6 ms·

I just bought a Quest Pro this weekend and was hoping to get something like this running. Apple should do the right thing and support early VisionOS developmen

I just bought a Quest Pro this weekend and was hoping to get something like this running. Apple should do the right thing and support early VisionOS development using the Quest Pro.

asadm 3y ago
What 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 ago
  It does have the most important one - eye tracking
  - cheerioty 3y ago
    And color passthrough, albeit not a great one. Still good enough to build and test experiences already!
- cowsup 3y ago
  Neither does a Mac, yet it's the only device that's allowed to develop for the headset.
  - andsoitis 3y ago
    But the simulator is designed to help you test your app, just like iOS apps that require touch/gestures/low battery/etc. can be tested on a macOS machine. If I were Apple, I wouldn’t voel their building tools that run on Quest in order to test your Vision app. What would be the point? It seems like such an opportunity cost that’s better spent on other things.
    - p1necone 3y ago
      You think testing VR apps in a simulator on a laptop is more indicative of the final experience than another VR headset that almost has feature parity? I imagine you'd probably still want to use the simulator to ensure your code will run on the actual Apple hardware, but for verifying actual UX/behaviour I'd take the Quest Pro over that any day.
      - Someone 3y ago
        I think Apple will disagree with that “almost has feature parity” claim. I have not used or even seen neither product, so I wouldn’t know whether they’re right, but do not rule that out, either. For example, the video resolution on Apple’s product is so much higher that it may cross a threshold w.r.t. user experience. Also, if they did come out with a Quest-based simulator, I think it would be very bad for their marketing. I would expect ‘the internet’ to say “it’s a Quest, but with a much higher price tag”. How would they go on from there to selling these devices?
  - audunw 3y ago
    > Neither does a Mac, yet it's the only device that's allowed to develop for the headset. I'm willing to bet that you can develop a prototype for an app in Unreal Engine right now, and I'm willing to bet that Unreal Engine will be ported to Vision OS and that you can get that code running on there pretty quickly after release. I don't see how this is very much different from how it'd be to develop Windows or Xbox applications. I might use be able to develop some core code with .NET core, or even a full game using cross-platform tools like Unreal or Unity.. but if I'm actually shipping a product I can't expect to get far without using Microsofts officially supported toolchain. I'd say it's reasonable to be annoyed that you're not allowed to run Mac OS on non-apple hardware. But it's not reasonable to be annoyed that Apple isn't spending millions on officially supporting an SDK for their devices on other OS's, just for a very small niche set of users.
- MikusR 3y ago
  The only thing Quest Pro lacks is lidar.
  - chaostheory 3y ago
    …and a depth sensor. Not sure why they cut it last minute
    - dagmx 3y ago
      Lidar and depth sensing are the same
      - chaostheory 3y ago
        They are not the same. Apple vision has both LiDAR and a depth camera. https://lidarandradar.com/differences-between-the-lidar-systems-and-depth-camera/ https://lidarandradar.com/differences-between-the-lidar-syst...
        dagmx 3y ago
        Ah yeah you’re right. Apologies for the mixup. However that link isn’t very good at explaining either, since it doesn’t describe Apple’s TrueDepth tech for the “depth sensor” which is a generic term for many technologies, whereas TrueDepth is specific. Here’s a better one https://www.eyerys.com/articles/how-apples-lidar-sensor-differs-one-its-truedepth-face-id https://www.eyerys.com/articles/how-apples-lidar-sensor-diff... Basically Lidar is time of flight and longer range. TrueDepth is a high density grid that’s pattern analyzed.
    - MikusR 3y ago
      https://twitter.com/SadlyItsBradley/status/1580657109548822528 https://twitter.com/SadlyItsBradley/status/15806571095488225... "RUMOR: Why Meta removed the Depth Sensor at the last minute It allowed you to see people without clothes. It was not it's purpose, but during testing: someone noticed that by using the sensor someone could develop “creeper apps” Privacy chaos, they prefered to skip the sensor "
candiddevmike 3y ago
You must be new to the Apple developer ecosystem? It'll take an anti-trust judgement to get them to allow development on non-Apple platforms.
- ChuckNorris89 3y ago
  Yeah, I'd love to see the day when I could build iOS apps on Windows and on Linux, just like I can for Android.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  Yes, the government should force Apple to release an SDK for other platforms.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
    I'm assuming that this was </s>? Releasing supported SDKs is expensive as hell. If anyone insists on forcing me to run myself into penury and put myself in legal jeopardy, just to support my competitors, then I would close up shop. However, Apple has a wee bit more clout than I do. I suspect that it would not happen.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      Of course it was sarcasm. It surprises me how willing much of the technical HN crowd is wanting the government to have more power.
      - Eisenstein 3y ago
        > It surprises me how willing much of the technical HN crowd is wanting the government to have more power. They already have a monopoly on use of physical force and detention. There is no 'more power' to give them. You are confusing 'enacting legislation' with 'giving power'. And anti-trust regulation would cover anti-competitive behavior (if we ever enforced it), so no legislation has to be enacted. It is only a matter of determining if it anti-competitive, which it appears not to be. Rest easy, there are more impactful things to worry about than government overreach into the practices of huge society-shaping entities which are larger than most other nation's governments. Note: When will a corporation become big enough that we concede that without the monopoly on force and detention it is a de-facto government? At that point can the libertarians give up the 'hands off corporate affairs' schtick?
foxandmouse 3y ago
I disagree it's the right thing to do, why do you think it is?
- ZiiS 3y ago
  Because it solves the chicken and egg allowing none Apple software at launch.
  - dagmx 3y ago
    Not really a chicken and egg scenario imho. 1. It runs iOS and iPad apps. 2. The simulator is available and several devs have already ported and added visionOS specific feature support with it. 3. They’re supposedly making developer units available to applicants starting sometime this month. 4. They’ve already had several third party developers they’ve showed in their press releases —- Which is to say , I don’t think they will necessarily have a chicken and egg problem at launch which is still months away. So there’s no real motivation to open up their development to competing platforms.
  - jbverschoor 3y ago
    Ah you mean your quest is useless because it has no useful apps
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      Barring OP as evidence to the contrary.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
actionfromafar 3y ago
NEVER cross the streams
ArtWomb 3y ago
I am hear to lend support for "build once, run everywhere". But I already feel the divide: Quest for Games. Apple for Minority Report ;)
soligern 3y ago
That’s not the right thing at all, why would they do that?

I just bought a Quest Pro this weekend and was hoping to get something like this running. Apple should do the right thing and support early VisionOS development using the Quest Pro.

asadm 3y ago

What 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 ago
It does have the most important one - eye tracking
- cheerioty 3y ago
  And color passthrough, albeit not a great one. Still good enough to build and test experiences already!
cowsup 3y ago
Neither does a Mac, yet it's the only device that's allowed to develop for the headset.
- andsoitis 3y ago
  But the simulator is designed to help you test your app, just like iOS apps that require touch/gestures/low battery/etc. can be tested on a macOS machine. If I were Apple, I wouldn’t voel their building tools that run on Quest in order to test your Vision app. What would be the point? It seems like such an opportunity cost that’s better spent on other things.
  - p1necone 3y ago
    You think testing VR apps in a simulator on a laptop is more indicative of the final experience than another VR headset that almost has feature parity? I imagine you'd probably still want to use the simulator to ensure your code will run on the actual Apple hardware, but for verifying actual UX/behaviour I'd take the Quest Pro over that any day.
    - Someone 3y ago
      I think Apple will disagree with that “almost has feature parity” claim. I have not used or even seen neither product, so I wouldn’t know whether they’re right, but do not rule that out, either. For example, the video resolution on Apple’s product is so much higher that it may cross a threshold w.r.t. user experience. Also, if they did come out with a Quest-based simulator, I think it would be very bad for their marketing. I would expect ‘the internet’ to say “it’s a Quest, but with a much higher price tag”. How would they go on from there to selling these devices?
- audunw 3y ago
  > Neither does a Mac, yet it's the only device that's allowed to develop for the headset. I'm willing to bet that you can develop a prototype for an app in Unreal Engine right now, and I'm willing to bet that Unreal Engine will be ported to Vision OS and that you can get that code running on there pretty quickly after release. I don't see how this is very much different from how it'd be to develop Windows or Xbox applications. I might use be able to develop some core code with .NET core, or even a full game using cross-platform tools like Unreal or Unity.. but if I'm actually shipping a product I can't expect to get far without using Microsofts officially supported toolchain. I'd say it's reasonable to be annoyed that you're not allowed to run Mac OS on non-apple hardware. But it's not reasonable to be annoyed that Apple isn't spending millions on officially supporting an SDK for their devices on other OS's, just for a very small niche set of users.
MikusR 3y ago
The only thing Quest Pro lacks is lidar.
- chaostheory 3y ago
  …and a depth sensor. Not sure why they cut it last minute
  - dagmx 3y ago
    Lidar and depth sensing are the same
    - chaostheory 3y ago
      They are not the same. Apple vision has both LiDAR and a depth camera. https://lidarandradar.com/differences-between-the-lidar-systems-and-depth-camera/ https://lidarandradar.com/differences-between-the-lidar-syst...
      - dagmx 3y ago
        Ah yeah you’re right. Apologies for the mixup. However that link isn’t very good at explaining either, since it doesn’t describe Apple’s TrueDepth tech for the “depth sensor” which is a generic term for many technologies, whereas TrueDepth is specific. Here’s a better one https://www.eyerys.com/articles/how-apples-lidar-sensor-differs-one-its-truedepth-face-id https://www.eyerys.com/articles/how-apples-lidar-sensor-diff... Basically Lidar is time of flight and longer range. TrueDepth is a high density grid that’s pattern analyzed.
  - MikusR 3y ago
    https://twitter.com/SadlyItsBradley/status/1580657109548822528 https://twitter.com/SadlyItsBradley/status/15806571095488225... "RUMOR: Why Meta removed the Depth Sensor at the last minute It allowed you to see people without clothes. It was not it's purpose, but during testing: someone noticed that by using the sensor someone could develop “creeper apps” Privacy chaos, they prefered to skip the sensor "

candiddevmike 3y ago

You must be new to the Apple developer ecosystem? It'll take an anti-trust judgement to get them to allow development on non-Apple platforms.

ChuckNorris89 3y ago
Yeah, I'd love to see the day when I could build iOS apps on Windows and on Linux, just like I can for Android.
scarface_74 3y ago
Yes, the government should force Apple to release an SDK for other platforms.
- ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
  I'm assuming that this was </s>? Releasing supported SDKs is expensive as hell. If anyone insists on forcing me to run myself into penury and put myself in legal jeopardy, just to support my competitors, then I would close up shop. However, Apple has a wee bit more clout than I do. I suspect that it would not happen.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    Of course it was sarcasm. It surprises me how willing much of the technical HN crowd is wanting the government to have more power.
    - Eisenstein 3y ago
      > It surprises me how willing much of the technical HN crowd is wanting the government to have more power. They already have a monopoly on use of physical force and detention. There is no 'more power' to give them. You are confusing 'enacting legislation' with 'giving power'. And anti-trust regulation would cover anti-competitive behavior (if we ever enforced it), so no legislation has to be enacted. It is only a matter of determining if it anti-competitive, which it appears not to be. Rest easy, there are more impactful things to worry about than government overreach into the practices of huge society-shaping entities which are larger than most other nation's governments. Note: When will a corporation become big enough that we concede that without the monopoly on force and detention it is a de-facto government? At that point can the libertarians give up the 'hands off corporate affairs' schtick?

foxandmouse 3y ago

I disagree it's the right thing to do, why do you think it is?

ZiiS 3y ago
Because it solves the chicken and egg allowing none Apple software at launch.
- dagmx 3y ago
  Not really a chicken and egg scenario imho. 1. It runs iOS and iPad apps. 2. The simulator is available and several devs have already ported and added visionOS specific feature support with it. 3. They’re supposedly making developer units available to applicants starting sometime this month. 4. They’ve already had several third party developers they’ve showed in their press releases —- Which is to say , I don’t think they will necessarily have a chicken and egg problem at launch which is still months away. So there’s no real motivation to open up their development to competing platforms.
- jbverschoor 3y ago
  Ah you mean your quest is useless because it has no useful apps
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    Barring OP as evidence to the contrary.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

actionfromafar 3y ago

NEVER cross the streams

ArtWomb 3y ago

I am hear to lend support for "build once, run everywhere". But I already feel the divide: Quest for Games. Apple for Minority Report ;)

soligern 3y ago

That’s not the right thing at all, why would they do that?