[HN Gopher] The Apple Vision Pro
___________________________________________________________________
The Apple Vision Pro
Author : allenleein
Score : 140 points
Date : 2024-02-06 14:22 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (stratechery.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (stratechery.com)
| furyofantares wrote:
| > One of the realities of the iPad is that, for most customers,
| it is a personal video player; for that particular use case the
| Apple Vision is superior in nearly every way.
|
| Pretty hard for me to imagine parents handing their young kids
| AVP instead of an ipad to watch videos, or an adult putting on
| AVP as they go to sleep instead of the pad on the side of the
| bed. Some people will prefer AVP on a plane over an ipad perhaps,
| but not all. Maybe teens will prefer it for casual watching, but
| many people will prefer something where it is less awkward to get
| up and pee or get a snack or interact with someone else in your
| house.
| brk wrote:
| I agree, for whatever it's worth.
|
| There is already a social stigma around people being focused on
| their phones/screens, and the disconnect it creates with people
| around you. But that disconnect is somewhat virtual in that the
| phone is absorbing your attention, but it's not a physical
| barrier.
|
| These AR glasses all, by design, create a very real physical
| barrier between the wearer and their surroundings. It also
| doesn't help that they look goofy, and sometimes slightly
| creepy. I think this creates a much bigger barrier to
| widespread adoption, it is a much larger conscious decision by
| a user to wear an AR kit. You can't just glance at it and get
| sucked into the content stream, it is a very distinct process
| to put it on/take it off.
|
| I've been intrigued by the Apple Vision, and other AR devices,
| but it still feels like there isn't a breakthrough moment for
| them.
| ghaff wrote:
| I'm already not a huge fan of wearing something like noise
| canceling earpods out in public. I couldn't imagine wearing
| goggles isolating me from what's going on. But I realize a
| lot of people don't care.
| j4yav wrote:
| Slightly creepy? It looks like someone wired their whole face
| directly to the internet dopamine tap and turned it to
| eleven.
| bemusedthrow75 wrote:
| Oh hush. You can still see their "eyes" [0]. What are you
| complaining about?
|
| ;-)
|
| [0] not much better than the creepy face-screens in Jamin
| Winans' amazing low-budget movie, _Ink_
| mark_l_watson wrote:
| Indeed! It reminds me of the early scenes of the movie
| Alien where William Hurt's character has the Alien stuck to
| his face :-)
| curun1r wrote:
| > but it's not a physical barrier
|
| AVP is a V1 product, but it's already clear that Apple
| understands this and is interested in solving it. It has the
| best pass through of any VR headset, with reviewers able to
| do real-time tasks like playing ping pong or playing catch.
| And it has a screen on the outside that displays some weird
| virtualized version of your eyes to try to pass through in
| the opposite direction. And, lastly, in has a "persona" which
| it can use to make you seem like your not using AVP in
| FaceTime as much as is possible.
|
| These are, mostly, janky attempts to solve the problem, but
| it's easy to imagine them getting more refined over time.
| It's easy to imagine that someone walking down the street
| wearing future versions will be able to make eye contact with
| other people and will appear as their persona to other AVP
| wearers rather than someone wearing a headset, though likely
| with some green aura that's only blue for wearers of other
| copycat headsets (there's no way that Apple isn't carrying
| their green bubble social stigma into the spatial computing
| market). All the building blocks are there for that physical
| barrier to feel a lot less physical, they're just really,
| really raw and don't quite work yet.
| cramjabsyn wrote:
| The quest 3 does essentially the same at roughly 10x lower
| price. I say that because I think the price tag makes AVP a non
| starter for vast majority of families with kids. I think its
| out of reach price-wise even for a lot of professionals without
| kids tbh.
|
| But also this is the first version. The original iPhone didn't
| have copy/paste or the ability to shoot video.
|
| The software will continue to get refined and the hardware will
| get smaller. It'll eventually fit into roughly standard sized
| glasses and I think that's going to change everything
| bemusedthrow75 wrote:
| > The original iPhone didn't have copy/paste
|
| I eventually did get iPhones, but vividly remember being
| laughed at -- as a Mac user -- for choosing the little white
| HTC Magic with a trackball because I prioritised the idea of
| actually being able to edit text (which we now do on iPhones
| with a force-touch gesture not much more elegant than that
| trackball and lacking some of its nuance.)
| kshacker wrote:
| There have to be limits to miniaturization. I have seen the
| industry evolve from 8088 chips to now; and what we have now
| was likely unimaginable then; but aren't we going to run into
| limits eventually?
|
| When I look at my Apple Watch, even that feels too big
| (thick) to me, so thinning AVP is quite far off IMO.
|
| On the other hand, all the research to make things thin will
| finally pay off when it happens. If Vision Pro can go half
| its weight and double the battery (even if detached like
| now), that will probably be the point when it becomes a
| serious platform.
| mrcwinn wrote:
| I own a Quest 3 and on day three of AVP. I can assure you,
| the difference in quality - and therefore movie-watching
| experience - is night and day between these devices. Watching
| a movie in AVP is outstanding. This device doesn't shine in
| all cases, but it shines there.
|
| It's like saying, "Sure, Ferarris are cool, but my VW can
| also drive to the track." (No shade thrown to VWs. Love the
| boxy, 90s-era Jetta.)
|
| Usual disclaimers: Is it for everyone? Probably not. Is it
| expensive? Very. Is it perfect? No. "Essentially the same?"
| Not at all.
| crazygringo wrote:
| There's no difference in detail for 1080p content.
|
| There absolutely is for 4K content though.
|
| If you're happy with 1080p the Quest is perfectly fine. Not
| for the AR experience of a screen in your living room, but
| for a VR experience watching a floating screen in space.
| cramjabsyn wrote:
| Yeah the VW/Ferrari analogy is good, because as two cars
| they do essentially the same thing.
|
| Also I think the group of people who are shelling out $4k
| for the AVR are going to be heavily biased to justify the
| expense. I don't think there's a $3000 difference between
| the two devices. Maybe $500.
| FumblingBear wrote:
| Fundamentally though, that's just the nature of
| diminishing returns. Of course the value proposition for
| the Quest 3 is far better than the value prop of the
| Vision Pro.
|
| It's no different than consumer GPU's. There will be
| enthusiasts who purchase the GTX 4090 for $2000 but the
| average consumer is far better off buying something like
| a 3060Ti for $340.
|
| My favorite example of this is a site called Logical
| Increments [0] that clearly shows just how expensive
| pushing to the next tier of quality is as you scale up.
|
| [0] - https://www.logicalincrements.com/
| hackeraccount wrote:
| It's always that last 20% of performance in any product
| that's creating a huge chunk of the cost.
| selectodude wrote:
| The cost for quality scales exponentially. Doubling the
| cost only gets you 50 percent better in my experience.
| refulgentis wrote:
| You're being flippant to the point of absurdity, and past
| the point of being rude. "Yeah" when you don't mean it,
| and "you must be biased"
|
| I wish the Quest 3 was as good as the vision pro. It
| isn't. It's not even close. The display specs are way
| more than enough to be able to observe this.
| cramjabsyn wrote:
| Did you happen to buy an apple vision headset?
| dagmx wrote:
| You're not arguing in good faith because you've already
| laid out your assumption that anyone who bought it is
| inherently biased. How do you expect anyone to discuss
| anything with you?
| nvarsj wrote:
| Have you used VR much? Quest 3 FOV is much better. And
| FOV is kind of the holy grail for immersive VR and
| interactive experiences. So saying Vision Pro is strictly
| better (and at 7x the cost) makes little sense to me.
| refulgentis wrote:
| for sibling, as I'm over my post quota:
| https://imgur.com/a/l6nqhvX
|
| Yeah, Vive -> Index -> Quest 2 -> Varjo Aero[^1] -> Quest
| 3 -> Vision Pro.
|
| Yeah FOV is worse, yeah it costs more, virtually order of
| magnitude more.
|
| People are responding to "The quest 3 does essentially
| the same at roughly 10x lower price.", i.e. dismissal of
| there being a significant qualitative difference.
|
| I never, ever opted into watching video on any headset
| until now. Like, yeah, I tried it. I watched stuff. This
| is organic "I want to watch stuff, where's the VR
| headset?" instead of "here's a VR headset, I can watch
| stuff"
|
| Something that escaped me until a week ago was a good
| visualization of the pixel density. I thought the Aero
| was amazing. It is/was.
|
| I assumed Vision Pro was marginally more or less than the
| Aero.
|
| Actually, Aero::Vision Pro is roughly Vive 1::Aero.
|
| [^1] that one is important, that's real street cred, you
| know I care, invest, and know what I'm talking about
| wvenable wrote:
| > dismissal of there being a significant qualitative
| difference.
|
| I think it depends on use case. Is having a bunch of high
| resolution floating screens the killer app or just a
| gimmick? For most current VR users, they're not going to
| see a significant benefit from higher resolution Beat
| Saber.
| nomel wrote:
| FOV/immersion is _not_ the holy grail of _XR_ usability.
| A virtual screen in the Quest 3 /Pro isn't so great, and
| I've spent hundreds of hours reading text in the Quest
| Pro. For screen replacement, aka "spatial computing",
| Vision Pro is strictly better.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| > I wish the Quest 3 was as good as the vision pro. It
| isn't. It's not even close
|
| That in itself is a false question, no? Nobody says they
| are as good. I haven't seen even the most ardent Meta fan
| suggest such a thing.
|
| It's not a question of whether they are _as good_ but
| whether the difference matters enough. There is a curve
| with very sharply diminishing returns and a lot of
| threshold effects (once you get close to screen door
| effect going away, nobody cares that you made it 1% less
| noticeable any more etc).
| nomel wrote:
| I have a Quest 2, 3, and Pro, and have been doing spatial
| computing for years now, and the Quest 3 is nowhere near
| the point of diminishing returns for resolution. The
| Quest 3 is a relatively _terrible_ monitor replacement,
| with a PPD of _25_. The AVP has a PPD around 50. Around
| 56 is the point where diminishing returns happen (but
| with the edge detectors in your eyes mostly left
| dormant).
|
| At reply depth limit, so I'll reply here:
|
| > For reference, I myself and a number of people I know
| quite happily use Quest 3 as a monitor replacement.
|
| If it's in Immersed, then I've probably talked to you.
| I'm not saying it can't work, I'm saying it has around
| _double_ the clarity. This is trivially perceived. I 'm
| definitely not special here. You should really go look
| through an AVP at an Apple store. If you have a high res
| computer display, you can also somewhat emulate it.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| I will just say that I think you're an outlier on the
| quality / perception spectrum.
|
| It's definitely very personal, so this is completely
| normal, but I don't think you are even slightly
| representative of where the general public would fall.
| For reference, I myself and a number of people I know
| quite happily use Quest 3 as a monitor replacement. It's
| borderline - Quest Pro was not good enough - but Quest 3
| is - for me.
| MrFantastic wrote:
| For a lot of people, $3500 is nothing especially if they
| are going to expense it to the company.
|
| A lot of companies are going to buy it just to figure out
| what types of apps can be made for the platform.
| shinycode wrote:
| I can say the same thing between my car and a Ferrari,
| never having driven one...
| GeekyBear wrote:
| > Yeah the VW/Ferrari analogy is good, because as two
| cars they do essentially the same thing.
|
| Users want to be able to do things like connect to their
| computer and be able to read small text on the virtual
| monitor.
|
| Both headsets are not equal on the "readable text"
| metric.
| bnolsen wrote:
| You can buy a LOT of TV for what you paid for the AVP, and
| other people can watch with you!
| deepGem wrote:
| There is a counter argument to this - the iPhone shape did
| not change, the shape evolved. Apple is never known to change
| shapes or geometry, they evolve from the same geometric
| construct.
|
| The AVP fitting into standard sized glasses like swim goggles
| is a possibility but it'll be more like Cyclops visors. I am
| not sure if it will ever achieve a Rayban form factor.
| jsbisviewtiful wrote:
| > I think the price tag makes AVP a non starter for vast
| majority of families with kids.
|
| I don't have kids and the price is still outlandish for my
| household of well-earners. I would never pay more than $2k
| for this.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| A card board home also can be argued to do essentially what
| house does. Please do not write such arguments
| GeekyBear wrote:
| > The quest 3 does essentially the same at roughly 10x lower
| price.
|
| Only if you claim that having "a screen" is the only metric
| that counts.
|
| > Apple is very proud of the displays inside the Vision Pro,
| and for good reason -- they represent a huge leap forward in
| display technology...
|
| They also look generally incredible -- sharp enough to read
| text on without even thinking about it...
|
| The displays are the main reason the Vision Pro is so
| expensive -- they're at the heart of the Vision Pro
| experience and what makes the whole thing work. You are
| always looking at them, after all.
|
| https://www.theverge.com/24054862/apple-vision-pro-review-
| vr...
| cmiller1 wrote:
| > less awkward to get up and pee
|
| Arguable, imagine getting up to pee and not interrupting your
| movie at all.
| furyofantares wrote:
| More succinctly, here's my point: Maybe AVP is a better
| personal video player for people who are very into optimizing
| the experience of the content they're consuming. But almost
| every use of an ipad as a personal video player that I can
| think of isn't that.
| wcrossbow wrote:
| Maybe for the ladies or the men that pee sitting down, if
| they manage to make their way to the toilet without rolling
| down a flight of stairs. However, if I try to pee with one of
| this on my wife will not appreciate it.
| __egb__ wrote:
| What if there were an app that could overlay a calculated
| stream trajectory over the view of the toilet, showing you
| exactly where and how to stand to minimize urination
| errors. The name of the app could be Piss Optimal Flow
| Flight, or Piss OFF.
| cozzyd wrote:
| Gamifying stand-up urination is probably the best use
| case for AR I've heard
| dvngnt_ wrote:
| not if there's a split steam
| shwaj wrote:
| Let's hear it for the sitzpinklers!
| Yizahi wrote:
| As soon as men get tasked with cleaning their own toilet,
| the benefits of the peeing sitting start to rapidly
| increase. After second or third week the idea of peeing
| standing in your own toilet sounds like an absurd alien
| speech :) .
| jahnu wrote:
| "I'm going to show them a world without you. A world without
| rules and controls, without borders or boundaries. A world
| where anything is possible. Where we go from there is a
| choice a leave to you."
|
| To the sound of me peeing?
| shusaku wrote:
| To be fair, it was pretty hard for me to imagine parents
| handing their young kids an iPad.
| saagarjha wrote:
| Apple Vision Pro is heavy and inconvenient to use. It has glare
| and poor FoV. It gets hot and has a short battery life. There
| are plenty of reasons why you might not want to use it, even if
| it is actually pretty nice for watching movies.
| ramesh31 wrote:
| >It has glare and poor FoV. It gets hot and has a short
| battery life.
|
| FOV is the most unforgivable. I can't for the life of me
| imagine who is deciding that 110 is sufficient. I would give
| up just about every single other specification in a headset
| for 180deg+, and I have owned just about every consumer
| headset released since DK2.
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _I would give up just about every single other
| specification in a headset for 180+._
|
| I'm having a very difficult time imagining how that would
| be physically possible.
|
| I'm actually curious what the highest theoretically
| possible FOV is for a conveniently sized device strapped to
| your face, and how close we are to it already.
| two_handfuls wrote:
| We can do curved screens. The theoretical limit is we can
| cover the whole visual field.
| crazygringo wrote:
| How do you get the light into the inside edge when your
| nose is in the way, and the lenses for each eye would
| collide in the middle?
|
| How do you get the light into the outer edge without
| making the headset absurdly wide?
|
| Curved screens aren't the issue here. The issue is the
| lenses and light paths between the screens and eye.
|
| VR requires collimating lenses. Not just a screen, curved
| or not.
| saltcured wrote:
| Just for the sci-fi fun of it, I'm trying to imagine the
| mechanism of the laser projector featured in Snowcrash.
|
| How about a microscopic lenticular array in a close-
| fitting shell over each eye (kind of like swim goggles)
| or even in a special contact lens. The goal is to have
| appropriate lenses in front of the pupil. This lens array
| can then be targeted by extremely precise laser
| projectors, exploiting the lenses to illuminate parts of
| the retina that would not otherwise be visible from the
| same projector location through a naked eye.
| ramesh31 wrote:
| >I'm having a very difficult time imagining how that
| would be physically possible.
|
| Pimax 8k has 200deg:
| https://pimax.com/product/vision-8k-x/
|
| Valve Index is 130deg, which is _right_ at the line of
| becoming acceptable and achieving presence. I seriously
| can 't believe Apple released this thing with
| functionally no difference to the $500 Quest 3 beyond
| higher screen quality.
| Yizahi wrote:
| > I can't for the life of me imagine who is deciding that
| 110 is sufficient.
|
| Heartless physics? :)
| swah wrote:
| I expect this to iterate quick...
| astrange wrote:
| Generally speaking I don't think a product this expensive
| can iterate quickly, because even if you want to spend
| $3500 once, that doesn't mean anyone wants to pay the
| upgrade costs and face the depreciation on selling the old
| one.
| kstrauser wrote:
| Apple also sold the Apple Watch Edition. It was painfully
| slow, and had a list price up to $27,000 based on
| options.
|
| I think you underestimate peoples' willingness to throw
| money at early versions of Apple hardware.
| goosedragons wrote:
| How many Watch editions sold? They dropped it like a hot
| potato. Even at launch there was affordable versions of
| the Apple Watch.
| astrange wrote:
| I mean, it wasn't any more or less slow than the other
| models, and it was made of gold. I don't know the
| depreciation though.
| mithr wrote:
| The biggest drawback for me is that AVP only works if you're
| watching things alone. You can easily watch an iPad with your
| SO, with your kid, with your friends -- and AVP may be a better
| experience, but only for you alone.
|
| It may be amazing on a plane, but even then only when you're
| traveling by yourself.
| saagarjha wrote:
| Nit: you can group watch things with people who are remote.
| My friends have done this thing since the pandemic where we
| pick a show and all watch it from our own homes but while on
| a Discord voice call, and it just got a whole lot nicer to do
| this since last week ;)
| duxup wrote:
| Yup, my ability to quickly monitor what my kids are up to is a
| big deal to me. Putting on a headset, software options for
| monitoring, they're just not as quick, detailed, or convenient.
| tim333 wrote:
| I watch a fair bit of video and have no great desire for some
| heavy mask thing on my face. The laptop works fine for casual
| viewing.
| condiment wrote:
| Reading this article, it's nice to see I'm not alone in my
| thinking about the vision pro. Ignoring the remarks on
| entertainment (it's excellent!), I've believed for several years
| now that VR headsets are going to replace computer monitors, and
| the vision pro is a step in the right direction. But a 1:1
| monitor projection from my macbook is not quite enough of a
| benefit to merit the drawbacks of the headset. And it turns out
| that all of the business software I use is highly interactive, so
| very little, if anything at all, can be run as a separate native
| vision pro app.
|
| Teams? I'm not using a persona in a professional setting. Also
| MSFT's implementation has really low information density. Slack?
| I need to be able to copy and paste, and the ipad compatibility
| app stinks. Outlook? Again, the ipad compatibility app is no
| good. Excel? Give me a break. I had tried the browser first, but
| it turns out that I have keyboard workflows that are very
| efficient, and requiring my gaze to shift is no good. To add to
| it, the gaze tracking highlights controls all over the app when
| I'm just trying to type, and if I glance at another window for
| reference, shifts my keyboard and mouse attention.
|
| Multiple monitors projected from a real computer really would be
| ideal here.
| no_wizard wrote:
| one wonders if there is a current niche that could be filled
| where they have the excellent high fidelity screen of the
| Vision Pro but without the hand tracking, effectively making it
| a monitor HUB and optimized for that, but you can still use a
| mouse and keyboard in addition to some head tracking, but no
| hand gestures, as it were.
|
| Have it entirely driven (experience wise) by the external
| compute.
| jbverschoor wrote:
| I'd love to have portable multiple monitors. However, I'm not
| sure if that works with a MacBook Air, not sure how well it
| works, and not sure if I can still control my
| keyboard/trackpad. I don't want to lift my arms/touch when
| editing text.
|
| A virtual machine or performant screensharing would work, but
| I haven't experienced a good solution yet, so I don't think
| it'll be any better with the Vision Pro
|
| Everything under the condition there's no eye and neck strain
| no_wizard wrote:
| Thats what I mean, with the Vision Pro, multiple reviews
| have pointed out you can't really use a mouse and keyboard
| with it because of the hand recongition. Its not meant to
| be part of the overall experience.
|
| My take here is that if you remove the hand recognition
| (gestures etc) and only keep some spatial awareness (in so
| much that turning your head lets you see your other
| "monitors") and the high fidelity multi-monitor experience,
| if you would have a better, sleeker product for the medium
| term.
|
| Doesn't even have to be Apple per say, simply a thought
| exercise. I think I'd use something like that, because
| mouse / keyboard require no visual interaction (for me at
| least) 99.9% of the time, and pass-through would be
| sufficient if I really need it from time to time, but it
| completely alleviates needing to buy physical monitors, is
| the idea.
| jbverschoor wrote:
| Same.. More screen real estate and spatial positioning.
|
| I just want better and more windows in something
| reasonably portable (travel). Even a stack of large e-ink
| panels I could lay on a large table would work great if
| the software would work properly.
|
| The immersiveness is nice and all for games and videos,
| but def no requirement for my means.
| sschueller wrote:
| Ipod was USD 399.- in 2001 (USD 686.- Today) and the Rio was USD
| 250.- in 1998 (USD 467.- Today). USD 3499 still seems way up
| there even for today.
| charcircuit wrote:
| Today the iPhone is $800 and offers tremendous user value. It's
| hard for a new device to compete against that.
| duxup wrote:
| The longevity, power, flexibility offered by computing
| devices today is amazing.
| ghaff wrote:
| And it wasn't really out of line with things like a Walkman or
| other music-related devices that mainstream consumers were
| already buying.
| HumblyTossed wrote:
| It's interesting seeing so many of these takes on AVP. So many
| people imagined how they'd use it when it came out. Now that it's
| out, they're realizing that reality doesn't meet their
| imagination. Not that AVP is bad or that it doesn't work
| correctly, it just doesn't do some of the things people expected
| it to or it has more limitations than they expected.
|
| Which, to me is odd why they would think this because this is an
| Apple product. You will only ever be able to use it the way Apple
| wants you to use it. If it doesn't fit your imagined use case,
| Apple expects you to adapt.
| zhobbs wrote:
| I think it's just a function of the Apple marketing overselling
| the passthrough quality and productivity use cases.
| querulous wrote:
| the passthrough quality is a real letdown given the
| marketing. it's like looking at everything through a grimy,
| unwashed window
|
| i never expected it to be good as a productivity device
| because my own experience is while screen real estate is nice
| what really matters is the ergonomics of your work space and
| wearing a pair of ski goggles is never going to be ergonomic
| noahtallen wrote:
| Opinions are mixed the passthrough quality:
| https://youtu.be/UvkgmyfMPks?si=ElAWNbsyEN6t_wmP
| flerchin wrote:
| It's a solution in search of a problem. Everyone says "this is
| first gen, and it will only get better." I don't think that's
| right. "this is first gen, and it will only get cheaper." is more
| like it. Walking around without peripheral vision in order to be
| able to watch YouTube in the train station is not worth any
| amount of money.
| danans wrote:
| > Walking around without peripheral vision in order to be able
| to watch YouTube in the train station is not worth any amount
| of money.
|
| I'm more worried about people trying to drive with this thing
| on.
| tim333 wrote:
| It'd be kind of interesting if they added a rear view camera.
| Then in some ways you'd have more awareness of the world around
| than normal.
| tootie wrote:
| This is Apple's first gen which, as usual, is 8th gen for the
| general market. Magic Leap and HoloLens have been in production
| for years. Looking at reviews of this product it seems they've
| upgraded the optics and horsepower and tied it in to their app
| ecosystem. But I don't see how they've solved any of the
| baseline usability issues. The controller-free gesture tracking
| is how a lot of earlier products worked it's really just not
| comfortable at all. Physical controllers are far more
| responsive and ergonomic.
| peteforde wrote:
| This article addresses the MacOS vs visionOS thing, but doesn't
| go hard enough. It is incredibly frustrating that Apple seems
| determined to serve this up as kid gloves experience vs a general
| purpose computing device with direct access to a real file system
| and ultimately a shell prompt. I am not in love with how Meta has
| locked down the Quest but at least there is a thriving sideload
| app ecosystem.
|
| That is, at least there is a way to load up the media player of
| your choice and watch porn.
|
| Look, I get that corporate America is strangled by puritan values
| from the payment processing networks on up, but it is arrogant
| and willful ignorance to pretend that adult content consumption
| is not a major part of the VR/MR story.
|
| You want to know what the people who actually use VR the most do
| with their headsets most of the time? VRChat and SexLikeReal,
| which is the PornHub of VR if you don't know.
|
| Steve Jobs was a dude who loved to talk about doing LSD but in
| his later years, he became awkwardly fixated on preventing people
| from using Apple devices for the stuff most real people do.
|
| He's been gone a long time. It'll be a shame if their vision for
| spatial blah blah is sanitized and safe for work, even after
| dark.
| TIPSIO wrote:
| Apple is trying to mainstream and normalize strapping a giant
| computer and camera to your face in everyday life.
|
| I think having it watered down will actually push the dream of
| wearable computers for common use by making people feel less
| uneasy around it.
| peteforde wrote:
| Could you explain further?
|
| General purpose computing directly implies that each user is
| free to do what they want with it, just like the MacBook Pro
| they bought from the same company.
|
| The world would be a lot more awesome if people weren't
| entitled to feel "uneasy" about what people they will never
| meet are doing legally in the privacy of their own homes.
| rusticpenn wrote:
| Removing any association with users as perverts. Google
| made that mistake with glass...
| peteforde wrote:
| So, a moral panic some of us are okay with.
|
| I don't agree, but I respect that this strategy is
| seemingly self-evident to a certain brain wiring.
|
| PornHub says that red states often represent their
| heaviest users, demographically. Can you even imagine how
| different things would be if the rugged individualists
| defended freedom of thought as passionately as they
| defended weapons?
| rusticpenn wrote:
| I think it's not just the red states, imagine a viral
| message asking if you knew that the guy near you on the
| subway was watching porn on his new gadget.
| revscat wrote:
| > Look, I get that corporate America is strangled by puritan
| values from the payment processing networks on up, but it is
| arrogant and willful ignorance to pretend that adult content
| consumption is not a major part of the VR/MR story.
|
| I'm glad to see this sentiment expressed here. I have grown
| increasingly frustrated with this very thing over the past few
| years. Anything which even approaches, erotic or titillating is
| immediately suppressed, censored, and pretended like it never
| existed in the first place. Apple is one of the worst here, but
| far away not the only one. All of the AI companies are exactly
| the same: try and generate an image of a woman and a bathing
| suit with DALL-E and you will inevitably fail.
|
| Instead, they pretend over and over that these are simply
| productivity devices, meant to enhance our capabilities as
| workers or consumers of Disney-level entertainment.
|
| I am a human being, who occasionally gets horny. I masturbate.
| This is not something that corporate America recognizes, and in
| fact, seems eager to censor and suppress.
|
| A world curated by conservative HR departments is not one that
| is particularly appealing to me, and the Vision Pro seems like
| it is the month of this attitude.
| thih9 wrote:
| But corporate America recognizes that you're a human being;
| most of popular culture is doing its best to make everyone
| horny or otherwise excited all the time. The fact that we're
| not served explicit content is a blessing IMHO.
|
| I realize this is a bit of a different take, it does seem
| related though. At the same time I get that you'd like to do
| what you want with your device and that makes sense too.
| peteforde wrote:
| Just be careful not to fall into the trap of equating
| "being served" with "being able to access".
|
| One is sinister and gives pearl clutchers new talking
| points. The other describes what should be a basic aspect
| of owning a computer.
| thih9 wrote:
| Agreed - this is what the second paragraph of my comment
| is about.
| stevofolife wrote:
| > This is not something that corporate America recognizes,
| and in fact, seems eager to censor and suppress.
|
| Numerous American companies recognize this and are developing
| services and products tailored to your needs. The comment
| just above yours highlighted some of these companies.
|
| However, Apple may not be the best-suited company to take
| action in this regard.
| astrange wrote:
| I don't think this is an issue for the users of this website
| because as far as I can tell their idea of porn is tiling
| window managers.
|
| But I also don't know why you think the Vision Pro can't play
| videos or go to websites. It can do that stuff.
|
| (Actually, I'm informed by a VR porn enthusiast that it
| doesn't support some stereo video formats. I guess you have
| to stick to 2D.)
| dkonofalski wrote:
| Your VR enthusiast is wrong. The issue he's describing was
| because of the two video players that launched in the App
| Store. There are video players for the AVP that can play
| stereoscopic video without issue.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| See https://www.404media.co/a-3-500-chastity-belt-early-
| apple-vi... though I know you can put pano videos in
| WebXR and that might bypass it.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| See https://www.404media.co/a-3-500-chastity-belt-early-
| apple-vi... though I know you can put pano videos in
| WebXR and that might bypass it. (In fact, if you have
| WebXR, the only people who need the app store are those
| who never "think different")
| nkohari wrote:
| > All of the AI companies are exactly the same: try and
| generate an image of a woman and a bathing suit with DALL-E
| and you will inevitably fail.
|
| I think this is largely driven by the concern that the model
| could be used to (whether intentionally or inadvertently)
| generate an image of a person who looks underage. That's a
| gray area of law (not to mention morality) that people are
| very hesitant to test, so it's better to just block porn
| entirely.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| I see ads for a program that draws pictures of women in
| sexual situations but boy when penises get involved it turns
| into nightmare fuel (disembodied, decapitated, bifurcated,
| pointing in the wrong direction) which makes me glad I don't
| have castration anxiety.
|
| The really obvious MR sex app is one that overwrites your
| partner with somebody else like Strea or Bremington. Not sure
| if most partners would like that.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Even on the iPhone it's one of my regular frustrations that
| Apple's autocorrect tries hard to keep me from using profanity.
| There are some ways to mitigate that but it's tedious and
| annoying to have to do so.
| brk wrote:
| That shot is a ducking annoyance!
| computershit wrote:
| Same. I have text replacement rules in iOS for pretty much
| every expletive.
| bousenta wrote:
| This was fixed in one of the recent iOS versions. Works
| consistently for me without any text replacements.
| jahnu wrote:
| True, but since then Ill continue to be frustrated that it
| cant do apostrophes automatically. It used to!
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I'll have to look into that. It still won't let me use the
| F word, for example. It'll give me pretty much any other
| possible word as an alternative, no matter how hard I try.
| But this may be because I do most of my regular typing by
| swiping. I see that I can type in 'fuck' manually and it
| won't try to replace it.
|
| I'm right at the edge of turning off autocorrect
| altogether, just because it has a habit of changing
| previous words, not just the one I'm typing. If I only ever
| talked with very generic English this might be okay, but
| when I'm using subject matter lingo it fails utterly and
| becomes a tremendous nuisance to try and convince it to
| leave that text alone. Sometimes even deleting the
| correction and re-typing what you want doesn't stop the
| behavior.
| colechristensen wrote:
| Forget porn, I'm just annoyed that I have to have an account
| and Internet access to make my lightbulbs do their thing.
| Access control and "security" have just become absurd. A car
| charger shouldn't have to authenticate/authorize me, nor a
| light switch, a television, a computer display (whether or not
| it's attached to my face), etc. etc. etc.
|
| I'm going to become a luddite and carry wads of cash and wear a
| tinfoil hat.
|
| This is my startup idea: less of this crap. The logo is going
| to be a rabid woodland creature wearing a tinfoil hat.
| milesvp wrote:
| You're not wrong, there is a lot of unnecessary vendor
| lockin. But as someone who has worked on IoT, security is
| much trickier than you might like. Security for a non
| wireless device can be completely relegated to physical
| access to the device. Thus making security the problem of
| owner of the device in a way that we have accepted security
| since forever. But as soon as there is a way to access a
| device from afar... well suddenly there are attack vectors
| that most people can't even begin to imagine. And mitigating
| these attack vectors starts to seem like an unnecessary
| burden for non technical folk. I even had to deal with issues
| of a CEO and product owner not being able to wrap their heads
| around a few attack vectors forcing user experience
| compromises that they really didn't like. It is really hard
| to solve the problem of you being the only person able to
| turn on and off your light from afar from an arbitrary device
| (one not paired at the factory). At the end of the day you
| need some way to pair a device. That's sort of easy,
| bluetooth pairing is kind of a solved problem. But now let's
| say you want to transfer authorization to turn a light on and
| off. Well, now you need to pair the device with this new
| person. As a house guest, they're not going to take the time
| to do this for every device you own. So companies rely on
| other means that often rely on some combination of
| authenticate authorize in their ecosystem.
| SleepilyLimping wrote:
| Learning how to import bulbs into HomeAssistant, or learning
| how to flash different firmware onto bulbs has been a
| difficult (yet kinda fun?) way to give myself peace of mind
| about that. Having that all run on NAS has at least given me
| some belief it isn't leaving my system.
| michaelt wrote:
| _> it is arrogant and willful ignorance to pretend that adult
| content consumption is not a major part of the VR /MR story._
|
| Wilful ignorance - or sensible marketing?
|
| Apple's ability to get celebrities and subway riders using
| their product in public depends on _completely denying_ that it
| 's a $3500 masturbation aid.
| peteforde wrote:
| It's just such an intellectually weak argument coming from a
| company that sells general purpose computing devices.
| beeboobaa wrote:
| Apple doesn't sell general purpose computing devices
| anymore
| canucker2016 wrote:
| Steve Jobs envisioned the Apple Macintosh as a personal
| appliance - locked down, no expandability. But with only
| 128KB or even 512KB, the computer couldn't do a whole
| lot. Once Jobs left Apple, management expanded the Mac's
| features.
|
| When Jobs acquired Apple, his vision of computing
| appliances was restarted - iPod, iPhone, et al. They have
| a lot more functionality, but the iOS walled garden keeps
| enough of the users happy - at least in the Silicon
| Valley/USA.
|
| Look at early 20th-century Sears-Roebuck shopping
| catalogs online - one of the pages showed a hand-sized
| motor and the various attachments one could buy to attach
| to it - want a blender - get the motor and the blender
| attachment, et al.
|
| An early 20th-century motor-based ecosystem similar to
| the battery-powered power tools you see today.
|
| Eventually the idea of a generic motor that gets
| specialized with whatever particular attachment you want
| was refined to combine a motor and each particular
| attachment into its own separate integrated device - no
| swapping of motor and attachment anymore. There are pros
| and cons to both systems, but the integrated specialized
| appliance approach won for the most part.
| tiltowait wrote:
| They sold about $30B in Macs last year. If you're going
| to claim they aren't general purpose computing devices,
| you're operating under a different definition than just
| about anybody else.
| WaffleIronMaker wrote:
| I think it's reasonable to restrict pornography on a device
| intended to be used for AR in public.
|
| From Apple's perspective, it's important that using the
| device in public doesn't have a stigma.
|
| Otherwise, we don't need to wait for deepfake AI / AR apps to
| undress people.
|
| Creeps could go in public, see a person they like, and put
| porn next to them without anyone knowing.
|
| Without restricting porn, an AR device just becomes a machine
| to violate others boundaries. There's a reason cell phones in
| Japan cannot turn off the shutter sound.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > Creeps could go in public, see a person they like, and
| put porn next to them without anyone knowing.
|
| Does this affect anyone else more than imagining the same
| thing using one's brain?
| refulgentis wrote:
| No, but that is a very, very, slippery slope, and there's
| a supermajority against enabling it.
| rowyourboat wrote:
| Slippery slope to where, exactly? I genuinely don't see
| it
| refulgentis wrote:
| The same argument (who is it hurting if its notreal and
| viewed by a singular person?) is commonly used by
| organizations who would like to see the age of consent
| lowered / widespread legalization of child pornography.
|
| I don't want to discuss it too much because there's
| enough nuance here for people to hang you with no matter
| what you say, but, a brief parable: I spent exactly 1
| sentence pointing out to someone you could make porn with
| Stable Diffusion and they started hosting a SD instance
| for deep fakes in our non-technologist community with
| girls in it, and also started what I still think of as a
| "porn dungeon" chat room.
|
| It was immensely frustrating trying to verbalize why this
| was antisocial and why there was a set of people who were
| legitimately upset by it. They never really understood
| fully.
|
| But I'm sure they had moment with the Taylor Swift
| deepfake stuff from last week.
|
| There's isn't really a 100% logical Spock reason why it's
| bad, other than other humans find it _deeply_
| distasteful.
| chrisjj wrote:
| But "without anyone knowing" means privately, and not in
| public, right?
| throwaway-blaze wrote:
| Given that they literally tell you not to wear the device
| outside (and that early reviewers showed how it stopped
| working in a moving car or on a moving train, the device
| stops displaying content when its accelerometer determines
| you might become nauseated by outside motion) I don't think
| this argument holds water.
|
| MacBooks can access an unrestricted amount of porn yet the
| public doesn't immediately equate computer users -> using
| porn right now.
| dkonofalski wrote:
| This is factually inaccurate. It doesn't stop working in
| a moving car or train. The reviewers/users that were
| using it in those instances simply didn't turn on the
| Travel mode of the device. In order for the 3D windows to
| persist, they need tracking data. Travel mode disables
| the external tracking and leaves it as internal. It's
| less accurate but it's completely usable in a moving
| vehicle.
| beeboobaa wrote:
| Can't tell if this is satire or if you're being serious...
|
| Just in case you're being serious, you realize that people
| can already imagine others naked in public or just snap a
| picture or video of them using their phone and upload it to
| your AI undressing service.
|
| It being strapped to your head adds absolutely nothing, and
| you might be projecting your own fantasies.
| kaashif wrote:
| > Creeps could go in public, see a person they like, and
| put porn next to them without anyone knowing.
|
| So uh, can't people already do this with phones? I could
| watch porn on the train in front of people right now?
|
| What NEW boundary does AR violate?
| stevofolife wrote:
| What is vaseline used for? Does Unilever promote vaseline the
| way you think Apple should promote their headsets?
|
| Answer is no.
| aranelsurion wrote:
| Does Unilever prevent people from using their own vaseline
| however they like?
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Everyone buys their locked down walled-garden devices we are
| only allowed to use in a handful of profit-maximizing ways and
| this is what we get. If they liberated and respected the user
| they'd be another hardware company.
| ephemeral-life wrote:
| Its kindoff a shame. The people who built the foundations of
| our industry already knew what was coming decades ago and
| warned us, but we all thought they were crazy and ignored
| them. Now look at us. Governments can't even succesfully
| stand up against the control that these systems have over us.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| It's a huge shame! I try not to use the anyone-who-
| disagrees argument but I genuinely think that anyone who
| disagrees lacks imagination. We have been robbed of so many
| possibilities!
| grepexdev wrote:
| This comment is deeply saddening because of how true it is.
| This is exactly what has driven me to become a FOSS
| enthusiast, but sometimes I can't help but feel hopeless
| about the future of tech in general.
| dave78 wrote:
| > Apple seems determined to serve this up as kid gloves
| experience vs a general purpose computing device with direct
| access to a real file system and ultimately a shell prompt
|
| I think the idea of a general purpose OS without a company
| involved in deciding whether you are allowed to run programs or
| not is a thing of the past. If Apple and Microsoft could go
| back in time and change macOS and Windows to be like iOS where
| everything has to be approved and signed by Apple they almost
| certainly would. The only reason they haven't already (IMO) is
| that people are already used to those platforms being open, and
| there would be too much outcry to change it. Even then, they
| are certainly trying to chip away at it...
|
| Think how much money would be collected if these companies got
| to extract 30% of every transaction carried out on every PC in
| the world. I'm sure they (plus Google) are busy trying to
| figure out if they can bring the "Apple Tax" concept to the web
| as well.
| dartos wrote:
| They already have.
|
| The easiest way for me to buy something from any stripe or
| Shopify website (when on an Apple device) is to use Apple
| Pay.
| moritzwarhier wrote:
| But they aren't collecting 30% from Apple Pay. I assume
| they only collect juicy data and maybe even charge CC
| companies for making the service available?
|
| Would love an informed reply, sorry for Google Laziness as
| I'm outdoors
| tiltowait wrote:
| Apple doesn't charge businesses to use Apple Pay. They do
| charge the CC companies a fee of 0.15%. This fee _might_
| be passed on to the merchant, but I 'm not sure if credit
| card processing fees have actually increased since Apple
| Pay's introduction. It's been a while since I had any
| involvement in that world.
|
| https://www.checkout.com/blog/apple-pay-for-business
| moritzwarhier wrote:
| Thanks for your reply & perspective!
| ywain wrote:
| Apple's ad business is fairly limited in scope (I think
| they only sell ads in the App Store and the News app) so
| user data is not as valuable for them as it is for Google
| and Facebook.
|
| They definitely do make some money off Apple Pay
| transactions via interchange, but it's probably something
| like 0.1 to 0.3%.
| entropicdrifter wrote:
| >I think the idea of a general purpose OS without a company
| involved in deciding whether you are allowed to run programs
| or not is a thing of the past.
|
| Android is the most used OS on the planet, so no. Not even
| close.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| > If Apple and Microsoft could go back in time and change
| macOS and Windows to be like iOS where everything has to be
| approved and signed by Apple they almost certainly would.
|
| What was Windows RT if not an attempt to move Windows over to
| a walled garden model?
| PaulHoule wrote:
| The thing is that people run Windows because they want to
| run Windows apps. That is, Windows is an important OS not
| because it is such a great OS in itself but because it has
| a great selection of software. Same is true for Linux or
| any other mainstream OS.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| Sure, but the thing is that Microsoft has taken multiple
| swings at "Windows that can only get apps from the
| Microsoft Store".
|
| Windows S was another attempt.
| elorant wrote:
| I don't need the glasses to substitute my computer. I want to
| be able to use them outdoors as an AR device that will give me
| information on various spots. Even if I could run MacOS why
| would I write code on that instead of my keyboard that has
| haptic feedback.
| justinator wrote:
| Hey peteforde - dis you?
|
| https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-friday-ed...
|
| Edit: it totally is!
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12928655
|
| Bruh you may have a slanted pov (pun intended) on what people
| would use an Apple Vision Pro for!
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Yeah, maybe Kinect failed because they didn't make a "Kinect
| Sex" app for it.
| duped wrote:
| > I get that corporate America is strangled by puritan values
| from the payment processing networks on up
|
| I think it's just easier for platforms to ban porn rather than
| deal with the criminal and financial risks of enabling it.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| Wait, there's no porn on the Vision Pro? That's hilarious to
| me.
|
| $3500 for a device that can't do the number 1 application of
| its technology.
| bemusedthrow75 wrote:
| The _" mea culpa, I have been part of over-egging a pre-launch
| product based on being blessed with privileged access to an
| extremely limited guided walkthrough and I lost all objectivity"_
| shuffle.
|
| And that bit about a VR headset being better than an iPad for a
| personal video player is some seriously optimistic, overextended
| thinking.
|
| Is wearing half a kilo of electronics with a two hour battery
| life on your head really superior to a smaller screen with all-
| day battery life that you can put away at a moment's notice?
|
| (Even _ignoring_ that video content often has more than two hours
| of runtime.)
| softirq wrote:
| Yes it is. Watching a 3D movie on an entire wall in bed next to
| my spouse is mind blowing.
| bemusedthrow75 wrote:
| You'll have to file me under
|
| a) doesn't watch films or use internet gadgets in bed,
| especially to the exclusion of someone else
|
| b) would at any rate choose a film my partner wanted to watch
| too
|
| c) ignoring the above, would probably buy the cheapest VR
| headset that offered a virtual theatre good enough
| jasonjmcghee wrote:
| (My experience with watching movies on VR headsets- haven't
| tried newest generation)
|
| Have you ever watched a CAM version of a movie? I feel like
| this kind of activity peaked in late 2000s...
|
| That's what it felt like watching a movie in VR to me. (In
| my experience with non-luxury headsets)
|
| It's worse picture quality than my phone.
|
| For me, watching a movie in 4K on a TV is very very
| different than the equivalent of ~< 720p, blurry mess with
| giant god rays.
|
| If AVP can deliver on what people describe, it's
| compelling. Still probably won't buy one though
| crazygringo wrote:
| This is not true at all. You get full 1080p detail on a
| Quest, with excellent color and contrast.
|
| The AVP gets you to around 4K detail.
|
| It is nothing at all like CAM. Not in color and not in
| resolution. It doesn't even make sense to say that
| because the display specs for these devices are well
| known.
|
| God rays aren't really a problem watching TV content
| because they're most prevalent at the edges of the
| display, but you place your virtual screen in the middle.
| So they're basically a non-issue. (And TV's can have
| glare problems of their own if you're not watching them
| in the dark.)
| jasonjmcghee wrote:
| This has been my experience- i haven't tried any of the
| newest generation, but have tried many.
|
| "any vr headset that has a virtual theatre" won't offer a
| good movie watching experience
| crazygringo wrote:
| I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "virtual theater",
| but if you have an app that allows you to freely move and
| resize a virtual screen in a black "void", the movie-
| watching experience is _exceptional_ , including on a
| Quest 2 or 3.
|
| I recommend using the popular SkyBox player.
| jasonjmcghee wrote:
| I'm glad it's gotten better. A few years ago, it was
| genuinely terrible. Any dark scenes looked awful,
| screendoor effect was huge. Haven't tried Quest 2/3
| SirMaster wrote:
| I've tried the Quest 3 and it's still not very good IMO.
| Quest 3 is still a low contrast LCD and at absolute best
| gives you close to a 720p virtual theater screen.
|
| I think the AVP is the first headset that can actually
| provide a good movie viewing expedience in a headset
| coming close to a full 1080p virtual screen and with high
| OLED contrast.
| MikusR wrote:
| AVP gets you around 1440p
| SirMaster wrote:
| Maybe with an ungodly large and wide FOV virtual screen.
|
| AVP has a 3680 pixel wide screen across a 100 degree
| horizontal FOV.
|
| If you make your virtual screen take up a 50 degree FOV
| (which is still somewhat bigger than most people normally
| sit/view at home or in a typical theater), then you are
| still only getting at most 1840 pixels across the virtual
| screen, which is a bit less than 1080p. Nowhere near
| 1440p.
|
| That doesn't mean I don't think it can be a great
| experience. I think it can be, but there is still a lot
| of room for improvement.
| MikusR wrote:
| Thanks. I was looking for better numbers.
| SirMaster wrote:
| How can you possibly get full detail on a Quest 3?
|
| The resolution of the horizontal on a Quest is 2064
| pixels. However this fills the headsets entire ~110
| degree horizontal FOV. Also, you are not seeing the edges
| of the panels, so we need to eliminate some of those
| pixels you can't technically even see to around say 2000
| (cut off 32 on each side which I think is fair).
|
| Now a 1080p video has a horizontal resolution of 1920
| pixels. You only have a 2000 pixel canvas that fills up
| your 110 degree FOV.
|
| Now sure, if you zoom your virtual movie theater screen
| to fill your entire FOV, then you can say you are seeing
| the whole 1080p video resolution. But nobody I have ever
| heard of watches movies at a horizontal FOV of 110
| degrees.
|
| Industry standards are around 35-45 degrees. Yes I
| personally think that is a bit low. I have a 150"
| projection screen at home, and I sit at about a 53 degree
| horizontal FOV. I wouldn't want any closer. This
| represents sitting like 1/3 to the front of a typical
| movie theater.
|
| However, even at a 55 degree virtual screen, that means
| the virtual screen is only 1000 pixels across on a Quest
| 3. this isn't even full 720p resolution which would need
| 1280 pixels across. Let alone 1080p needing 1920 pixels
| across.
|
| Now the AVP does better obviously. It's 3680 pixels
| across 100 degree FOV. If we subtract a few due to not
| seeing the edge and say about 3600 pixels, and if we say
| the virtual screen is again 55 degree horizontal FOV,
| then that gives us a virtual theater screen of about
| 1850. A little shy of the 1920 for 1080p.
|
| So at best, if you make your virtual screen huge, like 60
| degree horizontal FOV, then I could concede you get about
| a 720p virtual screen in a Quest 3 and about a virtual
| 1080p screen in a AVP.
|
| Last point I will make is that even at this it's not
| quite equivalent because you lose a bit of resolution too
| due to your head being slightly askew and the video
| pixels not being able to line up straight with the
| physical virtual theater screen pixels in the headset. So
| the resulting image becomes a bit softer since the pixel
| mapping isn't 1:1.
|
| I haven't used an AVP, but I have used many other VR
| headsets including a Quest 3, and the quality of the
| virtual movie screen looks quite low to me. Nowhere near
| even my old 1080p projector on my 150" projector screen.
| Let alone my current 4K projector on the 150" screen.
| crazygringo wrote:
| You're forgetting that the effective pixel width is wider
| because the two eye displays only overlap about three
| quarters of the way.
|
| So the 2064 pixels becomes about 2500 in practice. So a
| screen width of 1920 is perfectly doable.
|
| The image doesn't get "softer", surprisingly, because of
| the constant resampling at 90 or 120 hZ with tiny
| constant head movement. Any individual frame might be a
| little softer, but the actual viewing experience doesn't
| lose any detail at all.
|
| Yes, the virtual screen is huge. It's like IMAX. But it's
| not a problem -- it's actually great. It's not a bug,
| it's a feature. Now when I go to a movie theater, I find
| the screen annoyingly small.
|
| If you find the quality of the virtual screen on the
| Quest 3 to be low, first make sure you use an app like
| Skybox that lets you make the screen as large as desired.
| And then second, do a live comparison with the same
| content on your laptop (play a file, not a streaming
| service that might deliver a different bitrate). You'll
| find that you really are seeing all the same 1080p
| detail.
| SirMaster wrote:
| It's nowhere close for me since I can clearly see the
| individual pixels and aliasing of the Quest 3 screen.
|
| But I cannot see the individual pixels and aliasing on my
| TVs, computer monitors, and projector screens.
|
| The PPD (pixels per degree) of the Quest 3 is about 25.
| The average human eye has the vision capability of about
| 60 PPD+.
|
| Plus after using OLED TVs and monitors I can't go back to
| using an LCD for video, so the contrast in dark scenes
| looks poor and washed out to me in the quest.
|
| In this regard the AVP is much better as it's using OLED
| panels with near-infinite contrast.
|
| Otherwise, at home I am normally used to movies on my
| 150" 4K native JVC projector setup where I sit about 11ft
| away from it giving me about a 53 degree horizontal FOV.
| I don't want it to be any larger of my FOV, and I
| wouldn't want to in VR either.
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _It 's nowhere close for me since I can clearly see the
| individual pixels and aliasing of the Quest 3 screen._
|
| That doesn't make it not 1080p -- which is what you were
| originally claiming it was less than.
|
| I can absolutely see the individual pixels on my 1080p
| projector too. And on my iPad. And in my Quest. It's not
| a problem. It's inherent to 1080p content. It's just what
| the content _is_.
|
| And I'm happy you've got $5,000+ to drop on a 4K
| projector, with the space for a 150" screen. But 99+% of
| people aren't comparing their VR headset to that. If I
| were you, I wouldn't be watching something on a VR
| headset either.
| astrange wrote:
| Often the other people in your house would like to be
| excluded from the movies you're watching, for instance
| because they want to sleep and don't want the light
| leakage.
| barbazoo wrote:
| How many people watch tv in bed, is that a thing?
| zmmmmm wrote:
| It doesn't bother you that your spouse can't see it?
|
| Even with an iPad, they are still sharing the space with you
| because they peripherally see what you are are doing,
| watching, etc. If something particularly interesting was on
| the screen you could point it out to them etc. I can
| completely believe it's mind blowing (I do it with my Quest
| 3), but I can't see how this isn't something that will
| ultimately harm your connectedness to the people around you.
| darrenf wrote:
| I haven't read _every_ review of the AVP, but I 've read a few
| (not skim-read) - this, the Verge, Gruber, some others - and
| while everyone waxes lyrical about the movie watching experience,
| I haven't noticed a single comment about whether you can actually
| have a drink while doing so. I can't easily drink from a
| glass/can with a Quest 3 on my face. Would I be able to with an
| AVP?
| jlintz wrote:
| Use a straw
| saagarjha wrote:
| I find it to be pretty easy; some friends said they had trouble
| though. You can't see what you're drinking once you bring it
| close to your mouth, though.
| ghaff wrote:
| A broader way to put it is whether people really want a
| completely immersive experience for most purposes. I mostly
| don't.
| filoleg wrote:
| Drank a can of beer while wearing AVP this past weekend. No
| issues whatsoever, the device profile isn't obtrusive enough to
| interfere.
|
| I was struggling to do that with Meta Quest 2 before tho, as
| the shape of it on my face ends up hitting the top of the can
| sometimes, and it is just straight up not the best experience.
| For that case, yeah, a straw would help.
| wilsonnb3 wrote:
| lots of comments on the vision pro subreddit are saying that a
| straw is somewhere between very helpful and essential.
| astrange wrote:
| It's not a problem (depending on cup shape), but having
| anything very close to the camera breaks the passthrough
| illusion and can be uncomfortable.
| kungfupawnda wrote:
| I have the disposable income but I already feel so alienated from
| the world as a software engineer. Especially post-covid. My mind
| is nudging me to go out and socialize or go on an adventure. I
| might purchase this as a tech geek, but I know I would benefit
| more from investing the small fortune in something that maximized
| my social growth (i've no idea what that would be..) All in all,
| I guess if it was cheaper, I wouldn't evaluate this on such an
| intellectual/philosophical level..
| bemusedthrow75 wrote:
| The equivalent sum of money gets you _several_ somethings that
| maximise your social growth. A musical instrument and an
| amplifier. A competent bicycle. A squash racquet. A digital
| camera or a vintage camera, a kitted out darkroom and a
| membership to a photography club. You could do all of that for
| the price of Vision Pro.
| tim333 wrote:
| For a brief period you'd have lots of interaction from people
| saying hey what's that thing?
| ChicagoBoy11 wrote:
| $3500 buys you quite a few rounds for folks at a bar... bound
| to instantly make you some friend hehehe.
| reducesuffering wrote:
| Or better yet, invest in being able to tend bar yourself.
| seydor wrote:
| Most documented flop in history
| mouzogu wrote:
| > 1. locked down by apple's walled garden/OS (no foss, no
| customisation)
|
| > 2. way too expensive for an impulse purchase (for the average
| consumer. for example you could buy 7 Quest 3's)
|
| > 3. battery life
|
| for me, point 1 kills it. reason i would never buy it.
|
| proprietary battery connector & 1 monitor limit is a very typical
| apple move.
|
| i see it as another (albeit cool) vehicle for selling apps and
| subscriptions. neither of which i'm interested in.
|
| its really a shame that such great hardware is hobbled by apples
| OS.
| cmiller1 wrote:
| If people DO start replacing other devices for video content like
| their televisions with VR experiences I'm kind of excited about
| the implications for interior design. Imagine the living room no
| longer having to be TV centric.
| deng wrote:
| Finally, a review that talks about that it is basically
| impossible to _share_ this 3499$ device with others. This is such
| a glaring miss on Apple 's part, I can't believe all the other
| reviewers simply ignored this fact.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| Yeah given the 20+ sizes of light seals & possible use of
| prescription lenses.. this is not a device for sharing.
|
| And that's ignoring the software issues from Apples willful
| ignorance around user profiles/accounts on other devices in the
| iOS/iPad ecosystem ..
| FireBeyond wrote:
| Not to mention the pundits (and Apple) talking about re-
| imagining the family movie night and theater going
| experiences.
|
| Huh, yeah, Mom and Dad and their 2.2 kids on the couch, all
| plugged in to an AVP, for only $14,000 (I'll round down to 2
| kids)...
| bnolsen wrote:
| I'm not sure it's appropriate to use "apple" and "share" in the
| same sentence. /s It's a problem with VR in general. I have a
| quest 1 which actually wasn't too hard to share with my kids.
| The novelty did wear off after some months.
| threetonesun wrote:
| From the company that refuses to allow for multiple user
| accounts on an iPad.
| tootie wrote:
| Honestly, I believe it's very intentional. The idea is this
| device will be personal, like a phone or watch. Not a device
| you'll park in dock at home. If you have a family, they'll all
| need their own headset.
| deng wrote:
| I also believe it's intentional, and it fits very well with
| the dystopian marketing towards young singles and divorced
| dads. However, this alone would be a showstopper for me. The
| idea to buy a 3.5k$ device, which is ideal for watching
| media, and not being able to lend it to my wife or kids, is
| just ridiculous.
| dcchambers wrote:
| This is the key part: I wrote in the
| productivity section of yesterday's Article, "To put it even more
| strongly, the Vision Pro is, I suspect, the future of the Mac."
| I'm kind of irritated at myself for not making one critical
| observation: the Vision Pro is the future of the Mac if Apple
| makes software choices that allow it to be. I'm
| mostly referring to the Mac's dramatically larger degree of
| openness relative to other platforms like iPadOS: so many of the
| capabilities of a Mac are not because of its input method, but
| because applications and users have far fewer constraints on what
| they can do, and it will be difficult to replace the Mac if the
| same constraints that exist in iPadOS exist in visionOS.
| Frankly, I'm dubious Apple will allow that freedom, and I should
| have tempered my statement because of that. I do think that
| visionOS is much more compelling for productivity than the iPad
| is, thanks to the infinite canvas it enables, but if you have to
| jump through the same sort of hoops to get stuff done that you do
| with the iPad, well, that ability to project a Mac screen into
| the Vision Pro is going to be essential.
|
| If Apple _seriously_ wants to make this the general purpose
| computing device of the future, it needs to be 100% as open as
| the Mac and other PC platforms.
|
| Locking this things down like iOS/iPad OS is going to _severely_
| limit the potential, and that makes me very sad.
|
| Of course this is Apple, and like any publicly traded company
| they see $$$ above all else, and they know they can make the most
| money by locking the device down, forcing people to use approved
| apps purchased only via the approved app store, and doing
| everything they can to prevent people from _truly_ owning the
| device they bought.
| mhink wrote:
| If I'm being completely honest, I don't think the AVP itself
| needs to be as open as a Mac, but I'd absolutely expect it to
| be able to act as a window manager for a paired Mac. It's
| really, really surprising that it only comes with the ability
| to project an entire Mac screen into VR instead of letting the
| user break out individual windows within the space.
| gmuslera wrote:
| A big problem of AR is the other people. Google Glass wasn't so
| awkward looking, but it still had negative reactions from other
| people that could be afraid of being recorded, or information
| gathered from them, or apps that do something "fancy" with the
| people you see like mood detection, to mention something tame.
|
| We are not anymore in the internet or technology of 2014, you can
| put significant intelligence over what you see, and people may be
| afraid even of things that technology can't do yet or at least
| that Apple should forbid in some stage (you don't have to go as
| far as an AR app that shows everyone around you naked, just
| recognizing faces and show personal data and selected social
| networks information is bad enough).
|
| And that is beyond updates in hardware (at least, while it is
| visible that you are using it) or software.
| mark_l_watson wrote:
| That was a fine review and telling of his experiences. I am
| fairly wealthy and my wife encourages me to buy any toys I want
| (advantages of 40+ years of marriage!), but I found it easy to
| resist the purchase. Do I think that in a few years Vision Pro
| version 2 or 3 will be a must buy? Yes, indeed!
|
| I just didn't want to go through early product hassles.
|
| I have bought Go, Oculus 1, and Oculus 2 products. The Oculus 2
| hits a sweet spot: I always use it once or twice a day now for 5
| to 15 minutes to run around playing ping pong, watching live
| concerts for 1 or 2 minutes just to see what performers are like,
| etc. I should have bought an Oculus 3, probably, but for quick
| fun the older model is just fine.
|
| I hate to bet against Apple but Meta may win the escapist just
| having fun market. Two Apple products have however totally
| changed my life style: the Apple Watch lets me comfortably
| function in the world while having no other digital device with
| me: perfect for quick calls, messaging, checking calendar, etc.
| while I am out of my home. Much less intrusive to being a human
| being than carrying around an iPhone. The other product is the
| iPad, which does a little of everything, and is such a great form
| factor. I have an Apple Pro Display XDR monitor that pairs
| perfectly with a modern iPad Pro.
|
| I look forward to something like the Vision Pro in the future
| that revolutionizes my life like the Apple Watch and the iPad.
|
| EDIT: it is true that a good iPad Pro and an Apple Pro Display
| XDR together cost about $9000 and as spectacular as watching
| movies on this combination is, apparently the Vision Pro for
| $3500 is better, the iPad Pro and Pro Display XDR also have other
| excellent functionality.
| lm28469 wrote:
| The only argument for owning a vision pro is that I could do
| _more_ of everything I'm trying to quit or reduce, hard sell, and
| I doubt I'm in the minority on this one
| Symmetry wrote:
| When the VisionPro first went public I wondered if I should
| regret pre-ordering a SimulaVR[1] but it seems like for
| productivity at least I probably made a good choice. We'll see
| when it actually arrives though.
|
| [1]https://simulavr.com/
| ukuina wrote:
| Doesn't it have a 100-degree FOV?
| steveBK123 wrote:
| The MacOS virtual display limitations seems like a real achilles
| heel for no good reason.
|
| The technical reason is wireless bandwidth for the virtual
| display.
|
| But AVP isn't wireless!! You've already got a wire running down
| from your head to the battery pack on your waist. And from there
| in a real productivity setting presumably you've got the battery
| pack plugged into the wall. So what's the harm in having offered
| a TB4 input to allow multiple displays from your MacOS device?
|
| Just feels like an aesthetic "no wires / no ports" thing which is
| fine if not for the giant power wire!
| zhobbs wrote:
| The latency is too high for me using the wireless Mac display
| on Vision Pro. Would be a lot better if we could use that
| wire...maybe it's possible?
| steveBK123 wrote:
| Yes I also saw the latency complaints which is obviously
| another artifact of deciding to go wireless on a device
| that.. still has a wire!
| lloda wrote:
| Apple sells a wire. It's $300.
| robg wrote:
| The assumption that it's v1 and will only get better seems to
| miss the physics and battery limitations. Magic Leap spent
| billions trying to overcome the physics of seeing in high
| definition. How soon we forget...
|
| Moreover, are the latest iPhones or iPads really that much better
| than the first versions, each seems like incremental
| improvements, not dramatic leaps forward.
| mikeyouse wrote:
| These two points seem related;
|
| * The assumption that it's v1 and will only get better seems to
| miss the physics and battery limitations
|
| * Are the latest iPhones or iPads really that much better than
| the first versions
|
| Batteries are one of the few things aside from the camera and
| screen resolution where things are substantially and obviously
| better from a decade ago. The iPhone 5S was released a decade
| ago - it had a 1,560mah battery that weighed ~40g and got you
| 10 hours of video playback at 1136-by-640 resolution. The
| iPhone 15 Pro has a 3,300 mah battery that weighs about the
| same and provides over 20 hours of playback at 2556-by-1179
| resolution.
|
| Similar improvements int he AVP's batteries would be a huge
| boon.
| robg wrote:
| Given how long this has been in development, I'm surprised that
| Apple didn't buy a studio like MGM or Paramount+CBS. If AVP is
| best as a consumption device, creating next generation content
| and especially on top of events like the Grammys and Super Bowl
| would accelerate adoption. Folks are raving at how Avarar looks,
| and Cameron has another 4 or 5 in the works.
| LeonardoTolstoy wrote:
| I find it somewhat interesting that a good number of the articles
| about this don't seem to go into details about eye strain. I
| don't think I'm mistaken in thinking that even if it doesn't seem
| like it your eyes are going to be focused on a screen image that
| is what? 2 inches in from of your eyes. Given the recommendations
| when reading a book (which is further away although maybe not so
| much to matter) how does that work with something that seems to
| be being sold for continuous use over a 2 hour period?
|
| The FAQ from Apple does suggest breaks every 20 minutes "as you
| become acclimated". I don't quite know what that means for
| someone who, say, uses it for 2 uninterrupted hours a day to
| watch movies for example.
| crazygringo wrote:
| There is no eye strain. As far as your eyes are concerned, the
| light is the same as if it's coming from meters away, not
| inches. Watching a two hour movie feels the same as doing it in
| a theater.
|
| And taking 20 minute breaks is really more to do with motion --
| using VR makes some people feel nauseous at first because of a
| mismatch between what your eyes are telling you and what your
| body is. But that's more apparent with games. It's a non-issue
| if you're sitting still watching a movie. No breaks needed.
| ericpauley wrote:
| I'm very curious what focal length they're actually targeting
| here. I figured they'd put the image at infinity or even ever
| so slightly past, but the fact they're selling "reader"
| lenses for it makes me concerned that this isn't the case.
|
| Related: I've had success over the past few years
| purposefully correcting my computer monitor to be at
| ~infinity focal distance (EndMyopia method). The idea of
| using AVP to achieve this focal distance consistently
| (whereas in real life it depends on careful head placement
| compared to monitor) is quite tantalizing, though the lens
| pricing is pretty obsurd.
| crazygringo wrote:
| It's usually around 2 m / 6 ft for most headsets. I don't
| think there's any reason why the AVP would be different.
| jethack wrote:
| If you put a screen 1 inch away from your eye, your eye can't
| focus on it properly.
|
| To adjust for this, the optics in all VR headsets are set up so
| that the "focal distance" is around 1-2m.
|
| Articles aren't really addressing this concern because this
| kind of eye strain has been a "solved problem" in the VR space
| for a long time, so any tech reviewers wouldn't pay attention
| to it even if it's a good question.
| PreInternet01 wrote:
| OK, all the upbeat Vision Pro articles have one theme in common:
| "Like the original iPod or iPhone, you will first ridicule it,
| then realize you can't compete with it, then put one [in your
| pocket]."
|
| Which... is reasonable, I guess? But it does ignore two quite
| significant elephants in the room:
|
| 1. No, I will not put that on my face, nor accept anyone in my
| proximity to do so without [social] repercussions (see: Google
| Glass)
|
| 2. No, it does not do _anything_ I actually _want_. My 4K, soon
| 5K, soon 8K monitor displays my movies, code, or whatever, just
| fine, and the fact that I can get custom overlays or whatever,
| while making me nauseous, just isn 't that appealing? (see:
| anything Oculus/Meta, Microsoft, HTC, etc. have achieved so far:
| some subset of fans will lap their product up, but broad
| marketplace acceptance is... _nowhere to be found_?)
|
| It's quite possible that VR/AR will take over the world at some
| point, but right now, it more seems like 3D TV/cinema: a supply-
| side fad that lacks consumer acceptance.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| Once the shiny new thing gets old, this is going to be reduced
| to a 3D YouTube viewer. The size is too large, and the
| practicality and long term vision is just not there for it to
| transcend into a workhorse device.
|
| "Those are air bubbles," he snapped. "That means there's space
| in there. Make it smaller." -Steve Jobs
|
| Strap this onto your face and enjoy the ride. -Tim Cook
| pzo wrote:
| Many articles don't address visionOS limitations for 3rd party
| app developers. Everyone want to have a killer app but many ideas
| are simply not possible because:
|
| 1) there is no access to video/depthmap stream like in iPhone
| ARKit so it's not possible to roll your down Object Detection or
| ML Model or even simple QRCode scanner
|
| 2) Latency for Image Tracking seems to be around 1-2fps comparing
| to iPhone ARKit
|
| 3) in some WWDC videos hand tracking seems to be not as precise
| and also having latency
|
| 4) You cannot implement something similar like Mac Expose because
| iOS/iPadOS/visionOS is much more limited than MacOS
|
| 5) At least on iOS/iPad depthmap from lidar is much worse than
| those provided from TrueDepth (and even those got significantly
| worse from iPhone 14+)
|
| Overall for productivity I find some future iteration of XReal
| glasses more compelling and better direction:
|
| - much cheaper
|
| - very lightweight
|
| - work with connected to desktop or mobile phone
|
| - can have lower latency since connected directly with usb-c
| cable
|
| - can possibly have less software limitation if connected to
| desktop
|
| Ideally I would like to have some combination of google glasses /
| meta ray-ban / xreal so that you can wear it outdoor for simple
| HUD and AI voice control but can be connected to smartphone or
| laptop to provide AR experience similar like in xreal but just
| with better resolution.
| LZ_Khan wrote:
| Yes.. there are way too many developer restrictions on the
| VisionOS. There are so many use cases regarding eyetracking +
| external facing cameras that are just not possible with the
| current dev ecosystem.
| duped wrote:
| After about a decade of supporting 3rd party software on Apple
| platforms (now, against my will and advice most of the time) I
| think other people need to come to the realization that Apple
| doesn't give a shit about 3rd party developers and their
| ultimate goal is to block you from making anything more useful
| than what Apple provides as first party software.
|
| All APIs are provided begrudgingly and with a deep distrust of
| anyone using them and as much friction placed between
| developers and users.
| lukev wrote:
| After working on it for several days, I can't really disagree
| with anything in here. Strictly speaking, it's not better or more
| productive than my large double 4k monitors.
|
| But I am enjoying using it for work in a way I haven't heard
| reflected yet, that touches on some people's complaints about
| window management. Rather than surrounding myself with a "sphere
| of screens", I find it more pleasing to align windows with the
| walls of the room I'm actually in. Notes, todo lists, calendars,
| email, all open at the same time up against the walls of my
| physical room. I stand at my standing desk as usual, with my
| macbook display in front of me, and then I walk around to look at
| different things.
|
| It may not be better but it's a different, pleasant experience.
|
| Also, art is _great_ on the VP. I put the album art of the
| currently playing music full size on one wall and it 's actually
| given me a new appreciation for that.
| pie420 wrote:
| Just a little note, you can totally write things on notes in
| the physical world and tape them around your room. It's even
| quite pleasant to write on paper or chalkboard and to cross
| items off as they are completed.
| lukev wrote:
| What is the purpose of this comment?
| neogodless wrote:
| It's almost like you're surprised that _virtual_ reality is
| imitating reality.
| losvedir wrote:
| Hey, that's my setup, too!
|
| Is there a way to manipulate the windows that I'm missing, or
| do you physically get up and attach the screens? I can't seem
| to find a way to adjust the... yaw?... without grabbing the
| window, walking, and turning.
|
| And along those lines, that's also the only way I've found to
| have smaller windows far away. Otherwise pushing a window away
| also blows it up to an unreasonably large size, and I can't
| make it much smaller by grabbing the corner. In contrast, a
| window near you can be the size of a large iPad, which you can
| then get up and walk to the wall, with it maintaining its size.
| lukev wrote:
| Yeah, I haven't found a way around that. Hoping for "advanced
| window control" in a future version of visionOS. That and
| curved windows.
|
| Although, it isn't a huge deal for me now. Walking around a
| physical space is part of the "new way of working" I'm
| exploring. Monitors beat the AVP if I'm going to be parked in
| a desk anyway, but the AVP unlocks a workflow in which I'm
| fully digital but also less tethered to a desk, which is
| interesting to me.
|
| If Apple could find a reasonable solution for typing on a
| non-physical keyboard I'd be very happy. Not sure I want to
| resort to Keyboard Pants.
| losvedir wrote:
| Heh, I hope they introduce typing on your lap or a desk for
| touch typers. It seems like it should be feasible with good
| hand tracking and maybe some AI. So not so much where you
| touch, but which fingers are doing what. If passwords can
| be deduced by desk vibrations, it should be possible...
| lukev wrote:
| I'd even be willing to put in the effort to learn a
| completely new set of finger gestures for typing,
| provided it was ergonomic and had equivalent speed to a
| keyboard after an initial learning curve.
|
| Even something like an American Sign Language interpreter
| would be amazing... and could learn to speak to deaf
| people, to boot.
| cheeselip420 wrote:
| Its a digital headcrab, eating your attention.
| amelius wrote:
| Can we try it somewhere? I feel tempted to buy one, try it and
| probably return it if what I read about temperature, FoV and
| battery life turns out to be true. Is that ok, or does anyone
| think that is not an ethical thing to do?
| Rolcol wrote:
| You can schedule a demo at the Apple Store
| amelius wrote:
| Thanks. I'm worried though that a short demo will not give a
| good impression of issues like temperature and weight.
| ChicagoBoy11 wrote:
| It won't. At the store I had no qualms about comfort, but
| of course taking it home I started to see what many of the
| reviewers were saying. I think the demo experience will
| very nicely showcase the major selling points of the
| device, and quite honestly the only way to really get at
| the rough edges is to spend considerable more time with it
| than they'd allow you to do.
| ChicagoBoy11 wrote:
| Apple's policy specifically states that you have a 14 day
| return policy if you are not satisfied with your product. I
| think if you genuinely think that, if the product reaches some
| realistic expectation of yours, you'd happily continue to own
| it and fully pay for it, then it is morally ok to buy it
| knowing that if it doesn't you'll return it. But if you are
| squarely in the "I can absolutely not afford this but it would
| be fun to play with it for free on their dime for a couple
| weeks", then I'd argue that it is morally very questionable.
| But, having said that, I can assure you their pricing and sales
| model has built in those considerations as well, so there's
| that perspective, too.
| amelius wrote:
| Thank you. However, on thinking about it some more I do think
| that a little bit of dishonesty is warranted since Apple is
| being dishonest by not painting the full picture and leaving
| the external battery and cable out of view in most of their
| advertising, for instance.
|
| So my rule would be: if Apple's advertising would make you
| buy it even though the reviews and HN comments would not make
| you buy it, then you can still buy it.
| gnicholas wrote:
| In the Bay Area, appointments are booked for a week. If you
| want to buy without an appointment, you can return within 14
| days as you said. But if you need prescription lenses, those
| take a while to arrive, and may not be returnable in any event
| (IDK).
| callwhendone wrote:
| I wasn't sure about the Vision Pro until I saw how negative
| HackerNews was about it. I'm sure it'll be a massive success now.
| chx wrote:
| We had no doubts before but the harm this will cause is
| unbelievable.
|
| At least until now you kind of sort of was forced to interact
| with actual human beings if you met them face to face although
| already the smartphone made a dent in that. Now... much less.
| See https://disconnect.blog/apples-vision-pro-headset-deserves/
| for more.
|
| Of course, it'll be a success, everyone was in agreement openly
| wearing a bluetooth phone headset
| https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bluetooth_headset.jp...
| was basically a sure sign of the wearer being an asshole but
| Apple painted it white , rotated it downwards and presto! it's
| now trendy.
| adolph wrote:
| Projected certainty orthogonal to predictive power.
|
| https://slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releases-i...
| blashyrk wrote:
| For me it's the opposite, I can't believe people are so excited
| for it when it seems to be technologically severely undercooked
| and/or on par or slightly better than existing, much cheaper
| products. I have to assume it's because it's an Apple product.
| If it were a HTC headset with the exact same specs, I think
| most people would just shrug and keep scrolling.
| nomel wrote:
| > slightly better than existing, much cheaper products
|
| I've watched many reviews by hardcore VR enthusiasts, and
| none of them have suggested it's only "slightly" better, with
| the only comparable clarity coming from devices that are only
| available through business contracts. Comparing it to my
| 2/3/Quest Pro (for the short session that I did), I also
| didn't see anything "slight" about the improvements.
|
| Which other headsets have you used that you're comparing it
| to?
| sahila wrote:
| Totally an Apple effect, but it being Apple vs HTC also lends
| belief that this product will blossom larger because it has
| far greater potential (apple silicon, app store, and past
| success) and bigger pockets with a strong conviction to make
| it succeed. HTC unfortunately only fulfills they can make a
| hardware product, not an ongoing ecosystem.
| dvngnt_ wrote:
| HTC couldn't even if they wanted to. it's a long time from
| their windows mobile and android innovative days.
|
| as a standalone it's best in class minus 6dof gaming. people
| are excited for the future of this and other products
| ilrwbwrkhv wrote:
| Eh I think we are overthinking the "strategy" here. This article
| seems like those who "trade" stocks with intense technical charts
| and lines.
|
| The real reason Apple did this was they kind of had to? There is
| a sense that the future is something to do with AR/VR and Apple
| had not released a new product in a while.
|
| But the headset still has all the issues of other headsets: poor
| field of view, heavy on the face and expensive.
|
| I think the real signals here are that the current big tech
| companies have all tried and failed.
|
| The field for disruptors here are open. If anyone has a real
| pirate spirit and can hack together a better ar glasses with a
| linux os, it might just be the beginnings of the next Apple.
| chx wrote:
| https://disconnect.blog/apples-vision-pro-headset-deserves/
|
| > During the pandemic, we got a very clear picture of the
| incentives of the tech industry. Once many of us were isolated in
| our homes to avoid contracting or spreading a contagious virus,
| tech companies saw their revenues and profits soar as we spent
| much more time in front of our screens engaging with their
| services. Companies that were already massive with almost
| unimaginable valuations and earnings took it to a new level
| because we were so isolated from one another, and it showed just
| how much they're incentivized to get us to spend more time
| looking at our screens.
|
| ...
|
| > I see the Vision Pro and these attempts to have us work in the
| metaverse or go through our lives with headsets on our faces
| through a similar lens. The goal of these companies is to isolate
| us so more of our interactions occur through the products and
| services they offer, instead of just living our lives and
| actually interacting with people throughout the course of our
| days instead of apps and chatbots.
| amelius wrote:
| Also companies want eyeballs and there is no better way than a
| VR helmet.
| oflannabhra wrote:
| FOV is determined by the distance of the screens from your eyes,
| which are user-specific. Lots of users have reported [0] that
| switching to a 21W [1] light seal, or removing the light seal
| altogether [2] provides a massive FOV increase.
|
| [0] -
| https://www.reddit.com/r/VisionPro/comments/1aiuwm4/change_f...
|
| [1] -
| https://www.reddit.com/r/VisionPro/comments/1ai9eqc/light_se...
|
| [2] -
| https://www.reddit.com/r/VisionPro/comments/1aiq3si/wtf_remo...
| nerbert wrote:
| Why wasn't this incorporated by Apple in the original product?
| oflannabhra wrote:
| I have no idea. I'd imagine using a light shield increases
| the relative brightness of the displays, which could be
| important to Apple.
|
| Some users cannot use the thinnest lightshield: their eyes or
| eyelashes touch the lens.
|
| Apple did make them interchangeable and exchangeable (for
| free), so it seems like the major FOV issue is with their
| scanning and auto-selection (for some users).
| tootie wrote:
| I'm pretty surprised that a product that's spent this long in
| development and is being released with such a high price tag
| would still need to be modified by users for what is arguable
| the most critical spec. And also I have no idea was 21W and 33W
| refer to so it seems unlikely the average user will have any
| idea.
| oflannabhra wrote:
| Footnote 2 explains what each number means.
| skc wrote:
| I've been somewhat surprised to see that early adopters
| unironically venture outside with these things.
|
| That alone tells me that maybe Apple is on to something. It's
| their biggest bet yet and they are rarely ever wrong.
|
| Not for me though.
| jsz0 wrote:
| Maybe I'm just too old for this shit but I'd much rather spend
| $3500 on a set of excellent displays for my computer and still
| have money left over to buy a huge TV for entertainment purposes.
| Might even have enough leftover to buy an Oculus for occasional
| novelty use.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| He started off talking about how Vision Pro is not an open
| platform like MacOS and then he focused on how his productivity
| use case couldn't be realised because of lack of multiple
| screens. But he failed to draw the link between these.
|
| Ultimately the upside of an open platform is that you can know
| with certainty that _eventually_ literally any common need or
| deficiency it has will be addressed by the open market - if you
| are desperate enough you can pay and do it yourself. For example,
| when people didn 't like Microsoft's desktop updates they created
| an entire alternative desktop shells. And there are now something
| like a dozen of these, some of which are / were commercial
| products. In an open platform, anything not addressed by the
| platform owner simply becomes a market opportunity for a third
| party developer. Of course, there are lots of downsides, but this
| is the upside.
|
| But Apple's choice here to ship VisionOS as a fork of iOS and
| more importantly as a completely locked down system means that
| his ultimate conclusion is "maybe Apple will fix this" and
| alludes to hints of rumours they might do it. But this is what we
| are reduced to - disempowered, we simply hope that our overlords
| will have mercy on us, their interests coincidentally aligning
| with ours long enough that they do what we want. Or you buy into
| a competitor, but this just gives you a choice of tyrannies, not
| actual freedom.
|
| None of this matters if you think Vision OS is a niche or a dead
| end. But if you actually buy into the idea that down the track
| this is the ultimate future of all computing, then it should be
| very concerning to be completely disempowered over it. I actually
| love the idea of a truly "spatially" aware operating system and I
| think eventually this is indeed where computing will go. So that
| is why I'm both excited by and very concerned about the direction
| Apple has taken.
| dkonofalski wrote:
| Isn't that a little naive and idealistic, though? I love FOSS
| software as much as the next HN user but, for the vast majority
| of it, it only does the most basic tasks possible and, with
| few, rare exceptions, gets abandoned or obsoleted when the
| developers decide that it's not worth their time to work on it
| anymore. The market can't and won't solve every
| issue/need/deficiency that people have and, even with your
| example, the number of issues that every single one of those
| desktop replacements had dwarfed most of the benefits that
| using them had. For the vast majority of people that aren't
| tech nerds like us, the "locked down system" is preferable
| because it gives an incredibly consistent, polished experience
| for 99% of the use cases people need it for at the expense of
| the ability to customize it to your heart's content.
|
| It's the same situation as the loss of headphone jacks and
| removable batteries. Some of us care deeply about those things
| but, antithetically to the point you've made, the market has
| decided that those things are no longer important to the vast
| majority of people.
| dangus wrote:
| The discussion is kind of a waste of time. It isn't anywhere
| close to being an AR product. Tim basically already told us that
| this type of product would fail (mentioned in the article). It's
| being released to put the project to bed, if you ask me. "Ship or
| go home" is what the Apple board is saying. They'll be happy if
| it sells like hotcakes to cult members and they'll be happy if it
| fails big time so they can finally kill the development hell that
| is the project.
|
| Five more years won't fix it. Don't believe me? Look at the Meta
| Quest from 5 years ago compared to the Quest 3 or the Vision Pro
| for that matter. It's barely a different experience. Useful for
| games and videos and that's about it.
|
| This concept can't mess your hair and makeup up. It can't be
| something that you can only use in isolation for thousands of
| dollars. It quite literally needs decades of technological
| progress that may never happen.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-02-06 23:01 UTC)