30 ms·
Apple VisionOS Simulator streaming wirelessly to Meta Quest headset
- jansan 3y agoAdditionally get holographic stickers of a pair of eyes, attach them to the front side of your Meta Quest and you are 99% there.
- OptoContrarian 3y agoEven better https://youtu.be/po6piXWU1TI https://youtu.be/po6piXWU1TI
- ozten 3y agoDemo Video https://twitter.com/zhuowei/status/1678226947560579072 https://twitter.com/zhuowei/status/1678226947560579072
- jakecopp 3y agoAlso on Mastodon without a possible login wall at https://notnow.dev/notice/AXXN5FibZ01OTCjtnE https://notnow.dev/notice/AXXN5FibZ01OTCjtnE Comments won't show on Twitter either.
- vaxman 3y ago[flagged]
- justsomeadvice0 3y agoThis strikes me as a very strange opinion, especially now when Threads has 100M users 5 days out and is expected to support ActivityPub. In any case: since the beginning, pointing and laughing at Mastodon (a single AP implementation) was always like saying "Yahoo Mail will never win the electronic messages war!!" - it misses the point, like, entirely.
- vaxman 3y ago“expected” before the 100M users or after? Masticate is dead tech. Pound sand.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- naillo 3y agoI wonder what the latency is
- nomel 3y agoFor wireless VR stuff, it's usually 25-40ms range. I believe the encoder hardware is the bottleneck at this point. New Quest 3 is supposed to have better hardware accelerators. I don't notice, with a couple virtual screens.
- jayd16 3y agoThere's also the specifics of how this is grabbing the simulator output and copies it out to the ALVR server. So possibly another frame or two of lag is introduced.
- nomel 3y agoI'm talking desktop screen to VR eye, with desktop streaming. So yes, that, plus simulator latency. I would think input latency should be pretty small.
- trafficante 3y agoQuest 3 will (hopefully) allow for higher bitrates and maybe AV1 support but I don’t see it having a huge impact on overall wireless latency. Decode time on the old SoC is only a few ms with h264 and really the only thing h265 brings to the table on a bandwidth unconstrained local network is 10bit color.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- nomel 3y agoHere are some latency measurements, showing you are correct: https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/jgfoco/oculus_link_bitrate_settings_latency/ https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/jgfoco/oculus_link_... I guess my notebook is the bottleneck, at higher bitrates, not the Quest!
- jimmySixDOF 3y agoThere is also a free to download Vision Pro UI panel simulator made by Nova, who have an excellent UI dev package on the Unity Asset Store. The demo is for the Quest Pro and source code with APK is on GitHub. https://github.com/NovaUI-Unity/AppleXRConcept/releases/tag/VisionOSDemo https://github.com/NovaUI-Unity/AppleXRConcept/releases/tag/...
- trafficante 3y agoI was extremely impressed at how well this demo functioned on my Quest Pro. Obviously I haven’t used the Apple HMD, but I was able to easily eye-select nearly every UI element in the demo (resize boxes were a bit wonky) and could even do the whole “pinch with hand in lap” thing from the Apple reveal. Surprisingly enough, I came away preferring where Meta is going with the whole “Direct Touch” thing (Quest users should have it under the Experimental tab in Settings). Lack of physical feedback (when using hand tracking only) is definitely an issue, but treating the virtual displays like physical touchscreens actually isn’t too bad. It’s definitely my preferred control scheme when I’m not using the controllers. I can even sorta type at a reasonable enough speed for emails/instant messaging - though nowhere near good enough for coding. Essentially you input text like a Boomer on an iPad (ie: slow one finger pecking) but at twice the speed because you can use two hands.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- dvh 3y agoNow I finally understand the purpose of virtual reality desktops. I put it on and my room is tidy.
- JKCalhoun 3y agoHow long until a slasher film features teens sitting around VR gaming while, unbeknownst to them in their tidy VR living room, Freddy Krueger is having a field day. That jump-scare when the one teen lifts up their headset to see Freddy inches away.
- bradgessler 3y agoI picture the person is dressed in a QR code suit. Encoded in it: "nothing to see here you lookie Lou!"
- jayd16 3y agoReminds me of Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex. A hacker is able to obscure their face in public by overlaying a logo into every onlookers' passthrough feed.
- birdyrooster 3y agoGhost in the Shell is so ahead of its time we will be catching up for many decades.
- bee_rider 3y agoIt was so cool, I want it to happen even though realistically we’ll all be background technician losers that exist to show how great The Major is.
- sobkas 3y agoWe all here dabble in technology(doesn't matter which one) so possibility of being some brainwashed meat puppet taking part of some covert war between powers that be is more likely. And there are fates that are even worse(think what was in that ship on international waters). GitS is a nightmare and cyberpunk for a reason.
- dag11 3y agoIs this stereoscopic? I don't see any mention in the readme or demo video link but based on the description of hooking the compositor, unless it's translating rapidly for left/right eyes or the simulator gives left+right textures in real time, this would be monoscopic right?
- coder543 3y agoThe description of the repo: “Take 3D stereoscopic screenshots in the visionOS emulator.”
- m3kw9 3y agoShould name it poor man’s Apple Vision
- varispeed 3y agoShould name it Pear Vision (read with an accent to sound like poor vision).
- ZiiS 3y agoGiven you need to be at least a millionaire to have an Apple Vision outside Apple I am not sure you assume this is only for poor people.
- Takennickname 3y agoPoor Man's X is just an English idiom.
- skhavari 3y agoYou mean Apple Vision SE
- breakpointalpha 3y agoI just bought a Quest Pro this weekend and was hoping to get something like this running. Apple should do the right thing and support early VisionOS development using the Quest Pro.
- asadm 3y agoWhat was your reasons for buying it. Just curious.
- andsoitis 3y ago> right thing and support early VisionOS development using the Quest Pro Why would that be the right thing? Quest Pro doesn’t have the same capabilities as Vision.
- mikered 3y agoIt does have the most important one - eye tracking
- cheerioty 3y agoAnd color passthrough, albeit not a great one. Still good enough to build and test experiences already!
- cowsup 3y agoNeither does a Mac, yet it's the only device that's allowed to develop for the headset.
- andsoitis 3y agoBut the simulator is designed to help you test your app, just like iOS apps that require touch/gestures/low battery/etc. can be tested on a macOS machine. If I were Apple, I wouldn’t voel their building tools that run on Quest in order to test your Vision app. What would be the point? It seems like such an opportunity cost that’s better spent on other things.
- codybontecou 3y agoIs there support for pass-through/AR simulation?
- floomk 3y agoHow long until apple blocks this? They are famous for protecting their walled garden and hostility towards cross platform development tools.
- andsoitis 3y ago> hostility towards cross platform development tools LLVM and clang are both cross platform
- smoldesu 3y agoLLVM was Open Source and supported GNU from the get-go, it didn't make sense to remove support after Apple bought up the core contributors. Clang is indeed an Apple original, but developing it without support for multiple platforms would be paramount to removing features supported in the underlying compiler. If either LLVM or Clang tried removing multiplatform support or totally relicensed itself, it would divide the community and make life hard for Apple. They could probably make WebKit a fully proprietary browser engine by rewriting the KHTML stuff, but what would they gain by removing features from an Open Source product they developed?
- floomk 3y agoLet me know when I can use those to develop an iOS app from Windows or Linux
- bredren 3y agoI’d guess Meta has better reasons to shut this down than Apple does. The project reinforces the idea that the Quest products are of low quality (evidenced by comments here). It also improves the developer experience the ecosystem of Meta’s competitor. Thus, providing greater pre-release momentum to the Vision Pro at Facebook’s cost.
- smoldesu 3y agoMeta can't shut this down. Sideloading has been a feature of the Quest since the start, stopping this would represent a paradigm shift for developers of the platform. > The project reinforces the idea that the Quest products are of low quality (evidenced by comments here). They are. That's why they cost $400 (game console territory) instead of $3,500 (OLED TV or iMac territory). "Comments here" will tell you the Quest is a failed product after 20 million units sold. The people on this website have never been representative of the market at-large.
- georgespencer 3y ago> "Comments here" will tell you the Quest is a failed product after 20 million units sold. The people on this website have never been representative of the market at-large. It's amazing how many people miss this crucial point. Apple and Meta share a high level ambition – to dominate the next wave of computing platform -- but that's pretty much the only similarity between them. If you look at Quest and Vision Pro and think about the constraints placed on the teams building them it seems like: 1. Apple's teams are given the constraint of producing an amazing user experience in terms of screens, gesture control, etc. Price flexes upwards to deliver this. 2. Meta's teams are given the constraint of achieving a mass market price, and the quality of the product flexes down to achieve this. Apple's position makes sense to me. They are no longer an underdog[^1] and can fast follow anyone who has a more compelling vision for AR/VR which launches before they get theirs out the door. Meta needed to get this going before Apple for obvious reasons. That's why, for example, of the 20 million units you referred to as being sold, 5 million of them (!) had safety recall notices because the fabric of one of the components caused such serious skin irritation that some number of users were hospitalised. Meta can move fast and break things (& people), but Apple can't do that any more. (No judgement of either company.) That all makes sense… but the bit I can't fathom is why Facebook didn't take the approach of building from the high end down? I don't know of any complex consumer electronics or hardware companies which don't take the approach of launching massively expensive "pro" hardware which is the beachhead for driving down price over time. E.g. autofocus in cameras began life on the giant cameras which sports photographers used to use, but over time it became cheap enough to manufacture that all cameras shipped with it. Do you think Meta genuinely thought they were just a few years away from delivering a mass market-ready device (for playing BeatSabre and talking to cartoon versions of your friends)? My guess is that Meta saw themselves as being curators of the best bits of the existing AR/VR proposition: tie all the best bits of the existing field of hardware and software companies and put them into a package at a $400 price point. Just iterate on the existing ideas a bit and focus on getting the price down. Apple seems to have looked at the existing ideas around UX (input and screen quality especially) and scope (what do I use this for?) and decided that there needed to be dramatically different (better, in Apple's view) solutions. Given Meta's internal rhetoric about Quest not retaining users, I'd say Apple was wise to approach this from first principles. But I really don't know what Meta has been working on for so long? If I think back to the original iPhone launch, it made literally every other phone on the market look preposterously antiquated (to the point that RIM execs famously believed it was "impossible" for Apple to actually be delivering the phone they demoed). Vision Pro does that to the Vive Pro gathering dust in my cupboard, but I'll need to use one to say for sure whether it does the same to the Quest 3. My hunch is that the disparity isn't as huge as it was with cell phones, but it doesn't seem like Facebook can simply ignore Vision Pro and continue with their current product roadmap: I would bet on Apple (a hardware company with a lot of scale advantages) figuring out how to make the baseline experience achieved with Vision Pro cheaper for a consumer device much faster and more easily than Facebook will figure out how to achieve that same baseline experience starting from their $400 price point. Wdyt? [^1]: Inside Apple around the time iTV / Apple TV was introduced, it was characterised as a "foot in the door": Steve Jobs kept calling it a "hobby" in public, and the strategy changed around a lot. Since then they've introduced several products which have either seen strategy shift over time (iPadOS multi tasking…) or which were known to be a "foot in the door" (Apple Watch), but they don't acknowledge them as such, they just pretend that the plan all along was for Apple Watch to be a fitness tracker, and that they did not in fact spend 30 minutes of the keynote talking about sending digital heartbeats to each other as if it was the most meaningful thing ever.
- Scalene2 3y agoNow stream PCVR to the vision pro and the cycle will be complete.
- joshstrange 3y agoHonestly Apple should have considered something like this and supported it from day 1. It's only upside for them.
- dagmx 3y agoWhat upsides are there to promote a competing platform as a development story for their own platform?
- joshstrange 3y agoIt's not like anyone who wants to develop for the Vision Pro is going to get a Meta Pro and decide they don't care about the Vision Pro. Also it opens the door to people who already have Meta Pros who want to develop/port apps to the Vision Pro. If I was serious about developing for the Vision Pro I'd eat the difference between a Meta Pro now and then selling it after the Vision Pro ships.
- dagmx 3y agobut what’s the upside still? They’ll have developer units available this month supposedly so availability isn’t the big barrier. It’s like saying they should enable iOS development on windows. It doesn’t make brand sense to do it. The slight upside of a few devs who won’t buy a Mac isn’t worth the deterioration of brand prestige by pushing people to multiple platforms. Also there’s a not insignificant cost associated with maintaining tooling on multiple platforms when they rely so significantly on the vertical stack
- joshstrange 3y agoI guess it really depends on who gets the developer devices. I have a feeling they will be more locked down than the Arm mac developer units (which they gave to almost anyone). If they are stingy then it’d make some more sense to allow lessor hardware to be used by everyone else but I totally see you point. I forgot about the dev units since I had assumed when they were announced that it would be very hard to get one. You make a good point.
- sourcepluck 3y agoStill not entirely sure how the people on here seem to largely continue to support companies like Apple. I get it - they have the high-paying jobs, they make shiny toys, they have slick marketing and symbolism, caring about things like privacy, freedom, education, empowering people, etc, seems oh so very naff - but at the same time, technologically aware people know what Apple are doing. Right? Or not? Is the argument just - oh, but the stuff is cool, so... whatever? Not attempting to flame here, I genuinely am curious on the take people have that permits them ethically to continue buying Apple stuff and fan-person-ing over it. I know not everyone is, but it seems really very common, even on here amongst the technically literate. Maybe especially on here?
- sourcepluck 3y agoI sincerely appreciate the replies but can't respond to them all. I was tempted not to reply, because I feel we'd be talking past each other. This article here illustrates my point better than I could, and coming across it prompted me to put aside my misgivings and reply at least this once: https://100r.co/site/weathering_software_winter.html https://100r.co/site/weathering_software_winter.html Many of the arguments put forward in response to my initial post are probably fairly consistent inside a world where what capitalists call "competition" and "success" are the sole arbiters of right and wrong. I don't think that world has any place in any sane discussion on ethics. You could argue that ethical discussions are nonsense, then, I suppose, if you want, but you'd have to argue it and stand behind it. In a world where ethics means something, Apple is a terrible company. They don't care about freedom, education, empowering people, software freedom, the right to repair, sharing, etc. Neither could they; they care about selling products, cutting costs, dominating their competitors, and so on. They're as cut-throat and ruthless and relentless as any company their size must be. They're good at advertising and making well-integrated, pretty prisons. And again, just to be clear, I've made no comment here or in the OP about whether their products work, or are powerful, or about whether it's easy to get your granny set-up on them. These things are beside the point. I'm not playing the blame-game either, you can all buy/not buy whatever you want. I genuinely was interested to hear how technically literate people who are aware of things like the already ongoing climate collapse can keep buying new products from megacorporations producing tons of new fast-gadgets every year. What is the justification? What I'm mostly hearing is: we like the gadgets, they work well, it's real nice not having to explain anything to Grandma, and we couldn't care less or at least would much prefer to ignore the obvious ethical issues of supporting massive, wasteful, anti-competitive monopoly-like structures. It's a harder argument to make, but for me personally the worst thing Apple (and Microsoft, etc etc) have probably done over the longer term is disempower people. They've turned all these things - email, browsers, searching, messaging, calling, storing data, etc etc - into mystical black-boxes that work thanks to the benign good graces of some super-nerd off up in a cave or a cloud somewhere. It's a hard argument because the ignoramus doesn't know what it's like to be a power user, and power users can't remember what it was like to be powerless. What does it do to the spirit of curiosity and playfulness to constantly be computing in fear? Fear you might break something, or lose something, or that the metaphors that you never really got in the first-place might come crumbling down at any moment? Here's an experiment for you to try in your own entourage: whenever the opportunity presents itself, ask the people around you - especially young people, adolescents - basic computer questions. Stuff like: what browser do you use, do you know any others, what's your operating system called, what does a search engine do, what's a URL, what is an "app", where do they come from, do you know at what moment you're officially 'in' your desktop, etc. In summary, Apple depends on the ignorance and disempowerment of the masses, as well as being on the front line of a never-ending ecocidal hunt for "newness" which is actually grotesque given the finite nature of the Earth's ecosystems. Inside of our current culture where "might makes right", this surely sounds bonkers, but from outside that framework, supporting Apple (and other tech behemoths feeding us garbage content, spying on us, obfuscating reality, censoring people, making addictive services, etc) looks similarly incomprehensible, let me assure you. Cheers again to all the people who took the time to reply initially.
- cheerioty 3y ago224 points and not single positive comment in the comments, sigh. I think this is awesome, as the Quest Pro is almost on par with the features of the Vision Pro (except Lidar), e.g. hand & eye tracking + color passthrough. Sure, these might be not of the same quality (especially when it comes to passthrough), but this allows people to verify their experiences/concepts for the Vision Pro before they actually get their hands on one. I don't think that Meta, nor Apple will have a problem with this tbh. Maybe because of the assets/icons used in the HUD, but those can easily be replaced if needed.
- yreg 3y agoThis is a great idea even if the hardware was quite different. I honestly can't imagine developing for visionOS armed only with a simulator. And since Apple afaik doesn't have a hardware devkit, this sounds miles better.
- freedomben 3y agoYou don't think Apple will have a problem with running their OS and software on non Apple hardware? I would expect this to be "fixed" soon.
- outworlder 3y ago> You don't think Apple will have a problem with running their OS and software on non Apple hardware? That's not what's happening here. It's just streaming data.
- normand1 3y agoHell yeah, I've been hoping for this, thanks!
- zmmmmm 3y agoAmazing work! Very curious what the limits on performance would be for it. Could it ultimately offer a way to run Vision OS apps in a realistic way without having the hardware? Quest 3 could make a super compelling package for it (admittedly, not having the eye tracking is a big problem). I guess we can't really know yet how Apple will handle it, but does seem unlikely that Apple will allow the simulator to install arbitrary apps from the app store.
- langsoul-com 3y agoNow all I want is quest with better resolution and eye tracking. Ie fusion of quest pro and Apple vision
- xrguy 3y agogreat work! he did streo screenshot of simulator which looked really cool on vr headsets. good way to get a taste of what tim cooked.
- mvkel 3y agoWait, Apple has no plans to ship a hardware dev kit?! Launch day apps are going to be This project is sorely needed