8 ms·

For me it comes down to optics. I've tried damn near every VR headset ever made, including many that never made it to production, and they all suffer from the s

For me it comes down to optics. I've tried damn near every VR headset ever made, including many that never made it to production, and they all suffer from the same core issue: poor optics. Even industrial headsets that costs thousands are still using flat screen and lenses with fixed focal points (with few exceptions, but even then nothing truly extraordinary). Current optical designs mean that there is a large out of focus area when you look anywhere that isn't forward. That's just never going to fly for the general consumer. For VR to truly go mainstream you needs an optical system that is truly sharp, edge to edge. That probably means some kind of active optical system (like reverse OIS) or some kind of magic lens that currently only exists in theory. Instead what manufactures keep doing is trading off FOV for sharpness. If Apple has implemented a new optics system here I think they have winner and the industry will change overnight. If it's the same as current designs just a little better it feels DOA to me. I'm optimistic because I can't imagine Apple, of all companies, putting out a headset that's blurry at the edges.

anonymouse008 3y ago
This is true - but let me say this, you couldn’t pay me to wear an Apple Watch all day and you won’t be able to pay me to wear a headset. There’s just no dang reason to use these things like their creators want. Someone needs to be brave in these organizations and say “hey look, we tried pushing Siri for years and never gained the loved adoption that chatGPT has, why are we trying the same strategy here?” If the compute offering is not excellent, it does not deserve to be in a new context. Period.
- themagician 3y ago
  I can imagine a headset that allows me to have the equivalent desktop space of quad HiDPI displays for the price of one display, and the ability to bring that anywhere. The ability to edit video on a display that is absolutely massive would be a win for me.
  - anonymouse008 3y ago
    Yes, this can definitely be true, but is the context really so that you can be social with someone else - or is it for you to have the creative space to work on an idea? I feel there's no idea of what the context is anymore - and that's what's killing all of these devices. No one can say 'this is the emphasis we gave these products for this reason' - because they all want the success of the iPhone, everyday use and wear. We have to allow the pendulum to swing back to specialized devices - that's why Teenage Engineering is so captivating.
    - crooked-v 3y ago
      You seem to be conflating "anywhere" and "social" in a way the post you're replying to wasn't using at all.
      - anonymouse008 3y ago
        I mean to speak to the visual displays facing outward to show facial expressions to the room - if a true rumor, that’s an odd way to spend a BOM
  - coffeebeqn 3y ago
    The price of one Apple display?
- ska 3y ago
  > you couldn’t pay me to wear an Apple Watch all day That's your preference, but it's clear that lots of people not just willingly, but enthusiastically do this; makes this an odd example. Likewise Siri/Alexa I guess - I would never use them but some people do dozens of times a day and love it.
  - anonymouse008 3y ago
    [read the rest of the thread :)] Yes yes yes - a lot of people enthusiastically drink 3+ CocaColas a day too! Doesn’t make it a good use of technology nor dietary choice :)
    - ska 3y ago
      Not really a useful analogy, I think. Most people do, or don't do, something that empirically is not optimal for their health. If your suggesting there is an objective downside - I think you have an uphill battle there.
      - anonymouse008 3y ago
        No, just engaging with the ‘everyone else does it’ part which felt emphasized. Proving lost potential is hard without an example of something better - which I would argue is the Oura ring, but less popular for different reasons. And for Siri and Alexa, you probably use ChatGPT, so you know the difference when you see it
        ska 3y ago
        I'm having trouble making sense of your point, I guess. You seem to try to draw a parallel between largely failed tech (VR) and largely successful tech (apple watches, etc), and then to massively popular consumer product (coke); then suggest there is 'bravery' in rejecting the 'way these creators want you to use their products' I sort of get the idea applied to VR as it has never really clicked for anything. But the analogies are all to things that are unambiguously successful with consumers. They are all very much "pull" not "push" at this point. Well, maybe less so with voice apps, that's more "bundle". I guess you lost me early in your argument, and I was trying to point out why (and figure out what you were actually trying to say)
- vineyardmike 3y ago
  > you couldn’t pay me to wear an Apple Watch all day > pushing Siri for years and never gained the loved adoption that chatGPT has, I say this politely, maybe you have bad taste? Lots of people voluntarily pay for an Apple Watch for the privilege of wearing it all day. When Apple released the HomePod mini it quickly grabbed market share against Alexa et al. Siri has been available on apple devices for years, and a huge chunk of consumers use it regularly. The nice thing about a lot of tech, is that you don’t have to use it how the creators want. The first gen Apple Watch didn’t focus on fitness and health, but the latest ones do became that’s how people used it. I’m not sure how you think the “Siri” strategy is repeated here, but Siri is a success. I’m very skeptical that apple will find a winner with a VR headset but you’re not exactly providing an argument that you understand consumers. A much simpler argument is that it’s too expensive and does too little - the original HomePod is a good example. Apple of all companies can make the hardware good, but ultimately it’s still very expensive to generate VR content.
  - anonymouse008 3y ago
    Just because there are sales, doesn’t make it good business. And I guess you’re right; the simplest argument with my taste is: VR/AR are technologies looking for solutions * meaningful solutions. And maybe SOL and others are right that hands free readers are the most meaningful solution for these head worn devices. [Apple Watch was always going to be fitness (everything before it was fitness). HomePod is amazing but not communicated correctly for people to know it’s there. Siri is horrid to deal with as a developer, tho dictation is amazing as an interface. There’s too much to talk about - basically Apple achieved the center of the digital life for all the devices Jobs put up on the screen in the 90s and now they need the new devices / activities and nothings been as universal as the past]
zmmmmm 3y ago
> Current optical designs mean that there is a large out of focus area when you look anywhere that isn't forward You sound like you are a year or two out of date with your "current" understanding. The industry has moved to pancake lenses which make the view clear edge to edge. There's no more out of focus peripheral view, in recent headsets you read and look around using your eyeballs and not your head just like you would naturally. It is already known that the Apple headset uses this updated optical system, along with micro OLED displays at super high resolution (approx double current industry standards). The clarity and focus are going to be absolutely amazing.
- themagician 3y ago
  You mean like the pancake lenses in the Quest Pro? Those are still what I'd consider garbage tier old tech. Probably the best we are going to get down the path of fixed focal point acrylic lenses, but definitely not what I'd call sharp edge to edge. The edges might qualify as "very soft" instead of "totally out of focus" but that's about the best you can say.
  - zmmmmm 3y ago
    Quest Pro is probably the leading example yes. If you're calling that garbage, then I think you're (a) setting impossibly high standards and (b) out of sync with most people's perception, as most people perceive these has having "edge to edge clarity".
    - themagician 3y ago
      Oddly enough, the reason I have so many VR headsets is because I mostly give demos to non-tech people. Quest Pro still gets the, "Pretty cool, but why is it so blurry," comments. Not as much as other headsets, but still enough that it will never fly for general use. Meta, to their credit, does a good job of masking the poor optics by keeping texture detail to a minimum in their own software and encouraging developers to do the same. I think people really into VR get so used to looking around with their head and having low expectations that they don't notice just how poor it is. By comparison it's good. In isolation, not so much.
intrasight 3y ago
My prediction is that negative refraction materials will arrive in a few years. Optics problems solved.

anonymouse008 3y ago

This is true - but let me say this, you couldn’t pay me to wear an Apple Watch all day and you won’t be able to pay me to wear a headset. There’s just no dang reason to use these things like their creators want. Someone needs to be brave in these organizations and say “hey look, we tried pushing Siri for years and never gained the loved adoption that chatGPT has, why are we trying the same strategy here?” If the compute offering is not excellent, it does not deserve to be in a new context. Period.

themagician 3y ago
I can imagine a headset that allows me to have the equivalent desktop space of quad HiDPI displays for the price of one display, and the ability to bring that anywhere. The ability to edit video on a display that is absolutely massive would be a win for me.
- anonymouse008 3y ago
  Yes, this can definitely be true, but is the context really so that you can be social with someone else - or is it for you to have the creative space to work on an idea? I feel there's no idea of what the context is anymore - and that's what's killing all of these devices. No one can say 'this is the emphasis we gave these products for this reason' - because they all want the success of the iPhone, everyday use and wear. We have to allow the pendulum to swing back to specialized devices - that's why Teenage Engineering is so captivating.
  - crooked-v 3y ago
    You seem to be conflating "anywhere" and "social" in a way the post you're replying to wasn't using at all.
    - anonymouse008 3y ago
      I mean to speak to the visual displays facing outward to show facial expressions to the room - if a true rumor, that’s an odd way to spend a BOM
- coffeebeqn 3y ago
  The price of one Apple display?
ska 3y ago
> you couldn’t pay me to wear an Apple Watch all day That's your preference, but it's clear that lots of people not just willingly, but enthusiastically do this; makes this an odd example. Likewise Siri/Alexa I guess - I would never use them but some people do dozens of times a day and love it.
- anonymouse008 3y ago
  [read the rest of the thread :)] Yes yes yes - a lot of people enthusiastically drink 3+ CocaColas a day too! Doesn’t make it a good use of technology nor dietary choice :)
  - ska 3y ago
    Not really a useful analogy, I think. Most people do, or don't do, something that empirically is not optimal for their health. If your suggesting there is an objective downside - I think you have an uphill battle there.
    - anonymouse008 3y ago
      No, just engaging with the ‘everyone else does it’ part which felt emphasized. Proving lost potential is hard without an example of something better - which I would argue is the Oura ring, but less popular for different reasons. And for Siri and Alexa, you probably use ChatGPT, so you know the difference when you see it
      - ska 3y ago
        I'm having trouble making sense of your point, I guess. You seem to try to draw a parallel between largely failed tech (VR) and largely successful tech (apple watches, etc), and then to massively popular consumer product (coke); then suggest there is 'bravery' in rejecting the 'way these creators want you to use their products' I sort of get the idea applied to VR as it has never really clicked for anything. But the analogies are all to things that are unambiguously successful with consumers. They are all very much "pull" not "push" at this point. Well, maybe less so with voice apps, that's more "bundle". I guess you lost me early in your argument, and I was trying to point out why (and figure out what you were actually trying to say)
vineyardmike 3y ago
> you couldn’t pay me to wear an Apple Watch all day > pushing Siri for years and never gained the loved adoption that chatGPT has, I say this politely, maybe you have bad taste? Lots of people voluntarily pay for an Apple Watch for the privilege of wearing it all day. When Apple released the HomePod mini it quickly grabbed market share against Alexa et al. Siri has been available on apple devices for years, and a huge chunk of consumers use it regularly. The nice thing about a lot of tech, is that you don’t have to use it how the creators want. The first gen Apple Watch didn’t focus on fitness and health, but the latest ones do became that’s how people used it. I’m not sure how you think the “Siri” strategy is repeated here, but Siri is a success. I’m very skeptical that apple will find a winner with a VR headset but you’re not exactly providing an argument that you understand consumers. A much simpler argument is that it’s too expensive and does too little - the original HomePod is a good example. Apple of all companies can make the hardware good, but ultimately it’s still very expensive to generate VR content.
- anonymouse008 3y ago
  Just because there are sales, doesn’t make it good business. And I guess you’re right; the simplest argument with my taste is: VR/AR are technologies looking for solutions * meaningful solutions. And maybe SOL and others are right that hands free readers are the most meaningful solution for these head worn devices. [Apple Watch was always going to be fitness (everything before it was fitness). HomePod is amazing but not communicated correctly for people to know it’s there. Siri is horrid to deal with as a developer, tho dictation is amazing as an interface. There’s too much to talk about - basically Apple achieved the center of the digital life for all the devices Jobs put up on the screen in the 90s and now they need the new devices / activities and nothings been as universal as the past]

zmmmmm 3y ago

> Current optical designs mean that there is a large out of focus area when you look anywhere that isn't forward You sound like you are a year or two out of date with your "current" understanding. The industry has moved to pancake lenses which make the view clear edge to edge. There's no more out of focus peripheral view, in recent headsets you read and look around using your eyeballs and not your head just like you would naturally. It is already known that the Apple headset uses this updated optical system, along with micro OLED displays at super high resolution (approx double current industry standards). The clarity and focus are going to be absolutely amazing.

themagician 3y ago
You mean like the pancake lenses in the Quest Pro? Those are still what I'd consider garbage tier old tech. Probably the best we are going to get down the path of fixed focal point acrylic lenses, but definitely not what I'd call sharp edge to edge. The edges might qualify as "very soft" instead of "totally out of focus" but that's about the best you can say.
- zmmmmm 3y ago
  Quest Pro is probably the leading example yes. If you're calling that garbage, then I think you're (a) setting impossibly high standards and (b) out of sync with most people's perception, as most people perceive these has having "edge to edge clarity".
  - themagician 3y ago
    Oddly enough, the reason I have so many VR headsets is because I mostly give demos to non-tech people. Quest Pro still gets the, "Pretty cool, but why is it so blurry," comments. Not as much as other headsets, but still enough that it will never fly for general use. Meta, to their credit, does a good job of masking the poor optics by keeping texture detail to a minimum in their own software and encouraging developers to do the same. I think people really into VR get so used to looking around with their head and having low expectations that they don't notice just how poor it is. By comparison it's good. In isolation, not so much.

intrasight 3y ago

My prediction is that negative refraction materials will arrive in a few years. Optics problems solved.