing desk, using a
| Magic Keyboard and Magic Trackpad. I remember I grimaced
| thinking what his shoulders must feel like typing with his
| hands so close together on that tiny, shitty little
| keyboard. It made me think of little T-Rex arms.
| rjmunro wrote:
| The keys on the magic keyboard (and therefore hand
| positions) are no closer together than on other
| keyboards. It just doesn't have the numeric keypad part.
|
| If you want an ergonomic keyboard with a gap in the
| middle, any bluetooth keyboard will work with a Mac,
| iPhone or iPad, so I imagine it would with this too.
| [deleted]
| acomjean wrote:
| Anytime its on your face, you could be working.
|
| Front and center, your work. anytime, anywhere. depending on
| how its implemented you can't get away. Hope they include a
| power button.
|
| But 2 hours of battery life is a good amount of work, though
| it seems short somehow. Nice to know there is a limit on it
| taking over your time.
| cesarvarela wrote:
| I think that price tag is not for end consumers, but early
| adopters/builders. There is going to be a gold rush of "maybe
| I can make that flashlight app that makes me a millionaire".
|
| Fun times incoming.
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| > That really is the $3,500 question.
|
| For me the question rather is: is being able to work from the
| sofa a couple of hours a day without having to stare at a
| small screen worth $3.5k? Certainly.
| its_ethan wrote:
| Is the small screen you're referring to your laptop, or the
| tiny screens in the headset?
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| I'm not a native English speaker so I thought I missed a
| comma somewhere. But rereading my previous comment I'm
| rather certain I mean the small screen to be the one of
| the laptop. Even the 16" model gives only so much space
| to work with.
| canadianfella wrote:
| [dead]
| randyrand wrote:
| Maybe I am in the minority, but I have no problem using my
| laptop on the couch for a few hours. It's quite
| comfortable.
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| Yes, mostly. But sometimes not. Sometimes I wish I could
| have those 32 inches on the vesa while still sitting on
| the sofa.
| rabuse wrote:
| I'm with you on this. I see these as a wonderful option
| for being productive just about anywhere, if the
| experience is actually what was demoed.
| practice9 wrote:
| And for me spending more than 2 hours per day with laptop
| on the sofa is a recipe for neck pain and migraines. The
| angle is just not right.
|
| If the headset is more ergonomic for this situation, it
| will find its target audience for sure. The battery is
| designed for 2 hours sessions, but the device can run
| indefinitely while on charger
| oezi wrote:
| The key question is if this thing will stay cool enough to be
| comfortable.
| donbongo wrote:
| This is the same question i'm asking myself too
| caconym_ wrote:
| > massive
|
| > sweaty
|
| > strapped
|
| > instead of [...] their family/friends
|
| > generated avatars
|
| > kids [...] grab my headset, strap it on [...] or just go join
| them?
|
| > cutting myself off from the outside world
|
| > half-assed substitute for consuming the same content
|
| > Show me the actual future
|
| It seems like you're trying very hard to convince yourself this
| will be a bad product that is unpleasant to use and carries
| unavoidable antisocial externalities. It could very well be all
| of that and more, but I don't really understand why you would
| bother with this level of self-assured negativity before there
| are even any unbiased hands-on impressions out there. Apple is
| historically very good at execution.
|
| > Would I rather work on this all day instead of a laptop?
|
| You know, I very well might!
| electrondood wrote:
| Shoot, I would. I've been dreaming of a headset to replace my
| monitors for years now.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| I totally agree with everything you've written, but I'd just
| put forth that I think what Apple did with Apple Watch could be
| instructive here.
|
| Apple Watch was basically originally marketed as a high-end
| app/notification device (remember the original 10k gold Apple
| Watch?) Over time they realized the real target market and use
| case was as a fitness/health tracker, and they doubled down on
| features and design for that.
|
| With these AR/VR headsets, I agree that gaming is the one use
| case I've actually seen these headsets be great at, but all
| these companies keep trying to extend it to our daily lives
| that nobody seems to really want. But I could believe Apple
| would eventually come around to seeing one or two really good
| target markets (gaming and watching movies maybe?) and then
| just really hone in on that. Folks say games will be a tough
| sell because Apple isn't really known as a gaming platform, but
| I don't think this is really true if you take iOS games into
| account. I can easily see game developers wanting to build for
| this given the hardware capabilities.
| lolinder wrote:
| No one is going to buy a $3500 headset for their puzzle and
| idle games, so Apple's existing games market is not going to
| help them sell this device.
|
| For Apple to break into the VR games space they'll have to
| woo both serious gamers _and_ large game studios, both of
| which seem extremely unlikely given the _huge_ cultural
| disconnect.
| coolspot wrote:
| > Does someone really sit on their couch, put on a massive
| headset, and scroll through their vacation photos?
|
| A male sitting alone in a dimmed room watching photos with a
| smug on his face. I think they were hinting at something else
| than "vacation photos".
| d3nj4l wrote:
| [dead]
| opportune wrote:
| I have not developed a VR/AR game, but I imagine there are
| several chicken-egg problems making this possible killer app
| hard to achieve. One is that VR/AR adoption (and _usage_ ) is
| not enough to justify large studios spending huge sums of money
| developing games that make extensive use of Vr/ar features, at
| best they'll take a regular game and port it to VR. Another is
| that there aren't very many workers who are experienced at
| developing VR/AR applications yet, and that the tooling isn't
| mature enough (or standardized enough) for this to be easy. But
| without killer apps there won't be enough VR/AR users to begin
| with.
|
| Also the hardware is rapidly developing and creating super
| flashy applications requires high-specced SKUs that are only
| supported by a small number of devices in the wild.
|
| Porting 2D desktop applications with a couple VR/AR gimmicks to
| VR is something that is well scoped and comparatively easy, it
| also is mostly re-usable because any "render a 2D UI in 3d"
| tech is going to work in most or all applications. So in terms
| of getting features and applications to encourage adoption, it
| has very high ROI.
|
| Also, people probably aren't just going to strap on a VR
| headset to look at vacation photos or YouTube videos if the
| only thing it offers is a super wide field of view and
| immersive audio. But they will for... other kinds of photos and
| videos that Apple can't demo on stage
| goosedragons wrote:
| As someone who lives alone in a tiny apartment I have watched a
| movie on my Quest 2, quite a few. It's better than watching a
| movie on my PC monitor that pulls double duty as a TV. Would I
| pay $3500 for that though? Absolutely not.
|
| I'm curious how well gaming will work too. They didn't show off
| any sort of VR controller a la Quest or PS VR2.
| RandallBrown wrote:
| I think they purposefully avoided showing a VR controller
| because they're making the claim that you don't need one at
| all for the use cases they were showing.
|
| I think they're claiming that their hand and eye tracking are
| good enough that you don't need to be waving your arms around
| to navigate menus.
|
| They did show people using a Playstation controller to play
| games so I assume there will eventually at least be a third
| party VR controller.
| LtdJorge wrote:
| Because their gaming market would be tiny. Gaming on Mac is
| completely dead, and mobile gaming will take at least a lot
| of time to adapt to the hardware.
| joemi wrote:
| > Gaming on Mac is completely dead
|
| "Dead" is an unnecessary exaggeration. I'm a Mac gamer and
| my Steam library has more Mac games in it than I can
| possibly play all the way through. No Man's Sky was just
| released for Mac, and I'm looking forward to playing that
| too. I just played through Subnautica at the same time as
| my friend who was playing it on his Switch and he was blown
| away at how much better and smoother it was on my M1
| MacBook. Also Parallels and Crossover open up the ability
| to play a lot of Windows games on a Mac. I'm still
| impressed with just how well that works for some games. I'm
| not a bleeding-edge everything-in-my-life-is-about-gaming
| gamer, sure, but I still think I'm a gamer. Yes, compared
| to the Windows gaming market, the Mac gaming market is
| small, but it's not dead.
| Pxtl wrote:
| > Does someone watch an entire 2+ hour movie with a sweaty
| headset strapped to them (and plugged into a socket) instead of
| on a couch with their family/friends?
|
| Let's be real, most media content is being consumed on phones
| these days. In those cases? Yes, a headset is basically just a
| smartphone for your face.
|
| But I agree about the demos in general focusing on stuff you
| can do already just fine in 2D. There was very little that
| looked like a useful application of a HUD. No 3D modeling work,
| no superimposing digital info over relevant real-world
| objects... just normal computer and smartphone tasks, but
| wearing a big sweaty heavy expensive face-screen.
| princevegeta89 wrote:
| Can it be straining the eyes, head, ears, and jaws? Also,
| what are the negative mental effects of being lost in that
| world for 2+ hours? Staring at my phone, I still know what's
| beside me.. I can fall asleep with stuff still playing on my
| phone... but I can't imagine what sort of an experience it is
| to fall asleep with the headset still wrapped around your
| skull...lol
| robbyking wrote:
| > _Does someone really sit on their couch, put on a massive
| headset, and scroll through their vacation photos?_
|
| There was a time that people said the same thing about digital
| photos -- people swore nothing would ever replace physical
| photo albums, and thought the idea of having to look at a
| screen to view your vacation photos was insane.
|
| Now just imagine a few generations from now when Apple Vision
| is the size of a pair of regular eye glasses.
| ztrww wrote:
| I guess the question is whether this the Newton or the iPad.
| It might take another 5-10 years before actual uses cases get
| figured out and at that point it might be very different from
| what Apple is offering now or are envisioning for the next
| couple of generations.
| swores wrote:
| I wasn't around when the Newton happened so I'm curious -
| do you know if there were people at the time (outside
| Apple) believing it would be the next big thing?
| wpietri wrote:
| When do you believe that time was? Because that's not how I
| remember it.
|
| I borrowed an Apple QuickTake from friends in the mid '90s,
| and bought an Olympus 1-megapixel camera not too long after.
| People definitely complained about the low quality. And some
| said they didn't want to have to go to a desktop computer to
| view their photos, which was very plausible given the size
| and slowness of desktop computers of the time.
|
| And they turned out to be basically correct. Digital
| photography became wildly more popular with the rise of the
| smartphone and the tablet. Basically computers had to get
| much more human-friendly, fitting into the existing human
| world, so that you could use photos as you would with an
| album, handing them around, pointing at them, etc.
|
| Which is part of what makes me skeptical about facehugger VR.
| Instead of putting technology in their living rooms, it
| requires people to cut themselves off from their surroundings
| and pretend to be somewhere else. It's the exact opposite of
| what made digital photography work for the masses.
| paxys wrote:
| Cool and in those few generations I will absolutely buy that
| magical device. But we are discussing what's in front of us
| today.
| swores wrote:
| The conversation doesn't have to be limited to only whether
| this device is perfect today, I'm not sure why you object
| to people discussing the concept and its future potential
| also.
| liendolucas wrote:
| I got very similar thoughts... I think the most promising
| future of this tech are simulations of all kinds: let's
| virtually open a human body and study it, let's disassemble an
| engine to see how each part works, let's project how a city
| should be wise-designed to avoid transport issues, etc.
|
| Even most of these things can be also appreciated using regular
| tech. Why should Apple succeed when most of other companies
| have not succeeded (Occulus, Hololens, HTC Vive)? Putting aside
| not so stunning technology, people actually didn't get engaged
| with the tech so much.
|
| I had the opportunity to use a version of the Occulus some
| years ago and found them pretty impressive, but even though at
| the time I saw it like a cool gadget only to be enjoyed for a
| very limited amount of time.
| foobarbecue wrote:
| I watch tv shows often and movies occasionally on my Quest 2.
| Often the TV shows aren't in 4K anyway so I'm not losing any
| resolution. The main reason I do it is the perfect darkness you
| get with the headset on. Shows like Silo are too dark to watch
| during the day in my southern california apartment. I know I
| could get blackout curtains or whatever but the Quest is
| actually cheaper and easier.
| zitterbewegung wrote:
| This is good for gamers actually not for the obvious one (hand
| tracking ) but actually the ability to immediately change the
| isolation. The biggest problem I have with doing stuff in VR is
| that I multitask in certain games and if you make it so I can
| switch to something else momentarily then that's a big win. I
| agree with you though that why they haven't been much more
| aggressive with gaming at wwdc unless at launch or nearer they
| wanted to announce then but that would be ridiculous since
| gamers preorder everything and announcing a game would push
| more gamers to that.
| erTAlEAS wrote:
| I agree that it's undoubtedly a very impressive device.
|
| I think the next generation of computing devices is going to be
| centered around the device understanding the environment around
| you, what you are looking at and doing. E.g. you are shopping,
| cooking, fixing something at home, running, playing basketball
| and the device understands what you are doing and gives you
| info and help about the activity. Democratizing access to a
| personal universal coaching for everyone, like the Internet did
| with access to information. This device is kind of like a mac
| on your head, I think it doesn't differentiate itself enough
| from what is currently available. That's with the exception for
| entertainment: gaming and movies where I expect it will provide
| a much more immersive experience to what you can have at home
| with a traditional setup, like the other similar device do.
|
| I do like the eye display on the front, I think Apple is making
| a correct bet that these devices can't cut you off from the
| outside world. In the long run they will be small enough not to
| cover the face at all. I think it's probably another 5-10 years
| before the next big thing, but with the Apple silicon
| advancements and few year of lessons from this device Apple is
| the best position to dominate that space then.
| LightBug1 wrote:
| To be honest, I was looking to hate on this, but they sold it
| much better than the others...
|
| I can see value in it where before it was a gimmick.
|
| And come to think of it, isn't this where Apple does best?
| Taking the components of an idea that others have failed with,
| and using them to create a new market category.
|
| That thing will have to be as light as a feather though...
|
| What weirded me out most though, was the feeling that all the
| presenters had run their demonstrations through chatGPT "in the
| style of Steve Jobs". Maybe the SMT have rebooted Jobs via an
| LLM!
|
| I enjoyed the memory of him though.
| lolinder wrote:
| What value do you see here that others haven't already tried
| selling? I haven't watch the keynote yet, but the landing
| page looks like all the same concepts Meta's been trying and
| failing to get people excited about for years now.
| LightBug1 wrote:
| Possibly it's the confidence that there is "something"
| behind it. I. E. Apple software...
|
| To get all nostalgic again... "And one more thing... the
| iPhone runs OSX * rapturous applause *". It's that same
| kind of thing.
|
| When I think of Meta, I think Facebook and it's absolutely
| over. I see Zuck avatar, I see cringe. Same with other
| manufacturers. Not many have the depth to deliver short and
| long term. Especially if dropping serious money on it.
|
| You have to hand it to Apple, the presentation is cliche,
| but they know how to sell.
|
| I won't be getting one, but I can imagine these selling
| decently. Not iPhone scale, obviously, but enough to cement
| the market
| t-writescode wrote:
| > Does someone watch an entire 2+ hour movie with a sweaty
| headset strapped to them (and plugged into a socket) instead of
| on a couch with their family/friends?
|
| Some of us don't have local friends we want to sit down and
| watch a movie with; and some of us don't have local friends at
| all.
|
| I know people who already watch whole movies, etc, in VRChat.
| This usecase already exists.
| asdff wrote:
| Apple hasn't cared about gaming seriously for perhaps decades.
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| Sure, the announcement is full of cliches and more than a
| little cringeworthy. But I'm not aware of any device that
| provides this level of quality and immersion for things like 2D
| and 3D movies, games, or simply the amount of screen real
| estate for anything 2D people already use. The genius move with
| this strategy is that it is mostly about leveling up 2D and
| existing content and software. With some sprinkling of 3D
| content.
|
| And probably this device is not fast enough for full immersive
| 3D gaming to begin with. You'd need that new Mac Studio in a
| backpack mounted on your back with probably a few kilos of
| battery dangling behind it and some cooling for you and all
| that hardware. Not going to happen. Some light gaming is
| probably fine. But it would be a mistake to aim this at gamers.
|
| If this works as advertised, this could basically replace most
| of my devices. Why have a laptop when I can just project
| whatever in my field of view, grab a wireless keyboard and go
| to work. Not that different from what magic leap promised to
| deliver years ago. Only issue with that is of course that they
| never really delivered that. Apple seems a bit further with
| their R&D.
|
| Probably the first generation will have some significant
| limitations and a certain level of being just a bit
| uncomfortable. That head band doesn't look fun without AC, for
| example. And of course motion sickness might be a thing. Not to
| mention headaches and other potential side-effects of prolonged
| exposure to this. And probably showing up in public with this
| is not a great idea in terms of getting robbed, beaten up, etc.
| Also, the whole interacting with family is seriously cringe-
| worthy to look at. This looks to me like a solo experience that
| has not much capability for sharing it with others.
|
| On the other hand, I think they just presented a big money
| making machine with an amazing walled garden that is pretty
| much guaranteed to bring countless users if if gets even close
| to delivering what is on display here.
|
| I think 3.5K$ is pretty OK as a price point. I don't have that
| kind of disposable income necessarily. But lots of people
| undeniably do. And this does have a certain level of wow that
| unlocks that kind of budget for those with this kind of money.
| I bet lots of people are itching to throw money at this thing
| on the off chance it is much than half as good as this
| announcement suggests.
|
| I'm just hoping that this kicks the competition into gear. This
| looks like it is a lot nicer to have than some of the other
| stuff out there. The flip side is of course that it's all
| locked behind the towering walls of Apple's walled garden. This
| just screams for a more open answer. Meta looks like it just
| got its lunch eaten pretty thoroughly. Mark Zuckerberg going on
| about having meetings in VR just isn't quite going to be good
| enough. I'd love to see what MS comes up with. They've been
| working on holo lens for years and been holding off on putting
| it in the hands of consumers. This might prompt them to kick a
| few things into gear. A pro-sumer focused version of that maybe
| with some XBox and Steam action on the side could tempt a few
| people.
|
| And of course all of this stuff is going to be cat nip for the
| adult entertainment industry. Forget games. I don't think I
| need to spell that out for this audience. I'm curious to see
| how Apple is going to contain that.
| joking wrote:
| another product to add to the apple walled garden, you will have
| to go through the vision store for everything, and they will
| capture their share from all the transactions happening inside
| it. It's incredible how apple can be so innovative and nobody can
| fight such prevalence. Will be a handset with the same features,
| but that you can connect to an open operating system someday? i
| would like to think that it will happen someday.
| ThinkBeat wrote:
| pR00000n.
|
| If the Apps are restricted in the samme manner other Appple
| devices it will be a bit more difficult. but this will create a
| whole new level of porn for the world. Combined with the rather
| impressive advances made in teledildonics one can get a lot
| closer to "being there".
|
| Various mostly shitty "VR" enabled ways to watch porn have been
| developed but have been disappointing in use.
|
| This may kick off a whole new frenzy. Some folks will make a lot
| of money. Esp if they manage to combine it with the independent
| "Content creators"
|
| In fact, getting out early and opening in a studio making
| recordings for people would be sustainable for a good while. If
| you are in the right location.
| golergka wrote:
| Getting it as soon as I can. 3500 is steep, but 4k display for my
| Macbook anywhere I go is invaluable for a remote working nomad.
| numpad0 wrote:
| Interesting that they didn't mention a pancake lens. It isn't
| one?
|
| edit: the other thread is growing faster:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36200708
| turndown wrote:
| Very interesting and I can't really blame them on the price
| point; this is basically the pinnacle of the in-house engineering
| they've been working at since they decided to spin out their own
| processors. I think it is so early on for these kinds of products
| that the true "market" isn't known or formed yet, so nobody
| really knows if this thing is positioned well or not.
| batmenace wrote:
| Also presumably the reason for making the first one a 'pro'
| version -- and beginning the presentation with a focus on work.
| Easier pitch that way, and once it can establish itself / there
| is an ecosystem, you can probably get more 'consumer' focussed
| versions with less compute power or that are plugin only etc
| nehal3m wrote:
| Looks like an awesome device, but with that price I don't think
| it's aimed at consumers. Also, would the Pro moniker imply a non-
| Pro version at a lower price in the future?
| schaefer wrote:
| I own a Varjo Aero. A comparably priced PC VR headset (after
| including graphic cards costs) that runs only under windows. I
| bought this setup for productivity - not gaming.
|
| I want to give a quick reaction to apple vision pro from that
| perspective. On the Aero, under windows I quickly came to learn
| that while the screens were clear and legible... The primary
| drawback was lack of software. Specifically there was no true 3d
| window manager.
|
| I couldn't arrange 10 different programs spatially around me,
| like some cliche virtual hacker's den. I couldn't layout a pillar
| of source code that expanded hundereds of pages above and below
| my current focus...
|
| I was locked into looking at my 2d windows desktop, projected
| onto a plane, in a 3d virtual space. I wasn't in 3d at all. I was
| still trapped in 2d.
|
| ---
|
| The window manager in apple vision is already far better than
| that! So, here's my prediction.
|
| Just like when microsoft sat out the race to mobile (iphone v.
| android), they are decidedly on the sidelines here too. VR
| productivity seems to be almost exclusively apple's for the
| taking. (yes, I'm aware that FB has some offerings in this space,
| but no way in hell do they get telemetry on my literal eyeballs).
|
| Just as products like the ipad haven't exactly challenged
| microsoft windows, they have diminished it's roll in people's
| lives, apple vision seems to be a product with that kind of
| potential.
|
| -
|
| Last but not least, in the old days, I owned an ipad pro, which I
| supposedly bought for productivity. It had some weird limitation
| where I couldn't run apps side by side in the way that I wanted.
| Eventually I gave the ipad away. Sooo... this time around apple
| doesn't get the benefit of the doubt. I'll pretty much have to
| demo one and personally confirm my top use cases before I'd
| consider buying.
| bloggie wrote:
| A good 20 years ago there was a bit of software called SphereXP
| that arranged windows in a 3D sphere around you, I really liked
| it and I'm glad the tech is coming back!
| asimpletune wrote:
| The demo greatly exceeded my expectations. If the v1 actually
| works as well as their presentation, then this is going to
| fundamentally change personal computing. Sure, it's expensive,
| but that's because they are bringing to market something that is
| truly high tech.
|
| In 5-10 years this will be mainstream if it's not too expensive.
| It's going to be interesting because we're going to repeat the
| cycle of a new competing platform coming up, like Android, and
| copying the UX. This time around though it seems that they
| patented it really hard, so it'll be interesting to see that
| fight go down.
|
| Ultimately it's going to come down to if their products lives up
| to its claims, and if they'll be able to bring the costs down.
| 0xDEF wrote:
| This product will fail among Apple's traditional customer segment
| of high-income Westerners.
|
| High-income Westerners do not like to engage in activities that
| make them appear like mindless consumer zombies. In Denmark the
| highest income households have small cheap TVs they can hide away
| while low income households have big 4K TVs as the main
| attraction in their living room. The reason is that the former
| don't want to appear like passive mindless consumer zombies who
| watch TV.
|
| It is a very superficial opinion but wearing a VR/AR headset is
| literally the most 1984 consumer zombie thing you could possibly
| do.
| dr_ wrote:
| Expensive but with such an immersive experience can right off the
| bat replace a television and surround sound system. But
| potentially offers a lot more than this. Not bad for a 1st
| generation product.
| keithxm23 wrote:
| I find it fascinating that Apple is deliberately avoiding the
| terms VR or virtual. 51 uses of the word "spatial" but only 1
| "virtual" which is also not in the context of VR.
| https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2023/06/introducing-apple-vis...
| kqvamxurcagg wrote:
| Very good point - I guess they are trying to redefine the
| terminology in this category and create unique marketing
| keywords. I suspect that is too late, VR Goggles just seems to
| ingrained but perhaps I'm wrong.
| fosk wrote:
| This looks fantastic. Now do it in a "contact lenses" format and
| it will change the world like the iPhone did.
| JumpinJack_Cash wrote:
| They got duped into the Metaverse?
| maybelsyrup wrote:
| You will get in the pod, you will eat the bugs
| DonHopkins wrote:
| Apple Vision by Bob Bishop has come a long way since 1979!
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiWE-aO-cyU
| s-xyz wrote:
| I am sure that I bought a TV for the very last time. This is mind
| blowing, the future is here!
| summerlight wrote:
| Given the $3500 price tag + US only release, it looks like Apple
| also doesn't think that this product will strongly appeal to the
| market broader than enthusiasts. Perhaps the first version is
| more of an experimental product with no high expectations, so we
| probably need to see if it draws enough attentions from
| enthusiasts and generates a good level of tech hypes here.
| artemiszx wrote:
| Regardless of the future of the device, it's been a long way for
| Apple to get here. ARKit was released in 2017 and is on version 6
| by now, so far mostly for gimmicks. The same is true for the
| lidar sensor on every iPhone and iPad Pros: consumers have been
| bearing cost of R&D and establishing the supply chain for years.
| Also don't forget binaural spatial audio: though quite cool on
| its own in the AirPods, it is clear that AR/VR is the application
| it shines. Finally, Apple Silicon's absolute performance and
| performance per watt gives them an definite edge over
| competitors.
|
| Although not needing handheld controllers is quite an Apple move,
| I am personally disappointed that the UX is not more spatial, but
| rather floating traditional 2D interfaces. As users of the first
| gen bear more of the initial manufacturing and R&D cost, let's
| hope Apple can further iterate on the ideas, and also reduce
| costs for a proper consumer-range model.
| solarmist wrote:
| All new paradigms heavily crib from the original while finding
| their place. I fully expect this will fall away within 5 years
| if there's a healthy adoption.
| xtalax wrote:
| I really hope that they have thought about alternative accessible
| gestures, not all of us have the luxury of functioning fingers
| ur-whale wrote:
| If I need reading glasses, will I be able to use this thing?
| nojvek wrote:
| If the displays and sensors on the device are as good as they say
| they are, I'd buy it.
|
| Watch a movie, play a game, workout, code, dance, be fully
| immersed. Like have multiple screens around my garage walls in 3D
| where I can walk up to them.
|
| I tried NReal AR glasses, Roku, Quest, Holo lens. They didn't
| feel right.
|
| If Apple vision pro could really take me to another world, be
| immersed for multiple hours, $4000 (including tax) is worth the
| experience.
| RGBCube wrote:
| It starts at $3499 BEFORE tax, lmfao
| srvmshr wrote:
| I understand they have built a whole deal of spatial audio
| technology around it. But in a practical sense, I hope one could
| just plug in Airpods instead to go with the MR display. Under no
| circumstances, real world settings will match their design studio
| perfection. Too often stray sounds & ambient noise pollution
| could dilute that experience.
| Geee wrote:
| Yeah, they showed the guy using Airpod Pros in the airplane for
| noise cancellation (and privacy).
| seydor wrote:
| Well it s good, this is how you make something that turns us to
| cyborgs.
|
| A bit pricey to become a household items (because a family needs
| 4 of them) but this is probably where things are heading to
|
| There is so much engineering going on here that maybe ... it's
| simpler to start considering retina implants or just brain
| implants.
|
| This was more like a work of art than a consumer device. I wonder
| if Oculus can steal some ideas ... Like, these device are not for
| gaming but general productivity. Ditch the 2 oculus controllers,
| put the battery in the 1 controller and wire it to the head. I m
| not convinced if eye tracking is worth it. oculus' controls are
| precise enough and in any case it's better to hold something
| instead of pointing and pinching the air, it makes the device
| more physical. dont know what is needed for the ability to render
| a full field of view but would be interesting to know what is the
| level of nausea this causes when movement is involved. I guess
| Apple purposely chose to eliminate all optic flow movement - all
| the apps appear to be stationary.
| [deleted]
| summarity wrote:
| With profiles and OpticID you probably wouldn't need one for
| everyone in the household. Or even more than one. Just the
| lenses.
| seydor wrote:
| how do u watch a movie together?
| RandallBrown wrote:
| On your TV?
|
| Group movie watching on this would be cool with people in
| different places, but if you're already in the same house
| that feels too dystopian for me.
| seydor wrote:
| smartphones can switch profiles too, but it s not like
| people are sharing them
|
| We used to think it is dystopian that people were looking
| at their phones , now it s the most common image
| everywhere
| DANmode wrote:
| Sony has the patent for the contact lens.
| valine wrote:
| I'm convinced it's not possible to build a decent headset
| without eye tracking. Low latency, high refresh rates, massive
| resolutions, in a tiny footprint just isn't possible with our
| current generation of chips. Eye tracking lets you put your
| compute cycles where they're needed, and not waste time
| rendering to useless pixels.
| seydor wrote:
| is it really low latency considering that it needs 2 cameras
| and a bunch of leds? Also, saccades are not very precise and
| are relatively small movement so i m nor sure how precise and
| detailed the pointer is in these.
| valine wrote:
| The said during the event that they have a custom chip to
| do the signal processing for the cameras and sensors. I
| fully believe they've solved the camera latency issue.
| abracadaniel wrote:
| Their cost comparison to a 4k tv, surround sound, high end
| laptop, etc does seem reasonable for a single person, but it
| does indeed break down for a family. Everyone sitting on the
| couch watching a movie, but you with your goggles getting a
| completely different experience.
| epolanski wrote:
| > 4k tv, surround sound, high end laptop
|
| None of those can be replaced by a vr headset in anything but
| "some" applications and scenarios.
| arsome wrote:
| Yeah, how exactly are you replacing a laptop with something
| without a keyboard? A tablet perhaps, but we're miles away
| from this one still.
| ralfn wrote:
| Sony's VR headset also has eye tracking.
|
| It is a great input, but more importantly: drastically lowers
| the required computation with foviated rendering, i.e.
| rendering hires where you look, not everywhere.
| numpad0 wrote:
| Unless you're doing at least once over 100Hz refresh rates,
| human eyeballs are too fast for foveated rendering. Motion to
| photon latency for this thing is 12ms from the presentation,
| which is 83Hz(so it's 85Hz), and that's probably for post-
| processing 2D warping and not 3D scene shading/rendering
| where foveated rendering must take place so no way that
| works.
| ralfn wrote:
| They did specifically mention foveated rendering.
|
| Also the 12ms mentioned, wasn't that from camera to screen
| (so the latency of both the camera sensor added to the
| latency of the screen) or did i misunderstand?
|
| Now that i think about it, the eye tracking is also a
| camera. Hmm.
| stephenhandley wrote:
| visionOS UI unsurprisingly still feels very tethered to a
| stationary AR model (i.e. mostly on couch / at table use cases).
| Of course hard to tell without trying it, but even if this had
| full day battery and wasn't a glowing please rob me sign, wearing
| this while navigating some outdoor spatial environment with the
| current OS seems like a great way to break an ankle. Maybe they
| have some gesture or accelerometer-based trigger to do the
| equivalent of Mission Control's "desktop" to minimize everything
| except for the camera pass-through so a person can safely walk
| around their house.
|
| Seems like if it is eventually going to become outdoor-friendly
| OS, it would need to minimally be multi-mode for stationary vs.
| moving user, where when moving there's more minimal overlay
| (maybe like Anon [1] hopefully minus the dystopian hellscape).
|
| 3D camera + spatial audio is probably most interesting near term
| thing for me in this version, will be interesting to see how
| people use that to record and share immersive experiences.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuaa4hJVC5s
| matt_s wrote:
| What I can't wait for is unbiased hands on reviews, hopefully
| from MKBHD or someone big enough they can just shell out the
| money for it and tell us how it actually is to operate.
| kabanossen wrote:
| For someone who hasn't really tried this kind of thing (VR
| goggles...), what's it like after thirty minutes? Two hours? I
| feel reluctant because it's a huge thing wrapped around my head,
| isn't that something a twelve year old likes but not a 32 year
| old?
| mikece wrote:
| Apple: We're concerned about myopia from holding screens too
| close to your face.
|
| Also Apple: Strap a pair of 4K displays an inch from your
| eyeballs!!!
| quasarj wrote:
| Did they say anything about myopia from holding screens close?
| I thought they specifically said the feature was encouraging
| spending more time outside. I believe the current theory for
| increased myopia is from not getting enough sunlight into your
| eyes as a child. Nothing to do with focusing close.
| gorbypark wrote:
| Directly after mentioning the sunlight monitoring/monitoring
| outside time feature they announced a feature that utilizes
| the Face ID cameras to warn you if you are holding a screen
| too close to your face.
| function_seven wrote:
| Yeah, they also covered a new use of the lidar/camera on
| iPhones, to notify users that they're too close to the
| display. Called "Screen Distance"
|
| https://www.apple.com/ios/health/
| andelink wrote:
| From the iOS 17 press release:
|
| > Additionally, increasing the distance the device is viewed
| from can help children lower their risk of myopia and gives
| adult users the opportunity to reduce digital eyestrain.
| Screen Distance in Screen Time uses the TrueDepth camera to
| encourage users to move their device farther away after
| holding it closer than 12 inches from their face for an
| extended period of time.
|
| Link: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2023/06/ios-17-makes-
| iphone-m...
| gbear605 wrote:
| Theoretically the lenses could make this not a problem. We'll
| have to see how it works in practice though.
| nomel wrote:
| It's not theory. Every VR headset produced, since the 90's,
| and every microscope, shortly after their invention, has had
| optics that make viewing comfortable, by having a distant
| focal distance, for the eyes to settle on. This is, quite
| literally, Physics 101 material!
| asdff wrote:
| Gesticulating with a hand all day like that probably can't be
| great either
| doctoboggan wrote:
| It's the focusing close that is bad, and with the lenses you
| are focusing further in the distance
| fauigerzigerk wrote:
| As a glasses wearer I was wondering how this works. They
| mentioned extra lenses that I would have to install into the
| device. But why isn't it possible to do this all in software?
| numpad0 wrote:
| It takes optical phased array(we're not there yet at all))
| or light-field display(not there in computational power
| yet) to do this in software. Some googles has diopter
| correction/focus adjustment dials, but it's not common for
| some reason, which I can only make assumptions, perhaps to
| do with motion sickness.
| vagab0nd wrote:
| It's not possible because software cannot change the
| direction of light.
| seba_dos1 wrote:
| Because making the lenses movable and adjustable by
| software is significantly more complex than making them
| replaceable?
| planb wrote:
| Funny, the moment they showed the vision health feature, I
| immediately thought they'd come back to that later to tell us
| that computing using a headset is in fact better for the eyes
| (because of the lenses that shift the focal distance).
| EscapeFromNY wrote:
| The focal distance won't be an inch away of course. Every
| headset I've seen specs for puts the focal distance at 20ft.
| For normal human eyes, 20ft is optical infinity, so there's no
| difference optically between looking into a headset and looking
| at the horizon.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| From my understanding, the Quest's focal distance is at 1.3m
|
| https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1371485209603022853
|
| Valve Index reportedly around 6 feet
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/ValveIndex/comments/by1j2z/focal_di.
| ..
| 542458 wrote:
| Most VR headsets have your eyes focused at infinity, so that's
| usually not a problem.
| 4rt wrote:
| They also went from parents can "track your kids by buying them
| an iwatch" to "our fundamentals are privacy".
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| In many cultures, children are viewed as not being owed the
| same privacy that adults or even older children may be.
| bufo wrote:
| This is completely wrong. Learn about lenses.
| Rhedox wrote:
| $3500 to watch movies or use it as a virtual monitor. With 2
| hours of battery life.
|
| Tough sell...
| [deleted]
| polycaster wrote:
| Well, looks like we'll have to do without the extended LOTR
| edition...
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| lagrange77 wrote:
| I'm still curious, how they will enable developers to start
| developing for the device, before it gets released. A simulator
| will not be as effective as in the iPhone case.
|
| Maybe by something like the M1 Mac mini developer kit, that you
| had to return.
| mrsmee89 wrote:
| This is spectacular. What a great achievement. I have a few
| questions.
|
| 1. Will the battery pack be an additional charge?
|
| 2. What will be the defining factor for higher priced models
| (memory, larger battery, cellular etc)?
|
| 3. What effect on the body will this have for long term daily
| use?
|
| 4. Will content creators be able to price their content
| differently for this device?
|
| 5. How will Apple display the demo in store?
|
| 6. Is there a feature that allows multiple users?
|
| 7. Will this function as a real computer like a Mac or more like
| an iPad?
|
| 8. Is there a feature to prevent social awkwardness?
| themagician wrote:
| I think there is a possibility that this device actually looks
| the way it does in the promo.
|
| Every VR device that's come to market so far show a promo that's
| completely disconnected from the actual experience. They show
| these crisp, high resolution images. But when you get the headset
| on you've got this really soft image, with damn near abysmal edge
| sharpness, and a display riddled with fun new unique artifacts
| like mura and screen door.
| redbell wrote:
| I'm truly wondering what M. Zuckerburg and the rest of the Quest
| team are thinking/saying/feeling seeing Apple entering this field
| with such an impressive device. Will they welcome such a player
| to give more credibility to the metaverse concept and the VR/AR
| headset market or they would panic because they may feel unable
| to compete, who knows?! But surely, the next months would
| interesting to sit and watch.
| doctoboggan wrote:
| The price is even higher than people expected at $3.5k! The
| passthrough of the wearers eyes with a front facing display is
| pretty interesting, especially with the 3D lenticular display
| giving every viewer the correct perspective.
|
| I hadn't seen that in the rumors leading up to the launch, its
| good to see apple still can keep some secrets.
| zyang wrote:
| There were rumors of third display but for peripheral vision.
| jaywalk wrote:
| I find the eye display to be quite creepy.
| thrill wrote:
| Now Apple needs to make a "Pro" version of the Razer
| facemask.
| minimaxir wrote:
| No tech spec sheet other than the battery life:
|
| "The external battery supports up to 2 hours of use, and all-day
| use when plugged in."
| DANmode wrote:
| M2 chip + R1 chip
| dragonwriter wrote:
| To be fair, it also gives vague hints on resolution with "more
| pixels than a 4K TV for each eye", which is simultaneously more
| verbose and less informative than giving the actual resolution.
| SirMaster wrote:
| I mean, they said it's got 23 million pixel microOLED.
|
| Dual 4K would be 16.5M pixels.
|
| So it's comfortably 40% more than 4K per eye, so as long as
| say a virtual TV screen filled up most of your vision it
| should be at least close to 4K quality. Maybe a bit less in
| the end, but even somewhere between 1080p and 4K should look
| great.
|
| Ever been to a movie theater using digital 2K projectors?
| Looks pretty good to me still.
| fassssst wrote:
| It should look fine for video, text is another story.
| mojomark wrote:
| Yeah, "4K TV resolution" doesn't mean anything as that
| completely ignores viewing distance. Pixels Per Degree (PPD)
| is the core metric and it drives me bananas that marketing
| professionals continue to intentionally obfuscate basic facts
| about products for sale.
|
| I assume they're just ashamed that after billions of dollars
| in product development, they were unable to obtain the
| requisite 35PPD necessary to emulate a very basic "virtual
| computer monitor" and display readible text - or get close to
| the 62PPD that actually represents the limits of human
| resolution and is the golden benchmark to shoot for.
|
| Maybe they did achieve these goals, which would be
| impressive, but without using standardised meaningful metrics
| for HMD resolution you just can't tell.
| polycaster wrote:
| I trust they would have mentioned that if they had it. "4K
| TV resolution" is the best they could say, so in turn you
| can expect the minimum you could possibly squeeze out of
| that statement.
| bx376 wrote:
| Fair point! Anyone can do a quick math on the PPD with
| their announcement of "23 million pixel microOLED" with
| this calculator? https://qasimk.io/screen-ppd/
| thomasfl wrote:
| So it is only useful with net power.
| stuckkeys wrote:
| 3500? Holly Applemolly. That is expensive as shit considering the
| VR is not new tech. Ofc, someone is going to smash at me with
| "well this is Apple ok." Cool story. Looks like a fun little
| gadget but is way too pricey for the consumer line. Unless ofc,
| they will have a beat down version without the "pro" features.
| xwowsersx wrote:
| Can I use this with my Mac to replace my physical displays and
| work with the headset on? That would be incredible if possible.
| MacsHeadroom wrote:
| Yes, you can airplay your Mac's display to a virtual display
| inside the AR experience of the Vision Pro.
| mjamesaustin wrote:
| It looks like yes, but only one display for now. One of the
| reasons I'll wait till version 2 or 3 - my primary use case
| would be to have unlimited virtual displays for working in
| macOS.
| xwowsersx wrote:
| Right, that's exactly how I feel. I'd already have 3-4 Studio
| Displays if it weren't so costly. To be able to have
| unlimited virtual displays would be so great.
| two_handfuls wrote:
| The presentation says that yes you can. Incidentally, you can
| also do this with the cheaper Quest Pro headset (or any headset
| in the Quest line, so $300-$1000 price range). There are a few
| options, [VRDesktop](https://www.vrdesktop.net/) being one.
| cjmcqueen wrote:
| Two words, flight simulator.
| hmate9 wrote:
| External battery with a cord, and even with that only 2 hours
| performance. This has to be improved before mainstream appeal.
| (and the price of course)
| comment_ran wrote:
| remember he said all day use. not sure what it mean.
| teacpde wrote:
| I guess you could just swap batteries ...
| lijok wrote:
| All day use when plugged in
| jaywalk wrote:
| All day use if it's plugged in, as in using an AC adapter.
| throwaway202351 wrote:
| iirc, he said something like "when plugged in you can use it
| all day, and on battery you get two hours"
| ASinclair wrote:
| All day use if you plug it into wall power.
| moron4hire wrote:
| Yeah, with them touting watching movies and only having "up to
| 2 hours" of battery, that's going to severely limit the movies
| you can watch. "Everything, Everywhere, All At Once", which
| they showed someone watching, is 2.2hrs.
| llm_nerd wrote:
| It's interesting that HN is completely overloaded right
| now...with people coming to announce how unimpressed they are and
| how it isn't for them.
|
| The displays in this device are _crazy_. I honestly didn 't think
| they'd be able to put together a value proposition, but I think
| they legitimately did. It's super expensive, and some of the cost
| of the device seems kind of silly (if I heard correctly, the
| display on the front is 3d and gives different perspectives based
| upon the viewers), so obviously they're going to have a lot of
| room to improve value in subsequent generations.
|
| But it's going to be a hit. HN is going to be swamped with "How I
| used Vision Pro to..." posts when it comes out.
|
| One element that didn't get a lot of play (if any...though I was
| distracted with work) -- did they talk about using it as a
| display for a Mac? I'd love to use a real keyboard mouse
| interacting with flexible Mac displays.
| amrangaye wrote:
| Every. Single. Apple product launch post. "Meh", "I can't see
| the use case for this", "it's all already been done before".
| Like clockwork. Then they'll sell a million of these, and by v3
| it'll be much smaller / better / cheaper, and gain mass
| adoption. It's like people have an "apple event reaction"
| algorithm going, and it never changes.
| soneca wrote:
| Yes, they showcased that you just have to take a look at a Mac
| screen and the glasses become the display.
| hartator wrote:
| 23M for both eyes doesn't seem that far off from Meta Quest 2
| Pro at 9.3M (2,160 x 2,160 x 2).
|
| And Meta Quest 2 Pro is one year old at $999.
| zimpenfish wrote:
| > 23M for both eyes doesn't seem that far off from [...] 9.3M
|
| It's almost 2.5x the pixels [edit: was ~~resolution~~ which
| is incorrect]. How is that "not far off"? It's more pixels
| _per eye_ than the MQ2P has for both!
| makomk wrote:
| 2.5x the pixels is more like 1.5x the resolution in terms
| of the smallest features that can be seen - remmber that
| displays are two-dimensional and in order to halve the
| width of the smallest discernable detail like say a line
| you need to double the pixels in both directions for a
| total of four times as many pixels. On the other hand, it
| is going to be close to 2.5x the rendering cost.
| zimpenfish wrote:
| Ta, edited my post to correct it to pixels instead of
| resolution.
| _ph_ wrote:
| They explicitly said in the keynote, that you can bring up the
| screen of your Mac as a virtual display. So it looks like you
| can use this to work with your Mac.
| AmericanOP wrote:
| It is a viable first entry as an AR computer. Does it need to
| be anything more than that?
|
| In 10 years with GenAI video creation and GenAI NPCs it could
| be bonkers cool.
| spaceman_2020 wrote:
| Don't think we'll take 10 years. GenAI NPCs are like 1-2
| years. GenAI video is about 3-5 years max.
|
| A little scary bringing a kid into this world. I've seen how
| my nephews and nieces get completely absorbed by screens.
| michaelt wrote:
| _> It is a viable first entry as an AR computer. Does it need
| to be anything more than that?_
|
| It needs to do what HoloLens and Google Glass didn't.
|
| Sell well enough to attract developers and improve
| manufacturing economies of scale.
|
| For what it's worth, I think Apple has a chance here - there
| were smartphones before the iphone, but apple made the first
| one good enough to take off. Perhaps this will be the same?
| debacle wrote:
| The cost is prohibitive, but I can't think of anyone who I
| trust more to introduce a cutting edge consumer device.
|
| I wont be a user, but I hope they succeed.
| Pxtl wrote:
| The device seems amazing, it's just... not really Apple, that's
| all.
| pjerem wrote:
| > did they talk about using it as a display for a Mac?
|
| Yes ! In 4k
| ChicagoBoy11 wrote:
| Yeah, although the part about it just had someone use it to
| extend the native monitor.. I'd be curious how deep that
| integration went... more than a large virtual monitor, to have
| you able to spawn multiple/infinite windows of any of the mac
| apps on it, that'd be killer!
| solarmist wrote:
| Probably a v2 feature that isn't ready yet. But I'd be
| surprised if they weren't working on it after the widget
| stuff on Mac desktop.
| selectodude wrote:
| The guy on the commercial was using a real keyboard so I
| imagine this can be used relatively standalone, with the caveat
| that it uses iPad apps.
| mdavidn wrote:
| > if I heard correctly, the display on the front is 3d and
| gives different perspectives based upon the viewers
|
| This effect probably relies on a lenticular lens overlaid on an
| OLED screen. This was similar to the method used by the
| Nintendo 3DS to create a stereoscopic image without glasses.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenticular_printing
| chpmrc wrote:
| > It's interesting that HN is completely overloaded right
| now...with people coming to announce how unimpressed they are
| and how it isn't for them.
|
| Agreed, polarization is a good sign that this is going to make
| an impact. Ironically "unimpressed" is communicated by a lack
| of response, not by a negative one (which more likely indicates
| people's beliefs are being challenged). The only way this would
| be a flop is if they shipped something really buggy and worse
| than the competition (which at the time will be the Meta Quest
| 3). Otherwise...
|
| > it's going to be a hit. HN is going to be swamped with "How I
| used Vision Pro to..." posts when it comes out.
|
| 100%!
|
| > did they talk about using it as a display for a Mac? I'd love
| to use a real keyboard mouse interacting with flexible Mac
| displays.
|
| Looks like it's going to be a standalone device that you can
| pair with a magic keyboard and trackpad. Considering it ships
| with an M2 I expect iPad/Air level performance (assuming the
| spatial stuff is solely handled by R1). I can totally see
| myself using it as "the one device" (pun intended) and get rid
| of my Macbook, assuming there's an easy way to share content
| with someone who's next to me, e.g. on my iPhone.
|
| I can't wait for it to be publicly available.
| slaymaker1907 wrote:
| I'm predicting right now that it's going to have performance
| problems with that display. While they haven't released exact
| resolution numbers per eye, 23M would give it a slightly higher
| resolution than the HTC Vive Pro 2, a headset which requires a
| GPU. While mobile chips have really impressive CPU performance,
| I don't think they're nearly as competitive in the graphics
| space.
|
| Knowing Apple, they're also not going to support anything else
| besides Apple Hardware so you won't be able to hook it up to an
| actual gaming rig like you can with the Meta Quest 2. While
| this isn't a big deal for a lot of people, Apple is taking a
| huge risk releasing a very premium product like this without
| supporting the largest established VR market (gamers).
| hajile wrote:
| 100 games at launch isn't aiming for gamers? That's at least
| decent compared to the quest.
| yurishimo wrote:
| 100 games on Apple Arcade*
|
| How many of these will be windowed iOS apps? I assume most
| of them.
| [deleted]
| czhiddy wrote:
| Roughly double the amount of pixels = "slightly higher
| resolution"?
| crubier wrote:
| Sqrt(2) = 1.4 so there are 40% more pixels per inch. It's
| not a different order of magnitude.
| anthonymckay wrote:
| The Vive Pro 2 has ~12M pixels. This has 23M. That's
| nearly double. We don't know the FoV so we have no idea
| was the pixel per degree density is.
| RandallBrown wrote:
| Performance wise, in the Platform State of the Union, they
| mentioned that they will use eye tracking to choose which
| parts of the "screen" to render at high resolution. That
| should help a bit.
| stouset wrote:
| > Apple is taking a huge risk releasing a very premium
| product like this without supporting the largest established
| VR market (gamers).
|
| This reads like "Apple is taking a huge risk releasing a new
| smartphone without supporting the largest established market
| (BlackBerry device users).
|
| The VR gaming market is microscopic compared to what Apple is
| likely aiming for here. They do not give a single flying fuck
| about this "established market", nor have they for any other
| market they've entered. The entire Apple ethos is to
| completely change the narrative for whatever product category
| they enter. They did this for phones, for bluetooth audio,
| for watches, and--whether or not they're ultimately
| successful--you can bet your ass this is their intent for
| wearable headsets.
|
| What's the eventual end goal for these devices? I'm not sure
| yet, but I'm certain it will become clearer in the coming
| years. My expectation is they anticipate this will come to
| replace fixed displays for a huge number of office workers.
| Maybe not with this first revision, but by gen 3 that's my
| bet for the market of this device. If you assume it get
| lighter and comfortable, higher res, and better battery life
| over the next few iterations it's clearly something that
| could just _be_ your work machine with a paired bluetooth
| keyboard.
| hparadiz wrote:
| VR headsets are very personal from a cleanliness
| perspective. I would never share one. There's a reason why
| the padding around the visor is removable and washable.
| JP44 wrote:
| To chime in on the last part, I imagine that it could be
| beneficial for Apple's offices alone; every employee is
| able to create their preferred workspace while using less
| physical space; only really needing a desk, keyboard,
| mouse, power & internet source and a seat
| ztrww wrote:
| > The VR gaming market is microscopic compared to what
| Apple is likely aiming for here. They do not give a single
| flying fuck about this "established market", nor have they
| for any other market they've entered. The entire Apple
| ethos is to completely change the narrative for whatever
| product category they enter. They did this for phones, for
| bluetooth audio, for watches, and--whether or not they're
| ultimately successful--you can bet your ass this is their
| intent for wearable headsets.
|
| Apple is also the company which released
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Newton back in the
| day... They turned out to be right at the end but still had
| to renter the market entirely from scratch after 10 years.
| So far Apple has been great in "perfecting" products that
| already exist by doing the right thing at the right time.
|
| They weren't the first or the second to release a
| smartphone, smart watch, tablet, BT earphones etc. all of
| those had established markets and somewhat clear use cases
| Apple "just" streamlined and turned them into something
| that normal people would actually want to use. It's seems a
| bit to early to do that for VR yet. So in a certain way
| they are in somewhat uncharted territory.
| stouset wrote:
| Whether or not they're successful is irrelevant to the
| question of what their _intent_ is. But I find it telling
| that your initial reaction is to reach for a device that
| failed _thirty years ago_ as if it has any relationship
| to modern Apple.
|
| They didn't "just" streamline the smartphone. They
| destroyed virtually overnight the existing dominant
| players in the smartphone market and within a few years
| essentially ended the existence of non-smartphones as a
| market category entirely. They didn't "just" streamline
| the watch. Again, within five years of entering the
| market they overtook (in units) shipments of the _entire
| traditional watch industry_. Both of these examples are
| significantly larger and more entrenched than the
| existing VR gaming market.
|
| Of course not every product of theirs is successful in
| doing this. But without question, this is their aim a
| majority of the time.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| > Apple is taking a huge risk
|
| Let's contextualise this ... they have so much money in the
| bank there is literally no way to spend it. This could
| completely flunk and have zero impact on them. There's no
| risk here for Apple. Perhaps the question is why they aren't
| being more adventurous, or pushing this harder by subsidising
| the gen 1 device to get it off the ground.
| peyton wrote:
| > did they talk about using it as a display for a Mac
|
| Yeah, you look at the screen through the headset and then pinch
| to move it around and grow/shrink it.
| j2bax wrote:
| There was one moment in the presentation when a guy at the
| office opened his Macbook Pro and the screen popped up above it
| much larger.
| solarmist wrote:
| He also used a keyboard and trackpad.
| ctvo wrote:
| This is an over confident audience very sure that their
| experiences and perspective is representative of the
| mainstream. See the rsync vs. Dropbox meme.
|
| The execution is all that matters here not any speculative
| flaws. If it's a delightful, polished, responsive experience
| for the stock applications, other use cases will come. I don't
| want to bet against Apple achieving that bar. They've done it
| over and over again before.
| ztrww wrote:
| > If it's a delightful, polished, responsive experience for
| the stock applications
|
| IMHO this is a perfect description for the Apple TV.
| theonlybutlet wrote:
| I agree 4k in each eye sounds insane. But eye strain that's
| going to be the big determinant. I initially thought it was
| transparent OLED at the start but to my disappointment it's
| just screens. Perhaps they've got the focal adjustment thing
| Magic Leap was trying to do right.
| tmalsburg2 wrote:
| 4K is not much if you consider that these pixels have to
| cover the entire field of view, not just a relatively small
| screen.
| coffeebeqn wrote:
| It's certainly a generational jump from the Quest series at
| least. Of course the price is completely ridiculous
| theonlybutlet wrote:
| The best an eye can discern is roughly 20 microns, but
| generally far higher at 100 microns. They said 7.5 microns
| per pixel (X3 for RGB is 22.5 so roughly there without
| space).
|
| Assuming they're square. Roughly calculating (23 million
| pixels between the two with no space between 7.5 microns,)
| that's 25.432mm^2. they've said they're the size of postage
| stamps. This ties in.
|
| I think it's near safe to assume there's no real gap
| between pixels and thus indiscernible. The lag might be a
| thing and focus, but this might actually not be a problem.
| thfuran wrote:
| >The best an eye can discern is roughly 20 microns
|
| That's not how it works. You need an angular resolution.
| tmalsburg2 wrote:
| The pixels may be 7.5 microns but you're forgetting that
| they are viewed through a lens. The point stands: 4K
| pixels for the full field of view, which is a lower
| density than 4K for a small screen.
| theonlybutlet wrote:
| The lens can be directional focusing your vision onto a
| certain point, also your peripheral vision cannot discern
| as much detail. They've stated it is on a chip the size
| of a postage stamp. So we'll have to see how the lens
| directs it, when it's released.
|
| Edit:sort of a Magic Leap type thing. The further out you
| look from the centre of the lense, the more the lense
| curves back to the focus your eye on the centre. With the
| eye tracking changing the image to compensate for your
| eye movement.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| I think it'll be 5 generations before it's a real product. I'd
| note the first iPhone was kinda garbage as was the first iPod.
| For the iPhone the App Store was empty and the apps that
| existed for years were pretty rudimentary. It couldn't hold a
| phone call open. It was clunky and comparatively terrible
| hardware. Apple has the ability to invest and innovate on an
| idea for _decades_ incorporating advances, fostering
| investment, and building an ecosystem.
|
| The jaded take to my ears sounds a lot like the LLM /
| generative AI take - looking at the first real generation and
| claiming it's an evolutionary dead end of hype monsterism. I
| feel sad that people that likely got into this field as a
| dreamer of what can be are stuck seeing what simply is.
|
| Will this usher in rainbows end within the next 20 years?
| Maybe. Maybe not. But I'm always happy to see there are still
| nerds that can dream of what can be, even if they're often
| drowned out by the chorus of what today isn't.
| comment_ran wrote:
| I do see your point and it is true that every product is
| going to be more mature, more complete for the later
| publication. But things of a first generation product like
| this is going to be a huge risk for a lot of people. But the
| things I want to talk to myself is probably if I can pick up
| one thing or maybe one or two things that this device can
| solve that probably doesn't have a good solution in the
| market, then just go for it. And if it is affordable, then go
| definitely do it. The upside of doing this is you cannot
| change your workflow in the early stages. So if you consider
| the time you put into that product in this new workflow, the
| things or the productivity you gain from this early
| experiment is going to be more productive. But gain, it's a
| risk.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| Yeah I think first generations of apple products are for
| the curious, the rich, and the engineer seeking to build
| the next generation of apps on their new platform. I never
| look at them as "a good deal," or a mature product. I think
| that's foolish for any 1.0 of anything. Generally 3.0 is
| where maturity begins, and 5.0 is where incrementalism
| starts.
| paxys wrote:
| It's interesting that every single top HN thread is mostly
| unanimous praise for this device (which presumably no one has
| yet seen or used), while also painting themselves as the
| minority opinion.
| tempnow987 wrote:
| Techcrunch concluded "The price reveal turned any 'would buy'
| in the room into a 'definitely not' without hesitation."
|
| Anyways, bookmark the threads of folks calling an Apple
| product dead on arrival for a revisit in a few years.
|
| The ipod, the iphone, the watch, the airpods... they've had a
| pretty good record and almost all these have had harsh
| criticism out the gate (while then going on to absolutely
| PRINT money for apple).
|
| Apple is sitting on lots of cash and investment with
| operating cash flow of something like another $100B a year?
| Why aren't they allowed to take some risks on products like
| this. Facebook certainly has burnt billions in a similar
| space.
| gary_0 wrote:
| Whether or not it's the right device, it's definitely being
| introduced to the wrong economy.
| basisword wrote:
| The people that can afford this aren't impacted by the
| economy. It's a professional tool and the expense can be
| justified. It's not a product for ordinary consumers yet.
| On top of that it's not out until next year - who knows
| what the economy will be like then.
| gary_0 wrote:
| > It's a professional tool
|
| That you use to look at family photos, use iPhone apps in
| a giant window, watch movies, and play with VR Mickey
| Mouse? The presentation seemed to lean more towards the
| consumer than industry applications.
| basisword wrote:
| They did but that mostly seemed silly to me. Multiple
| monitors was the main thing that jumped out as an actual
| good use case. They need to market all aspects of it but
| they've named it "pro" for a reason and I feel like there
| was a lot of focus out on productivity uses (conference
| calls, browsing, multiple displays, 3D Models).
| spookie wrote:
| Yes, I feel a lot of people are too tied down to their
| biases and social bubbles. I'm working in the area and
| you see great use of these devices from medical, to
| architecture, and mechanical engineering.
|
| I understand the skepticism, but sometimes our perception
| of the world is quite narrow. Given that most of us are
| developers, even more so.
|
| I don't mean to be condescending, I just feel that way a
| lot with both myself and my colleagues when exposed to
| fields and constraints that we haven't seen before.
| sbuk wrote:
| iPhone 3G was released in summer 2008, right in the
| middle of the biggest financial crisis since the Great
| Depression. Arguably, this was the beginning of iPhone's
| rise in popularity. The original iPhone was released in
| 2007, and the cracks in the economy were beginning to
| show then...
| gary_0 wrote:
| But it cost $500 ($700 in today's dollars) and the day-
| to-day utility of cellphones/blackberries had already
| been established for a decade. Your example doesn't seem
| that comparable.
| dayvid wrote:
| People paid $550 for a pair of headphones. They'll buy this
| if it's good
| permo-w wrote:
| to be fair, $550 for a pair of headphones is a lot, but
| it's not even close to top of the range
| nunez wrote:
| It was definitely in the upper range of prices for over-
| the-ear Bluetooth headphones, not like this even matters,
| because people just _did not_ pay $500+ for headphones
| before the Maxes dropped.
| ztrww wrote:
| some people obviously did pay $500+ for headphones. We
| don't know how many sets has Apple actually sold...
| permo-w wrote:
| >people just _did not_ pay $500+ for headphones before
| the Maxes dropped
|
| are you sure? why do you think this?
| thih9 wrote:
| I think they're saying that apple is selling $500
| headphones to people who would otherwise not buy $500
| headphones
| prng2021 wrote:
| Except no one bought those headphones.
| _ph_ wrote:
| I love mine and would rebuy them without blinking.
| budoso wrote:
| Have you been outside recently?
| prng2021 wrote:
| Yes. What percentage of people in the world who use
| headphones would you say is using them?
| d3nj4l wrote:
| A far higher percentage than "no one"
| usea wrote:
| Of people I see sitting at a computer, few are using
| them.
|
| For everyone else, airpods far outnumber all other kinds
| of headphones combined. Whether it's the grocery store or
| an airport.
|
| I can only speak to my experience. This is a subjective,
| bias-loaded anecdote. For example it could just be that
| they're newish, so I notice the novelty more. Or the
| design is easier to see. Etc etc.
| wilg wrote:
| Not true, I bought them and really dislike them.
| blurri wrote:
| I see these people in the gym with all the time with
| them. I think your "no one's buying them" might be rooted
| in a personal bias.
| gleenn wrote:
| I personally love those headphones even despite their
| price.
| dervjd wrote:
| You'd be surprised how popular they are. Certainly
| they're overpriced, but the noise
| cancellation/sound/build quality/etc is very good.
| They've also apparently become something of a celebrity
| "it" item: https://www.vogue.com/article/are-the-airpods-
| max-the-latest...
| ztrww wrote:
| People were paying similar amounts for high-end
| headphones for years.
| chpmrc wrote:
| I've never spent more than $400 for a smartphone, always
| bought second hand Android phones. My income went up in the
| last couple of years and a few months ago my phone broke. I
| bought a $900 iPhone.
|
| If it's good people will buy it. I will buy it. No doubt
| about that.
| llm_nerd wrote:
| Not claiming it's a minority opinion, but early on there were
| multiple submissions that were dominated by people rushing to
| proclaim that it was DoA. One claimed it was the end of
| Apple. There is a huge disparity between people who click an
| arrow and people who comment.
|
| And you are absolutely correct that the enthused haven't used
| this device, or even heard from a non-Apple employee that
| tried a beta. I am hugely concerned about long term comfort,
| particularly in the eye fatigue realm, for instance, and will
| be watching to see what the sentiment around that is.
|
| If it were many other companies I would honestly be much more
| skeptical about it, but I mean Apple has a pretty good track
| record of actually delivering products that meet or exceed
| their promises. And they really promised the moon with this
| reveal.
| comment_ran wrote:
| I completely agree with you about the tiredness of the eye
| or fatigueness of the eye. It's really hard to imagine
| someone wearing this kind of device for a very long time
| without feeling any pain. I'm not sure exactly the reason
| why this pain came from. But I think the question we face
| is going to be maybe the next big thing for humans, which
| is going to directly connect all those sensors directly
| connected to our central brain without using the eye. But
| that's kind of a science fiction thing. I'm not sure I'm
| going to have a chance to experience those things.
| joahua wrote:
| Ditto. I can't see this being used portably so do wonder
| if the 2 hour battery life is a clue on how fatiguing the
| experience might be.
|
| 2 hours I guess covers a commute, but it's hardly
| handheld form factor - how much bigger would it need to
| be to get "all day wear" battery life? It doesn't feel
| like a real spatial constraint, so can only presume >2hrs
| is not required in actual use.
| comment_ran wrote:
| I see the pattern is that C is complained by most of people.
| And there is another type of programming that is that, which
| people never talk about. So just by talking about, regardless
| it's positive or negative, there is a tension in there and
| it's expectation, it's our will to kind of devices or this
| technology came into being. So eventually it will become part
| of our life and I hope that day comes sooner and this company
| will not disappoint us.
| yumraj wrote:
| > But it's going to be a hit. HN is going to be swamped with
| "How I used Vision Pro to..." posts when it comes out.
|
| I'm not going to predict whether or not this is going to be a
| hit, I just don't know.
|
| However, remember when Google Glass came out there were tons of
| these _" how I use"_ posts and I remember people even changing
| their LinkedIn profile pictures to be with Google Glass. And,
| we all know how that turned out.
|
| So, early posts by _self-styled_ influencers or wannabe 's are
| in no way predictor of success, or failure, of a product.
| mithr wrote:
| > The displays in this device are crazy.
|
| I'm actually curious about this, and how the displays will
| actually feel. The ads/keynote all talked about how they're
| "more than 4k for each eye", which _sounds_ like a lot when you
| 're talking about TVs or monitors, but... stops sounding quite
| as impressive when you realize you're talking about IMAX-sized
| screens (which is the main "wow" draw for watching movies in
| VR), or when talking about augmenting _reality_.
| xu_ituairo wrote:
| I think resolution will be important the _smaller_ (or
| further away) the movie you're watching is. And for things
| like text in apps.
|
| If you're watching an IMAX-size screen in AR, the resolution
| of the content will be the main factor, I think, rather than
| the density of the goggle displays.
| febusravenga wrote:
| They have eye focus tracking for sure in this, so maybe they
| can render in adaptive resolution mode je only highest rest
| in center of vision? Who knows?
| duskwuff wrote:
| Adaptive resolution rendering doesn't add more pixels to
| the display -- if you want high resolution for the spot the
| user is currently looking at, you need that resolution
| across the entire display.
| theonlybutlet wrote:
| Hopefully focal adjustment tracking too. I've got a feeling
| it's just for the selection UI.
| theonlybutlet wrote:
| Each pixel is 7.5 microns. Assuming RGB, that's 22.5 microns.
| Thats at the maximum limits of detail an eye can see.
| wilg wrote:
| That's not enough information. It's behind a lens that
| spreads it across your entire field of view.
| theonlybutlet wrote:
| Assuming they're square. Roughly calculating (23 million
| pixels between the two with no space between 7.5
| microns,) that's 25.432mm^2. they've said they're the
| size of postage stamps. This ties in.
|
| I think it's near safe to assume there's no real gap
| between pixels and thus indiscernible. The lag might be a
| thing.
| yathern wrote:
| Once again, the absolute size is irrelevant - postage
| stamp or otherwise. It's optically scaled to fit your
| field of view - essentially under a microscope. There are
| VR devices with 4k screens already, and it's still not
| enough to be indiscernible to the eye - especially for
| things like text.
| thfuran wrote:
| Not having visible gaps between pixels is a necessary but
| woefully insufficient condition for high visual fidelity.
| [deleted]
| gpm wrote:
| I have 2 4k screens in front of me right now. I can close
| one eye, and without moving my head make out the entirety
| of both screens. They cover most of the non-peripheral
| horizontal field of view, but you could easily fit in
| another 4k screen on top of each vertically. I can make out
| individual pixels (when there is a gradient, like with a
| small font) on the screens. Higher resolution screens of
| the same size at the same distance would let me read
| slightly smaller fonts.
|
| That is, at a resolution in which pixels are still
| perceptible, I can make out more than 33,177,600 pixels (4
| 4k screens, equivalently 1 8k screen) per eye. This device
| has less than that. Less than half that per eye. It's not
| "at the maximum limits of detail an eye can see" even
| assuming they just have no wasted pixels in your peripheral
| vision.
|
| 7.5 microns means nothing without knowing what lenses it
| goes through.
|
| That said, I think it might be enough pixels to be useful
| for reading text. Unlike the index I own, where that is
| just unpleasant.
| Analemma_ wrote:
| Yeah, 4K per eye stops being impressive when it's five inches
| from your retina and you're trying to read fine text. Pimax
| has had a 4K/eye device for years already: it's nice but
| still nowhere near good enough to do things like replace your
| computer monitor. They're planning to ship a 6K/eye device
| next year, which will probably still not be enough. The real
| world has a very high pixel density!
| iddan wrote:
| There's Sightful's $2000 device you can buy right now
| https://www.sightful.com/ I've used an early demo of this and
| was very impressed. After the demo I had the strong feeling
| Apple is going to build something similar and I was right
| blktiger wrote:
| 4 Million Pixels is so terrible for an AR/VR headset. 23
| million pixels will be indistinguishable from reality for all
| intents and purposes.
| JackGreyhat wrote:
| The human eye has an approximate pixel resolution of 120
| million pixels per eye. On top of that, our brain
| constantly processes and integrates the output of our eyes.
| This creates an even higher perceived pixel resolution of
| about 480 million pixels per eye. Some estimates are even
| higher.
|
| I'm not saying Apple created a bad product...but I wouldn't
| expect a mere 23 million pixels to be indistinguishable
| from reality.
| ignoramous wrote:
| > _But it 's going to be a hit._
|
| Well, if nothing else, the _influencer_ / _celeb_ culture will
| make it so. Apple, unlike other tech companies, almost has a
| monopolistic grip over it.
|
| I mean, they sold AirPods for the most ridiculous price and yet
| they beat sales numbers of just about everyone in the audio
| industry.
| comment_ran wrote:
| Taking a positive sign because now the consumers expectations
| are high and if they not deliver what they promised here then
| they're gonna have a huge trouble so as a consumer it would be
| nice if the consumer can provide some our expectations to say
| how to show our interest and kind of motivate them to build a
| better product.
| madrox wrote:
| There's a famous macrumors forum post of people raging against
| the iPod, saying it will be a massive failure. We've seen the
| same reaction from every Apple hardware announcement since.
|
| The original post in 2001 is still live. Read it for a laugh:
| https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apples-new-thing-ipod.5...
| redbell wrote:
| > _Read it for a laugh_
|
| Steve Ballmer also laughed so much of the iPhone being
| _without a keyboard_ :) , It turned out to be one of the most
| innovative products in history.
| crashingintoyou wrote:
| I'll admit to being quite skeptical of the iPad and was wrong
| about that.
|
| That said, despite owning a Quest 2 and eagerly awaiting the
| Quest 3 release, nothing in this headset particularly appeals
| to me. (Am mainly into rhythm games and am guessing those
| wouldn't be nearly as fun without the haptics in into other
| headsets' controllers which this seems to lack).
| ztrww wrote:
| Apple also released
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Newton
|
| Which was a great idea and a very innovative product
| literally ahead of it's time by 15 years.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| I bought a used newton from the lead engineer on the
| newton. I loved the device and used it regularly until my
| then girlfriend stepped on it and broke the display.
| Needless to say that relationship wasn't long after that
| ;-)
|
| I later had a palm. It was garbage compared to the newton
| even if it was 1/8 the size. I'm glad to see the newton
| essentially return as the iPhone/iPad.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| TBF, there's an equal amount of "I haven't touched the
| product, nor even read reviews of people handling it in their
| hands, but I'm totally gonna buy this only based on the
| marketing material"
|
| I kinda loved how Accidental Tech Podcast's host joke about
| not having even heard of the product yet but they'll probably
| buy it for personal use either way.
|
| The pendulum has fully swinged the other way for the a
| sizeable chunk of people I think.
| two_handfuls wrote:
| Yes, the presentation shows it used as a display for a Mac.
| Incidentally, you can also do this with the cheaper Quest Pro
| headset (or any headset in the Quest line, so $300-$1000 price
| range - but you don't get as many pixels). There are a few
| options for the software, VRDesktop (https://www.vrdesktop.net)
| being one.
| browningstreet wrote:
| Bets please:
|
| Date and city location of the first reported occasion of a
| person, wearing these outside, who get them stolen off their
| head.
| maxlin wrote:
| February 24th 2024 in SF
| [deleted]
| chad1n wrote:
| This will only be targeted in US, no? I doubt it's GDPR compliant
| and won't probably buyers outside of US. If it's $3500, then in
| Europe, it will be around $5000.
| jw1224 wrote:
| What's not GDPR compliant about it?
| idoh wrote:
| What's the issue with GDPR? If it is similar to other Apple
| products where data is collected / processed at the edge, then
| no more issues than anything else they do.
| lvl102 wrote:
| There's no question this will be a game changer. Applications
| will be absolutely endless. Can you imagine putting this on and
| having guides on fixing homes or cars? I didn't know it was going
| to be completely untethered. That you can walk around with this
| thing freely.
|
| By the 3rd gen and cheaper price, Apple will be selling a lot of
| these devices. As software ecosystem emerge to create this
| entirely new experience, I cannot wait to see what people develop
| to use this device.
|
| I don't necessarily think this first gen will sell well but it
| will make people start thinking of all the possibilities. I am
| excited.
| TIPSIO wrote:
| I could see this reinventing the living room.
|
| Imagine in 5-10 years when this tech is perfected. It's a
| Saturday night. You, your spouse, and 3 kids each have one of
| these strapped to their face.
|
| Why watch a movie on the couch facing a wall with a traditional
| flat TV format?
|
| Certainly Disney or whoever will invent 3D interactive
| plays/games with stadium type immersive entertainment.
|
| Living rooms will become circles like when people playing a board
| game.
| throwaway106382 wrote:
| I think what's much more likely:
|
| Parent 1: watching a drama Parent 2: playing a video game Kid
| 3: zoned out watching a movie/cartoon/playing videogames
|
| See this already with kids that mindlessly consume television
| while parents just drone out doomscrolling on facebook on their
| devices.
| davem8 wrote:
| "It's a Saturday night. You, your spouse, and 3 kids each have
| one of these strapped to their face."
|
| That sound's like a futuristic hellscape to me. I sure I'm not
| buying 1 never mind 5.
| uticus wrote:
| > A unique dual-chip design enables the spatial experiences on
| Vision Pro... The powerful M2 chip simultaneously runs
| visionOS... the brand-new R1 chip is specifically dedicated to
| process input from the cameras...
|
| Any information on the new "R1" chip?
|
| Signal processing sounds like FPGA territory, would be
| interesting to know what is unique for giving this chip new
| branding, versioning, and calling it out... versus just saying
| "the headset processes input from the cameras..."
| jwmcq wrote:
| I think that signal processing is really only 'FPGA territory'
| because most people who need to do custom signal processing
| don't also have access to large scale chip design and
| fabrication capacity. For Apple, it could just be a matter of
| "we built a custom chip because that's kind of what we do now -
| might as well tell people about it". I agree that I'd
| definitely love to hear more, though!
| IceWreck wrote:
| Awesome trailer, but the Meta Quest 3 can do the same things,
| with somewhat worse hardware but that's acceptable considering
| its 7x cheaper.
|
| The biggest improvements over it are the higher resolution, the
| spatial audio and using a PS5/xbox controller to play regular
| apple arcade games. They are heavily leaning into the "use it as
| a large monitor aspect" which is something Meta Quest sucks at
| because of poor resolution.
| dmitrygr wrote:
| > Awesome trailer, but the Meta Quest 3 can do the same things,
| with somewhat worse hardware but that's acceptable considering
| its 7x cheaper.
|
| "My pinto can do the same thing as your Private jet, just with
| somewhat worse hardware but that's acceptable considering it
| cheaper."
| zyang wrote:
| The amount of innovation packed into one release blew my mind.
| Apple has done it again.
| turbobooster wrote:
| [dead]
| Sodman wrote:
| One use case I'm psyched about for this - shared virtual
| whiteboarding for remote workers. No traditional apps have been
| able to reproduce the feeling of being in the room with a small
| group, collaborating on a shared whiteboard, feels like a huge
| opportunity!
| ncr100 wrote:
| I feel collaboration is the 'killer app' for this tech - though
| it won't achieve that.
|
| Now, how big is that market?? I don't think it's all that big.
| yet.
|
| Generative AI is making an impact on that world too - perhaps
| there will be a change in generative AI's presence in creation
| / media creation, which will require AR / VR.
|
| I think THIS product will be sold as a PC / Monitor
| replacement, and in 5 years the collaboration killer app will
| be the "novel" usage.
| paul7986 wrote:
| AR sized sunglasses is the next iPhone so much innovation to
| happen here.
|
| Though as of now and until they shrink all the tech into regular
| sized glasses the majority will reject while the innovators will
| jump on this headset and start creating amazing things.
| londons_explore wrote:
| >Early next year
|
| Wow - It's 8 months till you can even buy one of these!
| escapecharacter wrote:
| What an early announcement before actual availability
| thih9 wrote:
| All this - software demo, hardware demo, and the price - feels
| like a developer preview.
|
| That's fine, it's the wwdc after all.
| 762236 wrote:
| I really miss the authenticity of an Elon presentation. Some of
| the people in the Vision Pro presentation looked 3D rendered with
| the degree of post processing the video underwent.
| LapsangGuzzler wrote:
| When is the Cybertruck releasing again?
| rowanG077 wrote:
| End of this year.
| DANmode wrote:
| Were they the people toward the end they had said were
| rendered?
| tkanarsky wrote:
| No kidding. This honestly felt like something out of Hunger
| Games, with some obviously well-off, out-of-touch, work-from-
| home dweebs wearing this unit to show off their status to their
| Apple ecosystem social circle. And then we have Disney! With
| Marvel and Star Wars! So you can experience Adventure! Without
| leaving your home!
|
| Yeesh, this says a lot about their target market.
|
| Cool tech, though. Let's hope I'm not peer pressured into
| wearing one of these masks for my kid's goddamn birthday party.
| [deleted]
| thomk wrote:
| When the iPad came out I thought to myself "Who needs a big
| iPhone? also, god what a dumb name, 'iPad'. Apple really missed
| the mark on that one." Welp, I was wrong then. I don't personally
| see myself using this but that doesn't mean it is not going to be
| successful. I'll just wait and see.
| rcarr wrote:
| I was sceptical going into today that Apple were going to be able
| to make an AR product for $3000 that could justify that price
| point, especially when my XReal glasses only cost $399. I was
| even more sceptical when I heard they were going to be VR capable
| and goggles.
|
| Well fuck me. This thing looks absolutely insane. It's come in at
| $3499 and if it performs as good as those videos make out then,
| if anything, it's a bargain.
|
| I can't believe they've managed to do away with controllers for
| everything except serious typing. I can't believe they've managed
| to cram more pixels than a 4k TV on to the size of a postage
| stamp. And I can't believe we'll soon be reliving memories in 3d
| (just please put the same camera technology into the phones so
| the kids don't have a childhood of staring up at goggle eyed
| parents until this tech become sufficiently miniaturised).
|
| Computers this decade are going to be incredible.
| qumpis wrote:
| What stood out to you that justifies the pricetag, especially
| in comparison to cheaper competitors?
| rcarr wrote:
| Well for starters, this demo was so insane and full of tech
| that no one is even talking about the fact we're all going to
| have realistic animated avatars that interpret our facial
| expressions in real time.
| paxys wrote:
| You mean something the Quest does already?
| rcarr wrote:
| lmfao if you want to compare Zuckerberg's cartoons to a
| console level animation then sure.
|
| Oscar Wilde - A cynic is a man who knows the price of
| everything and the value of nothing.
| wtetzner wrote:
| Alan Perlis - Lisp programmers know the value of
| everything and the cost of nothing.
| kazinator wrote:
| TIL! Perlis was got that from Wilde? That makes it even
| cooler. He was pondering over the Wilde quote and
| realized that it can be reframed to apply to Lisp.
|
| Plus, it makes Lisp programmers the opposite of cynics,
| in a way.
|
| If you only care about the cost of every computation, but
| not its value, then you're a kind of code cynic.
| crazygringo wrote:
| The Quest doesn't. It's not detecting facial expressions
| at all, it doesn't have cameras to do so.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| oezi wrote:
| Low latency Video pass through so that you can actually see
| the physical surroundings and/or your own hands to grab
| something that somebody is handing to you without getting
| motion sickness.
| rcarr wrote:
| Yeah the way that woman blurred in and out of view was
| silky smooth.
| wvenable wrote:
| I do that now with a Quest 2. I assume Apple has done it
| 10x better (for 10x the price) but I wonder if you need it
| to be 10x better.
| crazygringo wrote:
| It's so atrocious with the Quest 2 as to be virtually
| unusable though.
|
| It's black and white, low-res, incredibly grainy, and
| there are weird seams in a bunch of transition spots
| because the cameras are further apart than the eyes so
| it's doing weird reconstruction. It's legitimately hard
| to grab objects using it because your arms and hands
| aren't _quite_ in the right place.
|
| What Apple looks like they're doing makes it actually
| useful.
| wvenable wrote:
| I've heard this expressed a few times but I find it
| perfectly usable for what I need it for. It is a free
| feature reusing the existing IR cameras for pass through.
| My home space is always the pass through home because
| it's so useful to see your surroundings.
|
| It's definitely not AR but for reaching out and grabbing
| something (as I was replying to) or walking around it's
| perfectly acceptable. The 3D effect is perfect so you can
| actually reach out and grab whatever you want.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Wow, that's really interesting that we have such
| different experiences with it.
|
| I really want to use passthru as my home space but the
| problem is that it actually makes me nauseous after a few
| minutes. I have zero nausea with the Quest 2 normally
| because everything aligns perfectly in terms of movement
| and depth, but the 3D in passthru is just off enough to
| make me feel sick.
|
| Maybe just different people's sensitivities to things.
| belval wrote:
| I'll preface this by stating that I don't like Apple
| products and I love my Quest 2.
|
| We absolutely need the 10x better in VR for "spatial
| computing". Right now the issue with the Quest 2 for work
| is that it's way too heavy/bulky, is not sharp enough,
| has jitters that make you dizzy and the integration with
| your computer is always a bit hit or miss (mine has
| trouble connecting through AirLink half the time).
|
| The issue with the above is that they are experience
| breaking. I completely "buy" what Apple is selling here
| because the current solutions simply fall short. If I
| can't read code properly or my neck hurts after 1 hour
| it's a deal breaker and the headset goes unused. 4k per-
| eye and almost ski mask thickness with the battery in my
| pocket might actually bridge the gap.
|
| I won't pay 3k+ for it, but we definitely need it to be
| 10x better because the 1x is still pretty far from a
| daily driver.
| rcarr wrote:
| I will quite happily exchange more money for higher
| quality and higher privacy. Meta have crossed so many
| ethical boundaries and caused so many societal problems
| why anyone still wants to give them both their data and
| their money is beyond me. Do you really want that company
| to be able to track your eye movements? Any time you
| browse any product website that information is going to
| be logged, they're going to know exactly what you want
| and you're going to be bombarded with adverts wherever
| they possibly can.
|
| You get what you pay for. If you pay less than what it
| costs to develop the technology then YOU ARE THE PRODUCT.
| 76SlashDolphin wrote:
| Have you tried a Quest Pro? I had the opportunity to use
| one for a bit and the latency of the passthrough was really
| good. Apple's implementation will undoubtedly be better but
| they're not even the first "mainstream" option for low
| latency video passthrough.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| I puzzled how you can be surprised by all this. There's nothing
| here that wasn't well understood, expected. 95% of it is just
| showing things other devices have done for years.
|
| > I can't believe they've managed to do away with controllers
|
| Meta has been shipping it for several years on the Quest line.
| It's now extremely good. I'm keen to hear if Apple have shipped
| something better and they may have, but it's hardly "can't
| believe" territory.
|
| > I can't believe they've managed to cram more pixels than a 4k
| TV on to the size of a postage stamp
|
| You're repeating Apple marketing lines verbatim. That's just
| what a micro OLED display is - the tech has been around for a
| while. They aren't made by Apple, half a dozen other VR/AR
| headsets are shipping these.
| jmkni wrote:
| Agree the tech is incredible, it just seems like something I
| would use a handful of times, be like 'that was cool' and then
| never really use again
| rattray wrote:
| dup of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36201593 I think
| SebastianKra wrote:
| I'm not going to make predictions that I'll later regret, but I
| have the following concerns:
|
| Comfort: This needs to sit on your face for 8 hours or more.
| Unlike with the Quest Pro, your face always touches the shield.
| If you wear AirPods Max with this, the majority of your head is
| covered, sweating and unable to breathe. Apple supposedly paid
| lots of attention to making the material breathable, but their
| rubber products also deteriorate notoriously fast, so we'll have
| to wait and see.
|
| Resolution: The displays have an impressive resolution, but I'm
| not sure it will be enough. So far, none of the VR headsets I've
| tried have come even close to matching the resolution that I
| would want for coding and desk work. But image quality at the
| same resolution can vary heavily based on the lens quality and
| the headset, so we'll have to wait and see.
|
| Input: I hated Hand Tracking on the HoloLenses and disliked it on
| the Quest. The pinching gesture becomes uncomfortable really
| quickly, as it requires more and more monotonous movement than
| tapping a key or clicking a mouse. However, they seem to heavily
| involve eye-tracking as an input method, which none of the other
| headsets have tried, so we'll have to wait and see.
|
| Price: Well, I have a year to justify this in my head.
| rahkiin wrote:
| Apple Vision pro has 3x more pixels than the Quest 3. Cannot
| say anything about the resolution without comparing exact
| display sizes though
| hxugufjfjf wrote:
| It has a battery life of 2 hours.
| [deleted]
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| I guess they had to call it a "spatial computer" in an attempt to
| overcome the shock that they want $3,500 for a VR headset when
| the competition is selling their newest generation for $500.
| ChildOfChaos wrote:
| Yes, but what they are doing seems to be nothing like the other
| VR headsets, did you watch or read?
| [deleted]
| kllrnohj wrote:
| It was all 2.5D apps and watching movies - this is the exact
| stuff that has already been tried. It's a really polished
| presentation of it with the shadow casting and stuff, but is
| that really the missing piece? Seems unlikely.
| ladberg wrote:
| Fully 3D apps and content are definitely supported, just
| not emphasized a ton in the keynote. I expect third party
| devs to create tons of cool stuff for it beyond the basic
| 2D iPad apps!
| ARandumGuy wrote:
| What are they doing that can't be done with other VR
| headsets? Virtual desktop has been a thing for years, and VR
| pass-through and "pointing interfaces" are possible with the
| Meta Quest. While these features may be better on Apple's
| headset, they certainly aren't new.
| apersona wrote:
| I'm sorry, but have you tried the Quest Pro's pass-through?
|
| I have, and it was an awful experience. They had color pass
| through but faked it and it felt like a grayscale video
| that someone shoddily tried to paint over it. There was
| significant warping and text (like a poster on my friend's
| wall) was barely readable.
|
| It "exists", but was completely useless in terms of
| usability. If Apple can get pass-through to actually work
| well, I would call that "new" in the sense that it's a
| feature that's usable.
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| It's not that different. Did you watch the Quest 3
| announcement last week?
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAhce2OgZu4
| philjohn wrote:
| Honestly, it really doesn't seem different at all.
|
| AR is also where other notable headset makers are betting,
| Quest has had hand controls for quite a while (which made the
| "clunky controllers" dig fall flat).
|
| It definitely seems more refined, but then again, it's over
| 2x the cost of the competition, so that would have to be
| taken as read.
| steveoscaro wrote:
| The Quest is not AR focused in the least, it's pure VR. And
| the hand tracking is clunky. This looks like a very
| different experience in general.
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| I guess you missed the Quest 3 announcement last week.
| It's all about AR and it's $500.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAhce2OgZu4
| ChildOfChaos wrote:
| There is really no comparison between the Apple device
| and what Meta announced, the devices are quite different.
|
| Even when Apple showed games, it was less full AR games
| or like VR experiences in AR, it was about putting a
| screen up and playing a standard game like this.
|
| The Apple experience is full VR and using every space as
| a screen to access the things you already do. Meta is
| insisting on building the 'metaverse' it's a completely
| different concept that people making this argument seem
| to have completely missed.
|
| And I say that as someone that uses a Q1 everyday for
| Fitness and will be purchasing a Q3, you saw Apple
| announce nothing like this, also I think the name is a
| give away 'vision pro' it's about visuals and virtual
| screens, not about creating another reality, which is
| likely why they moved away from the reality pro name that
| was rumoured.
| jonwinstanley wrote:
| It's very expensive but this product is offering a lot more
| than the $500 headsets
| qumpis wrote:
| Which competitor is providing $500 AR headset?
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| I'm amazed at how many people here missed this last week:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAhce2OgZu4
| randyrand wrote:
| That ad is so dinky. They make Apple marketing look so
| good.
| ImHereToVote wrote:
| They make the Quest seem cheap. Because it is. It's
| geared for mass adoption.
| qumpis wrote:
| Oh! I was aware of Quest 3, but had no idea it supports AR
| too.
| coolspot wrote:
| Recently announced Oculus Quest 3 has full color and depth AR
| pass-through for $499
| jarek83 wrote:
| With M2 on board and other silicon chip it actually is a
| computer, not to mention it comes with its own OS.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| I guess they had to call it a "spatial computer" in an
| attempt to overcome the shock that they want $3,500 for
| a VR headset
|
| With "computer" I think they're trying to emphasize the fact
| that it's standalone, not an add-on?
|
| That may seem silly, but I have not paid much attention to
| VR/AR and I had assumed that headsets like the Meta Quest 2
| were tethered to some other device. A quick search before this
| post showed me that is _not_ the case, but I was actually
| ignorant about that fact. So apparently there are dopes like me
| who need to be told that these flagship headsets are standalone
| computing devices.
| [deleted]
| faefox wrote:
| DOA at the announced price of $3499. I don't think even the
| Reality Distortion Field can overcome the intrinsic problems with
| VR/AR, namely that most people simply do not want to deal with
| the hassle of strapping something to their face or clearing a
| sufficiently large area for room-scale experiences.
| ladberg wrote:
| You don't really need to clear an area for this because you'll
| be using passthrough 99% of the time and won't hit stuff.
| You'll be able to run around a cluttered room, pick up things,
| interact with people, type on keyboards, etc. without taking
| the headset off!
| pcurve wrote:
| Yep.
|
| Most people don't even like wearing eyeglass.
|
| I feel like we're going backwards from Google Glasses.
| getmeinrn wrote:
| Calling it now, the failure of this Apple product is going to be
| a big turning point for the company. Apple is supposed to be the
| company that sets trends, but instead they're following Meta down
| a path that has now shown to be a dead end, and no amount of
| aesthetics or marketing can prevent it.
| bostonsre wrote:
| Why would it be a turning point if the product fails? Couldn't
| they just amputate and operate the business as usual?
| DANmode wrote:
| Has it been a dead end because of no demand, or has there been
| no demand because of the poor UX?
| illuminati1911 wrote:
| 100% agreed. This is going to be the point in history that
| people will remember when Apple went too far and how it
| destroyed the company...or destroyed the Apple as we know it
| today.
|
| I've understood every single Apple product so far (with some
| small exceptions) but this is just DOA. People are used to
| thinking that Apple doesn't go into a product space unless they
| can really nail it in terms of implementation and pricing.
|
| There is no excuse for 3499. This product is dead. If they
| can't manufacture it any cheaper they should have never done
| it.
| klelatti wrote:
| It may or may not be a dud but I've no idea how even a
| resounding failure could 'destroy' a company as profitable
| and with as successful a product as the iPhone.
| stirlo wrote:
| What makes you think they can't manufacture it cheaper?
|
| I see this price as a way of earning a healthy profit off
| early adopters and allowing them time to get third party apps
| developed before they announce a Vision (non pro) for
| $1000-2000 that flys off the shelves
| pcbro141 wrote:
| Destroy the company how? They have tens or hundreds of
| billions in cash. Couldn't they just discontinue the product
| and move on if it flops?
| [deleted]
| gnicholas wrote:
| It's possible, but I see a use case for this as a replacement
| monitor for my Mac, plus a lot more. If this were $2k I'd get
| one immediately, assuming an in-store demo is not
| disappointing.
|
| I have never had any interest in Meta products (partly because
| of their affiliation with FB).
| lm28469 wrote:
| > as a replacement monitor for my Mac
|
| Have you every worn literally anything for 2+ hours on your
| head. Even glasses get uncomfortable after a day
| jkubicek wrote:
| I'm not 100% confident that I could wear these all day, but
| I wear my Airpods Pro all day long and they're _heavy_. I
| can wear my ski googles most of the day. Building a VR
| headset that can be worn for a few hours straight and are
| all-day comfortable seems possible.
| joshmanders wrote:
| > Have you every worn literally anything for 2+ hours on
| your head. Even glasses get uncomfortable after a day
|
| Some of us don't have the luxury of removing glasses after
| 2 hours, so... Yeah, I've worn something on my face for 16+
| hours a day, so I can see.
| lm28469 wrote:
| > Some of us don't have the luxury of removing glasses
| after 2 hours, so... Yeah
|
| Exactly! You're making my point, people do not want that
| unless they're forced to
| TillE wrote:
| I wear glasses nearly every waking hour and don't
| consider them uncomfortable. They're fine.
| gnicholas wrote:
| Good point. I am wondering if they can make the environment
| immersive enough that you don't notice the weight as much.
| Sort of like how roller skates are heavy and cumbersome
| when you're walking around outside the rink, but when
| you're on the rink you don't notice that because they
| enable you to move so easily. And yes, I realize how badly
| I'm dating myself with this analogy.
| oezi wrote:
| Lots of glass wearers aren't bother by glasses at all.
|
| The key point is temperature and weight. No data on either,
| yet.
| asdff wrote:
| On the other hand , others shove their fingers into their
| eyes chasing around a loose contact behind their eyeball
| because the prospect of glasses is in their mind even
| worse of an experience.
| rickreynoldssf wrote:
| This is a proof of concept. It's going to take many more years to
| get it into a practical form factor for widespread adoption. In
| the meantime, early adopters including developers will define it.
| It's basically the same as the Macintosh. That essentially failed
| to gain mainstream adoption for 15 years. People called it an
| expensive toy. Same same but different.
| riffic wrote:
| Think before you post.
|
| Remember, whatever opinions or hot takes you have of this product
| now will be resoundingly made fun of for the rest of history.
| ActorNightly wrote:
| I mean its pretty clear how this stuff goes by now.
|
| 1. Tech already exists. Not really widely adopted since its
| super niche.
|
| 2. Apple comes along, takes existing tech, makes it sleek,
| gives it modern processing power, integrates it into the apple
| ecosystem, puts everything behind a paywall
|
| 3. Because Apple is cool and has brand recognition, people
| adopt the tech and start using it.
|
| 4. Non Apple cheaper alternatives eventually pop up.
|
| Rinse and repeat. Happened with iPod, iPhone, iWatch, e.t.c
| shp0ngle wrote:
| Or not.
|
| It's not like past always predicts the future. Apple has a lot
| of stinkers too, just not recently. Apple TV (the HW device) is
| not all that successful either.
|
| On the other hand, this is rather hype-free (no metaverse!!!!!
| no AI!) and has actual usecases presented. Also I thought Apple
| Watches were stupid, but now almost everyone has one. So, who
| knows.
| harveywi wrote:
| "A new era of facial computing."
| racl101 wrote:
| Looks Rad yo.
| curiousllama wrote:
| Last October, I sent my coworker a short rant that chatbots
| don't work, never will, and everyone really needs to stop
| trying to build them.
|
| ChatGPT was released a week later. My coworker claims he's
| gonna have my rant framed.
| lm28469 wrote:
| It's been what ? 8 months ? Who lost their job ? Where is
| skynet ?
| picture wrote:
| You make it sound like this is the new steam engine, but is it
| really that historical of a product? Nothing here strikes me as
| an entirely novel idea, in fact it just seems like an iteration
| on an already pretty well developed concept
| ok_dad wrote:
| It's everything that's best from the VR world put in one
| package by Apple. The only downside to this device for VR
| might be if it isn't supported by SteamVR or OpenXR. If this
| is a walled garden, it will be more of a niche product for
| professionals. If you can plug this into any PC to do VR,
| it's actually quite awesome as a headset, but pretty
| expensive due to all the extra chips.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| I will admit I was curious. I am not an Apple fanboy; quite
| the opposite. But if it will jailbroken the same way phones
| were, there is a potential there. Naturally, I would assume
| developers will be able do whatever they want anyway.
|
| This is the first device from Apple that.. I might consider
| buying if it looks like something I could use. And that is
| despite the crazy price.
| ok_dad wrote:
| I think as a VR headset alone it's worth $1.5k due to the
| features it has (4k+ OLED per eye, inside-out tracking,
| hand tracking, etc.), so I guess the other $2k is half
| due to this thing being a whole iPhone on your face
| (basically) and then some "Apple Product Premium" for the
| other half, since Apple makes nice products that work
| well for the most part. I see it as expensive, but well
| worth it, assuming you could use this with regular PCVR
| titles, like having SteamVR or OpenXR support. If it
| doesn't have support for PCVR, then it's a tough sell for
| me, personally.
| [deleted]
| barneysstory95 wrote:
| [dead]
| renewiltord wrote:
| Not wireless. Higher price than a Quest. Lame.
| drdaeman wrote:
| > Not wireless
|
| It's supposedly an autonomous device, although from the
| photos it seems that there's a brick on a cable to carry
| around.
| renewiltord wrote:
| I'm just snowcloning "No wireless. Less space than a
| nomad. Lame" since the comment I'm replying to seems like
| an unintentional snowclone of exactly what GP comment
| was.
|
| Ignore me.
| jonwinstanley wrote:
| Yep, you could probably describe the iPhone as an iteration
| on an already pretty well developed concept too
| SllX wrote:
| A lot of people were even less charitable at the time.
| mark_l_watson wrote:
| I will probably wait for version 2 in about 2 years, but I am
| fairly certain I will buy one.
|
| I get a huge amount of value from my Quest 2, so spending money
| on a new toy is not unreasonable.
|
| I worked in the field of VR about 25 years ago (SAIC, Angel
| Studios, Disney project). VR and AR as consumer tech will
| eventually be AWESOME, but I am not holding my breath - it will
| be a long wait.
| mrdatawolf wrote:
| The Apple faithful are going to wake up tomorrow and realize THIS
| is what they used to make fun of Google and Microsoft for.
|
| It's a pair of REALLY expensive snow goggles. Worse it's goggles
| with a tiny battery life, a bizarre generated face, it looks
| goofy and the first time that cable snags on anything...
|
| Imagine Steve Jobs on stage and he says "One more thing..." and
| puts that on his face, That would NEVER happen.
|
| This is cool in the same way the Newton was! (edited for typo)
| IceHegel wrote:
| Disappointing to see it won't ship until 2024. I wonder if they
| are waiting for a 3nm chip.
| NotSuspicious wrote:
| It looks like they aren't since they said it will use an M2
| chip
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-05 23:00 UTC)