[HN Gopher] Apple VisionOS Simulator streaming wirelessly to Met...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple VisionOS Simulator streaming wirelessly to Meta Quest headset
Author : ozten
Score : 264 points
Date : 2023-07-10 16:30 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| sourcepluck wrote:
| Still not entirely sure how the people on here seem to largely
| continue to support companies like Apple. I get it - they have
| the high-paying jobs, they make shiny toys, they have slick
| marketing and symbolism, caring about things like privacy,
| freedom, education, empowering people, etc, seems oh so very naff
| - but at the same time, technologically aware people know what
| Apple are doing.
|
| Right? Or not? Is the argument just - oh, but the stuff is cool,
| so... whatever?
|
| Not attempting to flame here, I genuinely am curious on the take
| people have that permits them ethically to continue buying Apple
| stuff and fan-person-ing over it. I know not everyone is, but it
| seems really very common, even on here amongst the technically
| literate. Maybe especially on here?
| Waterluvian wrote:
| Many people, at some point, begin to truly grok the fact that
| nobody but themselves exist in their specific life context.
| That what matters to them-- what they value, can be so
| different.
|
| The moment you can liberate yourself from the "it seems really
| very common" trap, so much about, well, everything, begins
| making more sense.
| yodsanklai wrote:
| I don't get the point you're trying to make. Why shouldn't we
| buy Apple products? They make some good products. What's the
| ethical problem?
|
| I can see some ethical problems (e.g. consumerism,
| environmental concerns) but nothing specific to Apple.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| > permits them ethically to continue buying Apple stuff
|
| you need to be more specific about what your ethical objection
| is.
|
| I avoid the iOS ecosystem because I see it as a monopolistic
| lockin that restricts fundamental freedoms. It is hostile to
| its user's interests by taking those freedoms and achieves it
| by exploiting their lack of technical understanding of what
| they are giving up.
|
| But is that your ethical problem?
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| Can you include some more detail about what technologically
| aware people know?
| tiahura wrote:
| That it's literally 2023 and they still don't have a
| touchscreen MacBook.
| jwells89 wrote:
| I hope no touch continues to be an option even if Apple
| adds touchscreens to MacBooks.
|
| When buying a PC laptops I look specifically for models
| that have a no touch version, because unintentional touches
| triggering things is annoying and for some reason, in my
| experience large touch screens almost always either lack
| antiglare coating or if they have it, it's so weak that
| they're practically mirrors. The antiglare coating on
| current MacBooks is quite good and I wouldn't want to trade
| that for touch... same goes for my matte PC laptop.
| Angostura wrote:
| "Shiny toys" = effective high-performance machines
|
| "caring about things like privacy" - I'm not clear - are you
| saying this is a bad thing?
|
| You're not really clear, I don't think about _exactly_ what you
| think the unethical aspects of buying Apple are. Perhaps you
| could clarify.
| daedrdev wrote:
| I feel that Apple makes products that are superior to the
| alternatives for many people.
|
| For those people, whats wrong with liking Apple?
| stetrain wrote:
| They make good products that people like to use, so people pay
| them money to use those products.
|
| There are definitely things to disagree with Apple about, and
| the crowd here leans towards those values a lot more than the
| general consumer market.
|
| But a lot of the ethical issues can be debated about basically
| any technology product not soldered and coded by your own two
| hands in your garage (and even that solution has ethical
| quandaries from an accessibility standpoint).
|
| Personally I give Apple money and they give me high-quality,
| stable tools that let me get my work done in a way that feels
| nice. The alternatives all have most of the same moral issues
| (made in China using who knows what labor and material
| sourcing), but I like the Apple ones so I use them. I don't see
| the huge conflict there.
| gehsty wrote:
| For the low end iPhone and iPad have a super simple interaction
| model. My grandma uses both, and she's 88. If it breaks she can
| take it to the Apple Store and they'll fix it or help her. No
| one else comes close to them in this regard.
|
| From a tech perspective owning the full stack from silicon /
| hardware / OS / service allows them to make things no one else
| can. Can anyone else make vision Pro right now? Even at the
| $3.5k I'm not sure they could.
|
| The marketing / distortion field thing is bs in my opinion,
| when apple release a shitty product it fails, when it's good it
| does well. Look at Ping, Apple Watch Edition, and to a lesser
| extent Siri and homepod.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| > Not attempting to flame here
|
| Really? Because this is perfect flame-bait.
| isatty wrote:
| What are you referring to? I'm a power user that buys lots of
| apple products.
|
| - Best products for what I need: every MacBook since the fat
| ones in the early 2000s has been solid and living up to abuse.
| iPhones do not need me to fiddle with configuration or
| customization, just works (it's not just a meme, it's important
| to people without time), gets software updates for a _long_
| time, and works very well in the ecosystem. The iPad Pro is the
| best tablet I've used, ever.
|
| - iMessage is a solid messaging system and FaceTime has the
| best A/V quality of all the other apps I've tried.
|
| - the ecosystem works seamlessly with each other and I can
| onboard my non techy aging parents into new devices and usage
| patterns without much trouble
|
| - Apple Home and secure video are a joy to use and it doesn't
| feel like you're using it just because you're already in the
| ecosystem
|
| - I do most of my work over plain SSH and tmux/vim, for which
| iTerm is a great terminal emulator. For the occasional GUI app,
| the macOS looks fantastic ootb and requires minimal fiddling
| around to get right. I've been there and done Linux ricing and
| I'm glad I don't have to anymore. Just dwm/i3 on my workstation
| works for me.
|
| Now one of the most important things
|
| - Apple support is the best. I've broken my phones, laptops,
| etc. and I've never had a bad experience in the Apple Store and
| I've been in an out with a replacement or fix in a few hours
| tops in multiple countries.
| brigadier132 wrote:
| They have the best product for what I need.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| Are you talking about gatekeeping what software I can run on my
| own device? If so, yes, that's one reason why I don't buy Apple
| products, generally speaking. I would love to use an iPad Pro
| as a VSCode machine just as one can do on a Mac but in a much
| slimmer package, but no, Apple doesn't want me compiling my own
| software for some reason, so I'm stuck with a laptop.
|
| Same with the Vision headset, it is absurd that the only way to
| do real software work on it is to literally stream a Mac
| display onto the device. At that point, why not use the Mac
| itself?
| zwily wrote:
| Cause the Mac doesn't have a 360 degree immersive interface?
| satvikpendem wrote:
| The Mac screen that's mirrored to the Vision Pro is not 360
| degrees and immersive either, it's just...a screen. It
| would be cool to see stuff like files and connections in 3D
| space, but it's nerfed pretty hard all so that Apple can
| keep that sweet 30% fee.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| > Is the argument just - oh, but the stuff is cool, so...
| whatever?
|
| Do you find it that strange that "company makes things people
| like to pay money for"?
|
| I'm unsure which "objective" ethical framework disallows Apple
| products but allows any other consumer tech device. Apple does
| very well at some things, average at some others, and very
| poorly at other things, which isn't particuarly insightful.
| Whether you would like to spend money on an Apple product
| depends on how you value each of these things, and you can't be
| surprised that other people might prioritise different things
| than you.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| I'm not an Apple fanboi, I generally dislike their stuff, but I
| am also going to give credit where credit is due because that's
| what any fair person should do.
|
| Apple makes stuff that _will_ work, that _will_ satisfy the
| common man, that _will_ (or at least _should_ ) have quality
| meriting their price.
|
| Apple's products are good, and that is an objective fact
| separate from whether I personally like their stuff or not.
| prox wrote:
| Your perceptions are wrong from a consumer point of view. They
| don't make shiny toys (well they do but that's not the point)
|
| They make extremely frictionless ecosystems. Everyone on HN
| loves to tinker I would wager, but that is never going to be
| your average consumer. Apple knows that.
|
| That is why Linux will never become mainstream, the friction of
| using it (from installing to daily driving it) is _INSANE_ . No
| one can use it outside of a select few. Same with Android. Lots
| of idiosyncrasies when you start digging deeper. I wanted to
| use Samsung version of Airdrop today. It was a disaster trying
| to get a picture over to another device.
|
| That's where Apple shines. Get that and you might make a dent
| in Apples market share.
| 76SlashDolphin wrote:
| For your Airdrop example, my iPhone has just as many silly UX
| idiosyncrasies as any Android phone. For example, recently I
| needed to translate the text in an image on my iPhone and
| there is no way to do it(from what I know) other than paying
| for a dedicated app and giving it Photo permissions. On my
| Pixel (and any Android phone) the same thing can be done by
| long pressing the image in my web browser -> Share -> Google
| Lens -> Done.
|
| IMHO, phone OSes are mature enough nowadays that both options
| can achieve the same things and whether you prefer one UX
| over the other depends on what you "grew up with".
| prox wrote:
| Your usage is already in the intermediary stage of
| interfacing. Still is a bit cherry picking, I stand by the
| overall assessment that Apple products are greatly
| frictionless and easy to use, and work together.
| Anecdotally, older relatives need a lot less help, almost
| none with their iPads.
| jwells89 wrote:
| In apps using the native UI framework (UIKit), text in
| images is automatically locally OCR'd and is selectable.
| Apps built in third party toolkits like Flutter won't have
| this, but that can be worked around by taking a screenshot
| and selecting the text in Photos.
|
| Lens can be used by going to images.google.com or the
| official Google app. Nothing is stopping the same share
| sheet flow you mentioned from being possible but for some
| reason Google hasn't added a share sheet extension to their
| iOS app.
| filoleg wrote:
| > I needed to translate the text in an image on my iPhone
| and there is no way to do it(from what I know) other than
| paying for a dedicated app and giving it Photo permissions
|
| Save Image => highlight text in the saved image from the
| native Photos app => click "Translate". No third-party apps
| involved. All done locally too, no need for internet
| connection even (after the image is saved, ofc).
| scarface_74 wrote:
| Your hands must hurt from clutching your pearls.
|
| I bet you never took a vow of poverty or decided not to use
| tech. Do you use computers? Do you own a phone? Do you spend
| all of your time feeding starving children?
| zmmmmm wrote:
| Amazing work!
|
| Very curious what the limits on performance would be for it.
| Could it ultimately offer a way to run Vision OS apps in a
| realistic way without having the hardware? Quest 3 could make a
| super compelling package for it (admittedly, not having the eye
| tracking is a big problem).
|
| I guess we can't really know yet how Apple will handle it, but
| does seem unlikely that Apple will allow the simulator to install
| arbitrary apps from the app store.
| cheerioty wrote:
| 224 points and not single positive comment in the comments, sigh.
|
| I think this is awesome, as the Quest Pro is almost on par with
| the features of the Vision Pro (except Lidar), e.g. hand & eye
| tracking + color passthrough. Sure, these might be not of the
| same quality (especially when it comes to passthrough), but this
| allows people to verify their experiences/concepts for the Vision
| Pro before they actually get their hands on one.
|
| I don't think that Meta, nor Apple will have a problem with this
| tbh. Maybe because of the assets/icons used in the HUD, but those
| can easily be replaced if needed.
| yreg wrote:
| This is a great idea even if the hardware was quite different.
| I honestly can't imagine developing for visionOS armed only
| with a simulator. And since Apple afaik doesn't have a hardware
| devkit, this sounds miles better.
| dvh wrote:
| Now I finally understand the purpose of virtual reality desktops.
| I put it on and my room is tidy.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| How long until a slasher film features teens sitting around VR
| gaming while, unbeknownst to them in their tidy VR living room,
| Freddy Krueger is having a field day.
|
| That jump-scare when the one teen lifts up their headset to see
| Freddy inches away.
| bradgessler wrote:
| I picture the person is dressed in a QR code suit. Encoded in
| it: "nothing to see here you lookie Lou!"
| jayd16 wrote:
| Reminds me of Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex. A
| hacker is able to obscure their face in public by
| overlaying a logo into every onlookers' passthrough feed.
| jerlam wrote:
| The modern version of this is playing a Taylor Swift song
| so that anyone taking a video will have its audio muted
| when uploaded.
| trafficante wrote:
| For those not in the know, this is an actual thing that
| was happening a few years back.
|
| https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/02/cops-using-music-
| try-s...
| birdyrooster wrote:
| Ghost in the Shell is so ahead of its time we will be
| catching up for many decades.
| bee_rider wrote:
| It was so cool, I want it to happen even though
| realistically we'll all be background technician losers
| that exist to show how great The Major is.
| sobkas wrote:
| We all here dabble in technology(doesn't matter which
| one) so possibility of being some brainwashed meat puppet
| taking part of some covert war between powers that be is
| more likely. And there are fates that are even
| worse(think what was in that ship on international
| waters). GitS is a nightmare and cyberpunk for a reason.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Personally I always thought Togusa had some good points.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| We are all extras in someone else's movie.
| xattt wrote:
| Coupled with object recognition and a UWB-tagged laundry hamper
| and garbage bin, room cleanup could be game-ified.
| wpietri wrote:
| Honestly, this makes sense to me. One of the reasons people
| don't tidy is getting overwhelmed. Either at an emotional
| layer, because they see everything. Or at a visual layer,
| because they stop seeing anything. If you could trim it back
| to first visualizing the room as clean and then showing them
| one activity (e.g., see only dishes, so you can focus on
| collecting those), you might help people retrain.
| jbverschoor wrote:
| Or yours "someone" never got to learn how to clean in a
| structural way, similar to someone who never later learned
| how to write.
|
| Don't blame lack of knowledge or skill, or any other thing
| on physiological issues
| wpietri wrote:
| Good thing I didn't do that!
|
| Actual people actually report actually feeling
| overwhelmed. They describe the experiences as I describe
| them. Blogs give strategies to deal with these specific
| feelings.
|
| Is it possible that learning some particular skill will
| help with that? Surely! Are there other reasons that
| people might also not clean, ones related to not learning
| something? Also yes. But that's no reason to show up and
| be aggressively contrary. Some people's experiences are
| different than yours and you don't have to leap in to
| deny that just because it's different for you.
| TillE wrote:
| I assume you're mostly joking, but honestly that's a really
| good insight into how something like Vision Pro might appeal to
| people.
|
| Your environment is super important to your mental/emotional
| state. If you can jump into different virtual environments for
| work or relaxation, that'd surely help your brain switch
| context and focus.
|
| I've heard a ton of chat from Apple fans about how most people
| don't have rooms or work spaces with three meters of empty
| space in front of them, contrary to Apple's product demos.
| Environments like Mount Hood sound like a gimmick, but they're
| probably going to be a huge part of what makes this device
| work.
| trafficante wrote:
| > Your environment is super important to your
| mental/emotional state. If you can jump into different
| virtual environments for work or relaxation, that'd surely
| help your brain switch context and focus.
|
| Absolutely crucial observation and one that unfortunately
| either gets ignored or is attached to negative dystopic
| connotations like "live in the pod".
|
| This past winter was particularly gloomy here in the Pacific
| Northwest (which is saying a lot). One of the most impactful
| strategies I used for dealing with seasonal affective
| disorder was to sit under a red lamp, put an oscillating fan
| on low, and load up a hyper-realistic photogrammetry "nature
| tours" app called Brink XR[1].
|
| Being able to have a modern Calgon Moment with a virtual
| stretch-out-and-relax in a cloudless Arches National Park did
| absolute wonders for my overall mood after dealing with yet
| another miserable day of cold rain with no end in sight.
|
| [1] https://youtu.be/j2AdT9C2CK8
| drdaeman wrote:
| Fake/relaxation environment that stretches out to infinity
| with nothing to focus on may be a somewhat usable workaround
| for vergence-accommodation conflict. I suspect that's also
| why all the demos have all the windows equidistant and
| there's no depth to the UIs, and why camera passthrough
| imagery is frequently shown blurred out (so you don't try to
| focus on it).
| codybontecou wrote:
| Is there support for pass-through/AR simulation?
| [deleted]
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Should name it poor man's Apple Vision
| ZiiS wrote:
| Given you need to be at least a millionaire to have an Apple
| Vision outside Apple I am not sure you assume this is only for
| poor people.
| Takennickname wrote:
| Poor Man's X is just an English idiom.
| varispeed wrote:
| Should name it Pear Vision (read with an accent to sound like
| poor vision).
| bredren wrote:
| I'd guess Meta has better reasons to shut this down than Apple
| does.
|
| The project reinforces the idea that the Quest products are of
| low quality (evidenced by comments here).
|
| It also improves the developer experience the ecosystem of Meta's
| competitor.
|
| Thus, providing greater pre-release momentum to the Vision Pro at
| Facebook's cost.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Meta _can 't_ shut this down. Sideloading has been a feature of
| the Quest since the start, stopping this would represent a
| paradigm shift for developers of the platform.
|
| > The project reinforces the idea that the Quest products are
| of low quality (evidenced by comments here).
|
| They are. That's why they cost $400 (game console territory)
| instead of $3,500 (OLED TV or iMac territory).
|
| "Comments here" will tell you the Quest is a failed product
| after 20 million units sold. The people on this website have
| never been representative of the market at-large.
| georgespencer wrote:
| > "Comments here" will tell you the Quest is a failed product
| after 20 million units sold. The people on this website have
| never been representative of the market at-large.
|
| It's amazing how many people miss this crucial point. Apple
| and Meta share a high level ambition - to dominate the next
| wave of computing platform -- but that's pretty much the only
| similarity between them.
|
| If you look at Quest and Vision Pro and think about the
| constraints placed on the teams building them it seems like:
|
| 1. Apple's teams are given the constraint of producing an
| amazing user experience in terms of screens, gesture control,
| etc. Price flexes upwards to deliver this.
|
| 2. Meta's teams are given the constraint of achieving a mass
| market price, and the quality of the product flexes down to
| achieve this.
|
| Apple's position makes sense to me. They are no longer an
| underdog[^1] and can fast follow anyone who has a more
| compelling vision for AR/VR which launches before they get
| theirs out the door.
|
| Meta needed to get this going before Apple for obvious
| reasons. That's why, for example, of the 20 million units you
| referred to as being sold, 5 million of them (!) had safety
| recall notices because the fabric of one of the components
| caused such serious skin irritation that some number of users
| were hospitalised.
|
| Meta can move fast and break things (& people), but Apple
| can't do that any more. (No judgement of either company.)
|
| That all makes sense... but the bit I can't fathom is why
| Facebook didn't take the approach of building from the high
| end down? I don't know of any complex consumer electronics or
| hardware companies which don't take the approach of launching
| massively expensive "pro" hardware which is the beachhead for
| driving down price over time. E.g. autofocus in cameras began
| life on the giant cameras which sports photographers used to
| use, but over time it became cheap enough to manufacture that
| all cameras shipped with it.
|
| Do you think Meta genuinely thought they were just a few
| years away from delivering a mass market-ready device (for
| playing BeatSabre and talking to cartoon versions of your
| friends)?
|
| My guess is that Meta saw themselves as being curators of the
| best bits of the existing AR/VR proposition: tie all the best
| bits of the existing field of hardware and software companies
| and put them into a package at a $400 price point. Just
| iterate on the existing ideas a bit and focus on getting the
| price down.
|
| Apple seems to have looked at the existing ideas around UX
| (input and screen quality especially) and scope (what do I
| use this for?) and decided that there needed to be
| dramatically different (better, in Apple's view) solutions.
|
| Given Meta's internal rhetoric about Quest not retaining
| users, I'd say Apple was wise to approach this from first
| principles. But I really don't know what Meta has been
| working on for so long?
|
| If I think back to the original iPhone launch, it made
| literally every other phone on the market look preposterously
| antiquated (to the point that RIM execs famously believed it
| was "impossible" for Apple to actually be delivering the
| phone they demoed). Vision Pro does that to the Vive Pro
| gathering dust in my cupboard, but I'll need to use one to
| say for sure whether it does the same to the Quest 3. My
| hunch is that the disparity isn't as huge as it was with cell
| phones, but it doesn't seem like Facebook can simply ignore
| Vision Pro and continue with their current product roadmap: I
| would bet on Apple (a hardware company with a lot of scale
| advantages) figuring out how to make the baseline experience
| achieved with Vision Pro cheaper for a consumer device _much_
| faster and more easily than Facebook will figure out how to
| achieve that same baseline experience starting from their
| $400 price point.
|
| Wdyt?
|
| [^1]: Inside Apple around the time iTV / Apple TV was
| introduced, it was characterised as a "foot in the door":
| Steve Jobs kept calling it a "hobby" in public, and the
| strategy changed around a lot. Since then they've introduced
| several products which have either seen strategy shift over
| time (iPadOS multi tasking...) or which were known to be a
| "foot in the door" (Apple Watch), but they don't acknowledge
| them as such, they just pretend that the plan all along was
| for Apple Watch to be a fitness tracker, and that they did
| not in fact spend 30 minutes of the keynote talking about
| sending digital heartbeats to each other as if it was the
| most meaningful thing ever.
| smoldesu wrote:
| > That all makes sense... but the bit I can't fathom is why
| Facebook didn't take the approach of building from the high
| end down?
|
| High end VR already existed. There were dozens of Windows
| headsets that lifted the performance ceiling far beyond
| what the Quest or even the Reality Pro will ever be capable
| of. The harder challenge is pushing in the other direction
| - building a minimum viable product that _doesn 't suck_
| and can make it to mass market. Meta has proven they can do
| that, Apple cannot. You're right to highlight that the
| pressure is on them to do better, but maybe they should
| have considered that before announcing a headset this
| early. Apple's history is rife with visionary products that
| were too early and too expensive: the Lisa, the Newton, the
| 12" Macbook, the list goes on. I won't chide them for their
| ambition, but that won't save them from their fated
| failure.
|
| Imagine if Steve Jobs' "phone, iPod, and internet
| communicator" moment culminated in a product that cost more
| than all 3 of those things combined. That's what the Vision
| Pro's announcement felt like.
|
| > but it doesn't seem like Facebook can simply ignore
| Vision Pro and continue with their current product roadmap:
| I would bet on Apple (a hardware company with a lot of
| scale advantages) figuring out how to make the baseline
| experience achieved with Vision Pro cheaper for a consumer
| device much faster and more easily than Facebook will
| figure out how to achieve that same baseline experience
| starting from their $400 price point.
|
| I guess I just fundamentally disagree. The high-end market
| for VR is not desirable yet, and there's no indication it
| ever will be. Low-end VR sells like hotcakes though, and
| Apple will struggle with that more than Meta will with
| retina graphics or eye tracking. If the leaked BOM for
| Reality Pro is real, Apple would need to cut costs by 8x to
| maintain their current margins and beat Meta in pricing.
| That's _ludicrous_ ; meeting Apple at their price point is
| comparatively trivial.
|
| It will ultimately depend on where market forces lie. I
| think most people will see the headset as redundant if they
| already own an iPhone though.
| throwawaymobule wrote:
| You still do need to make an account and give them a phone
| number/credit card to get into developer mode and enable adb.
| They'd be dumb to, but stopping people is entirely within
| their ability.
|
| Really wish sideloading was a thing you could do on your
| own/offline like most other android devices.
| makomk wrote:
| That'd be a little tricky and probably have undesirable
| collateral damage. The Oculus side of this is a general-purpose
| streaming VR app called ALVR that's mainly designed to stream
| desktop VR apps running under SteamVR (which Oculus do dislike
| enought that it has to be sideloaded, but there's not really a
| clean way to do the same with the desktop Oculus runtime). This
| also means that in theory you should be able to stream to other
| headsets like the Pico or even an Android phone used Cardboard-
| style, though the set up and compatibility on that last option
| is a bit of a pain.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Something 10x cheaper better be lower quality.
| ozten wrote:
| Demo Video https://twitter.com/zhuowei/status/1678226947560579072
| jansan wrote:
| Additionally get holographic stickers of a pair of eyes, attach
| them to the front side of your Meta Quest and you are 99% there.
| OptoContrarian wrote:
| Even better https://youtu.be/po6piXWU1TI
| floomk wrote:
| How long until apple blocks this? They are famous for protecting
| their walled garden and hostility towards cross platform
| development tools.
| riscy wrote:
| You can code in Swift using VSCode on any platform:
| https://www.swift.org/blog/vscode-extension/
| ra wrote:
| It's not about the language, it's about access to APIs.
|
| Apple's MO is to keep some APIs for itself, making them
| unavailable to third-parties.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| You mean like every single operating system that has ever
| existed?
|
| Even if you do conceivably have access to "private APIs"
| that are not documented, you still shouldn't use them.
| tw600040 wrote:
| //They are famous for protecting their walled garden and
| hostility towards cross platform development tools.
|
| Trying to deconstruct this to understand better.
|
| 2 possibilities.
|
| 1. Supporting cross platform development tools is actually in
| Apple's interest/business and they are being stupid not to
| support them. But so far it doesn't seem like they are losing
| anything by not supporting it going by their financials.
|
| 2. Supporting cross platform development tools is not in their
| interest - in which case they are doing the right thing by
| doing what's good for their business.
|
| So, where is the disconnect?
| JamesUtah07 wrote:
| Probably after launch. It'sa good way for developers to build
| and test apps for VP so they won't go after it for now.
| vaxman wrote:
| * * *
| andsoitis wrote:
| > hostility towards cross platform development tools
|
| LLVM and clang are both cross platform
| smoldesu wrote:
| LLVM was Open Source and supported GNU from the get-go, it
| didn't make sense to remove support after Apple bought up the
| core contributors. Clang is indeed an Apple original, but
| developing it without support for multiple platforms would be
| paramount to removing features supported in the underlying
| compiler.
|
| If either LLVM or Clang tried removing multiplatform support
| or totally relicensed itself, it would divide the community
| and make life hard for Apple. They could probably make WebKit
| a fully proprietary browser engine by rewriting the KHTML
| stuff, but what would they gain by removing features from an
| Open Source product they developed?
| floomk wrote:
| Let me know when I can use those to develop an iOS app from
| Windows or Linux
| cjensen wrote:
| iOS is a supported target in Visual Studio Professional on
| Windows.
| moron4hire wrote:
| It requires you have a macOS machine somewhere on your
| network to use Xcode to do the actual build.
| seba_dos1 wrote:
| AFAIK building iOS apps on Linux is possible if you try
| _really hard_ , but deploying isn't.
| riscy wrote:
| If you write it in Swift or Objective-C, you're using LLVM
| and clang.
| afavour wrote:
| But you're still not building it on Windows or Linux.
| dymk wrote:
| [flagged]
| mhh__ wrote:
| AppleClang is both closed source and (I assume?) only for Mac
| riscy wrote:
| It's open source: https://github.com/apple/llvm-project
| smoldesu wrote:
| LLVM and Clang both are. Apple Clang is not.
|
| https://developer.apple.com/xcode/cpp/
|
| https://cmake.org/cmake/help/latest/policy/CMP0025.html
| Scalene2 wrote:
| Now stream PCVR to the vision pro and the cycle will be complete.
| naillo wrote:
| I wonder what the latency is
| nomel wrote:
| For wireless VR stuff, it's usually 25-40ms range. I believe
| the encoder hardware is the bottleneck at this point. New Quest
| 3 is supposed to have better hardware accelerators.
|
| I don't notice, with a couple virtual screens.
| throwawaymobule wrote:
| The headset itself does the reprojection, IIRC. Which is way
| more noticable than most measures of latency.
|
| Never got alvr working, myself.
| MikusR wrote:
| Quest does only Decoding.
| [deleted]
| nomel wrote:
| Oops, meant to write decoder.
| jayd16 wrote:
| There's also the specifics of how this is grabbing the
| simulator output and copies it out to the ALVR server. So
| possibly another frame or two of lag is introduced.
| nomel wrote:
| I'm talking desktop screen to VR eye, with desktop
| streaming. So yes, that, plus simulator latency. I would
| think input latency should be pretty small.
| trafficante wrote:
| Quest 3 will (hopefully) allow for higher bitrates and maybe
| AV1 support but I don't see it having a huge impact on
| overall wireless latency. Decode time on the old SoC is only
| a few ms with h264 and really the only thing h265 brings to
| the table on a bandwidth unconstrained local network is 10bit
| color.
| [deleted]
| nomel wrote:
| Here are some latency measurements, showing you are
| correct: https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/jgfoco/oc
| ulus_link_...
|
| I guess my notebook is the bottleneck, at higher bitrates,
| not the Quest!
| normand1 wrote:
| Hell yeah, I've been hoping for this, thanks!
| jimmySixDOF wrote:
| There is also a free to download Vision Pro UI panel simulator
| made by Nova, who have an excellent UI dev package on the Unity
| Asset Store. The demo is for the Quest Pro and source code with
| APK is on GitHub.
|
| https://github.com/NovaUI-Unity/AppleXRConcept/releases/tag/...
| trafficante wrote:
| I was extremely impressed at how well this demo functioned on
| my Quest Pro. Obviously I haven't used the Apple HMD, but I was
| able to easily eye-select nearly every UI element in the demo
| (resize boxes were a bit wonky) and could even do the whole
| "pinch with hand in lap" thing from the Apple reveal.
|
| Surprisingly enough, I came away preferring where Meta is going
| with the whole "Direct Touch" thing (Quest users should have it
| under the Experimental tab in Settings). Lack of physical
| feedback (when using hand tracking only) is definitely an
| issue, but treating the virtual displays like physical
| touchscreens actually isn't too bad. It's definitely my
| preferred control scheme when I'm not using the controllers.
|
| I can even sorta type at a reasonable enough speed for
| emails/instant messaging - though nowhere near good enough for
| coding. Essentially you input text like a Boomer on an iPad
| (ie: slow one finger pecking) but at twice the speed because
| you can use two hands.
| [deleted]
| joshstrange wrote:
| Honestly Apple should have considered something like this and
| supported it from day 1. It's only upside for them.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| I think by limiting the simulator to an _obviously_ non-
| realistic output, they avoid the uncanny valley and
| unrealistic-judgement of using their operating system in lower-
| speced hardware.
| dagmx wrote:
| What upsides are there to promote a competing platform as a
| development story for their own platform?
| joshstrange wrote:
| It's not like anyone who wants to develop for the Vision Pro
| is going to get a Meta Pro and decide they don't care about
| the Vision Pro. Also it opens the door to people who already
| have Meta Pros who want to develop/port apps to the Vision
| Pro.
|
| If I was serious about developing for the Vision Pro I'd eat
| the difference between a Meta Pro now and then selling it
| after the Vision Pro ships.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Home brew devs will certainly work with 10x cheaper
| hardware, compile on the mini, and ship.
|
| If you can get something working this way, it might be a
| good paradigm because you know it would run smooth as
| butter on the VP.
| dagmx wrote:
| but what's the upside still? They'll have developer units
| available this month supposedly so availability isn't the
| big barrier.
|
| It's like saying they should enable iOS development on
| windows. It doesn't make brand sense to do it. The slight
| upside of a few devs who won't buy a Mac isn't worth the
| deterioration of brand prestige by pushing people to
| multiple platforms.
|
| Also there's a not insignificant cost associated with
| maintaining tooling on multiple platforms when they rely so
| significantly on the vertical stack
| joshstrange wrote:
| I guess it really depends on who gets the developer
| devices. I have a feeling they will be more locked down
| than the Arm mac developer units (which they gave to
| almost anyone). If they are stingy then it'd make some
| more sense to allow lessor hardware to be used by
| everyone else but I totally see you point. I forgot about
| the dev units since I had assumed when they were
| announced that it would be very hard to get one. You make
| a good point.
| breakpointalpha wrote:
| I just bought a Quest Pro this weekend and was hoping to get
| something like this running.
|
| Apple should do the right thing and support early VisionOS
| development using the Quest Pro.
| candiddevmike wrote:
| You must be new to the Apple developer ecosystem? It'll take an
| anti-trust judgement to get them to allow development on non-
| Apple platforms.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| Yes, the government should force Apple to release an SDK for
| other platforms.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Yeah, I'd love to see the day when I could build iOS apps on
| Windows and on Linux, just like I can for Android.
| asadm wrote:
| What was your reasons for buying it. Just curious.
| foxandmouse wrote:
| I disagree it's the right thing to do, why do you think it is?
| ZiiS wrote:
| Because it solves the chicken and egg allowing none Apple
| software at launch.
| dagmx wrote:
| Not really a chicken and egg scenario imho.
|
| 1. It runs iOS and iPad apps.
|
| 2. The simulator is available and several devs have already
| ported and added visionOS specific feature support with it.
|
| 3. They're supposedly making developer units available to
| applicants starting sometime this month.
|
| 4. They've already had several third party developers
| they've showed in their press releases
|
| ---
|
| Which is to say , I don't think they will necessarily have
| a chicken and egg problem at launch which is still months
| away.
|
| So there's no real motivation to open up their development
| to competing platforms.
| jbverschoor wrote:
| Ah you mean your quest is useless because it has no useful
| apps
| [deleted]
| soligern wrote:
| That's not the right thing at all, why would they do that?
| ArtWomb wrote:
| I am hear to lend support for "build once, run everywhere". But
| I already feel the divide: Quest for Games. Apple for Minority
| Report ;)
| actionfromafar wrote:
| NEVER cross the streams
| andsoitis wrote:
| > right thing and support early VisionOS development using the
| Quest Pro
|
| Why would that be the right thing?
|
| Quest Pro doesn't have the same capabilities as Vision.
| mikered wrote:
| It does have the most important one - eye tracking
| cheerioty wrote:
| And color passthrough, albeit not a great one. Still good
| enough to build and test experiences already!
| cowsup wrote:
| Neither does a Mac, yet it's the only device that's allowed
| to develop for the headset.
| andsoitis wrote:
| But the simulator is designed to help you test your app,
| just like iOS apps that require touch/gestures/low
| battery/etc. can be tested on a macOS machine. If I were
| Apple, I wouldn't voel their building tools that run on
| Quest in order to test your Vision app. What would be the
| point? It seems like such an opportunity cost that's better
| spent on other things.
| p1necone wrote:
| You think testing VR apps in a simulator on a laptop is
| more indicative of the final experience than another VR
| headset that almost has feature parity?
|
| I imagine you'd probably still want to use the simulator
| to ensure your code will _run_ on the actual Apple
| hardware, but for verifying actual UX /behaviour I'd take
| the Quest Pro over that any day.
| MikusR wrote:
| The only thing Quest Pro lacks is lidar.
| chaostheory wrote:
| ...and a depth sensor. Not sure why they cut it last minute
| dagmx wrote:
| Lidar and depth sensing are the same
| dag11 wrote:
| Is this stereoscopic? I don't see any mention in the readme or
| demo video link but based on the description of hooking the
| compositor, unless it's translating rapidly for left/right eyes
| or the simulator gives left+right textures in real time, this
| would be monoscopic right?
| coder543 wrote:
| The description of the repo: "Take 3D stereoscopic screenshots
| in the visionOS emulator."
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-10 23:00 UTC)