3 ms·

I feel like I’m part of the small majority thinking that it’s a reasonable price. It’s the first generation of the product so I’m looking forward on seeing how

by bitbeq 3y ago

I feel like I’m part of the small majority thinking that it’s a reasonable price. It’s the first generation of the product so I’m looking forward on seeing how it changes in the future.

Turskarama 3y ago
It costs 7 times as much as a Meta Quest 3, for that you get: 1) double the resolution. 2) better (perfect?) passthrough (not sure how good it is on the Quest 3, apparently a lot better than the quest 2 which was pretty bad). 3) native hand tracking. This is again in beta for the Meta Quest, and I expect apple to do it better but again how much better is the question. 4) A front screen to show your eyes: this is ridiculous and I don't know why anyone would care enough about this feature to pay for a high resolution curved screen on the front of the device to enable it. If it's a short conversation you don't need to see my eyes, if it's a long conversation I'm taking the thing off. Technologically impressive but feels like a huge gimmick.
- netsharc 3y ago
  To point 4, I wonder if someone did the pros and cons and decided it was worth it. Imagine sitting around a table with several people "jacked-in" to their own headsets (e.g. all in a conference with the Berlin office), but you want to converse quickly with someone in the room - hah your camera will then be looking at Janice's front screen and this will be considered eye contact (although I guess it's not much different to a Zoom call). Looking forward to someone writing an app that tracks faces near the device and fakes giving them attention...
  - Turskarama 3y ago
    With face tracking and 4 people wearing the headset you could just put them anywhere in you FOV if you wanted to, no need to pass through and see physical screens showing a face through two levels of camera + screen. The whole point of VR is it's immersive, what "immersive" activity are you doing while also holding a conversation? The use cases are at odds. Sure I can imagine edge cases where it's kind of cool but I would pay exactly $0 for this feature if it was optional.
    - blitzar 3y ago
      I dont think they wanted VR - they wanted AR.
  - retSava 3y ago
    That is a pretty small use case to rationalize having an expensive, power hungry OLED screen on your portable headset. Also, it doesn't directly show your real eyes, it's a digital rendering of your face+eyes, using the eye tracking for showing where you look. Don't know how it gets all the small facial expressions though, or if it does that at all.

by bitbeq 3y ago

I feel like I’m part of the small majority thinking that it’s a reasonable price. It’s the first generation of the product so I’m looking forward on seeing how it changes in the future.

Turskarama 3y ago

It costs 7 times as much as a Meta Quest 3, for that you get: 1) double the resolution. 2) better (perfect?) passthrough (not sure how good it is on the Quest 3, apparently a lot better than the quest 2 which was pretty bad). 3) native hand tracking. This is again in beta for the Meta Quest, and I expect apple to do it better but again how much better is the question. 4) A front screen to show your eyes: this is ridiculous and I don't know why anyone would care enough about this feature to pay for a high resolution curved screen on the front of the device to enable it. If it's a short conversation you don't need to see my eyes, if it's a long conversation I'm taking the thing off. Technologically impressive but feels like a huge gimmick.

netsharc 3y ago
To point 4, I wonder if someone did the pros and cons and decided it was worth it. Imagine sitting around a table with several people "jacked-in" to their own headsets (e.g. all in a conference with the Berlin office), but you want to converse quickly with someone in the room - hah your camera will then be looking at Janice's front screen and this will be considered eye contact (although I guess it's not much different to a Zoom call). Looking forward to someone writing an app that tracks faces near the device and fakes giving them attention...
- Turskarama 3y ago
  With face tracking and 4 people wearing the headset you could just put them anywhere in you FOV if you wanted to, no need to pass through and see physical screens showing a face through two levels of camera + screen. The whole point of VR is it's immersive, what "immersive" activity are you doing while also holding a conversation? The use cases are at odds. Sure I can imagine edge cases where it's kind of cool but I would pay exactly $0 for this feature if it was optional.
  - blitzar 3y ago
    I dont think they wanted VR - they wanted AR.
- retSava 3y ago
  That is a pretty small use case to rationalize having an expensive, power hungry OLED screen on your portable headset. Also, it doesn't directly show your real eyes, it's a digital rendering of your face+eyes, using the eye tracking for showing where you look. Don't know how it gets all the small facial expressions though, or if it does that at all.