6 ms·

It's interesting to see a common theme of "It's great, but not there yet."

by htk 3y ago

GeekyBear 3y ago
Can you think of examples where a company starts making a product in a new category and nails it on the first iteration? Experience shows that they will keep on iterating on it year after year. The thing I was most interested in was if they could nail an intuitive UI right from the outset.
- browningstreet 3y ago
  VR headsets have been around for many years now and why does anyone believe a somewhat better version of those things would hit critical mass? It seems like the form factor is as much the problem as any of the implementations. Many people really wanted an Apple version to be a game changer. Maybe this game can’t really be changed?
  - whamlastxmas 3y ago
    If this was $500 I’d call it a game changer, and hopefully it gets there in 5 years
    - rootusrootus 3y ago
      I wonder what the BOM cost of the device is. At $500 they'd sell 100x as many. Hell, even at $999 they'd sell quite a lot of them. I'd probably give it a try for that price, but I'm hesitant to blow $3500.
      - HDThoreaun 3y ago
        I heard the display alone costs $1000. And thats with apples supply chain know how
      - pzo 3y ago
        2x iPad Pro 11 inch cost 2x$800 = $1600 - and they also have big profit margin on those. A lot of tech and sensors are similar if not the same, like: Lidar, TrueDepth, Cameras, IMU, wifi, bluetooth, M2 chip. The only obvious thing not available in iPad Pro is much smaller and higher quality screen. Hopefully they can reduce price to $1500 in next few generations and increase functionality: - macOS support (We can only probably dream about it) - usb-c / hdmi out so this can replace desktop iMac when connected to external monitor (still probably unlikely) - 3rd party access to cameras stream if given permission - hard to make any innovation with this hardware if you cannot even detect QRCodes because Apple doesn't provide any API and you don't have access to camera feed.
  - GeekyBear 3y ago
    This isn't the mass market version of the tech. This iteration is a developer kit that early adopters can also buy. Apple has always said that they want a version that fits in a glasses style form factor as their mass market product, but the tech wasn't there yet. > Apple CEO Tim Cook said that it will be a while before the technology available for augmented reality glasses rises to Apple’s standards, according to British Vogue. “There are rumours and gossip about companies working on that, and we obviously don’t talk about what we work on. But today I can tell you that the technology itself doesn’t exist to do that in a quality way,” Cook told Vogue. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/11/apple-ar-glasses-tim-cook-says-tech-wont-be-ready-any-time-soon.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/11/apple-ar-glasses-tim-cook-sa... They keep iterating on it in-house, and keep finding that the tech still isn't ready. https://www.tomsguide.com/news/apple-glasses https://www.tomsguide.com/news/apple-glasses I think the current plans are to focus on a cheaper version of Vision Pro in the short term. https://www.tomsguide.com/news/apple-glasses-reportedly-delayed-but-a-cheaper-vrar-headset-could-be-coming https://www.tomsguide.com/news/apple-glasses-reportedly-dela...
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - browningstreet 3y ago
      When they released dev kits, that’s what they called them. This is a Pro product release. I’m personally inclined to believe that this product is more likely to kill off the entire VR/goggles dream than lead to a $500-$1000 iteration that’s at least as big as iPad. Glasses? Like the ones I have on my face? Not in my lifetime… This is Tim Cook’s trash can Mac.
      - mynameisvlad 3y ago
        > Glasses? Like the ones I have on my face? Not in my lifetime… Your remaining lifetime must be pretty short. Technology evolves at a ridiculously fast pace. Just as a reminder, the Nokia 3310 was one of the most popular phones in 2000. We went from tiny, monochrome displays to foldable full-color displays with magnitudes higher resolution in what most call a quarter of a lifetime.
- smoldesu 3y ago
  The original Oculus Quest was pretty much that. Granted, they had an unrealistic amount of talent on their side and a decent history taking stabs at the whole "consumer VR" thing. But I mean, look at it - the first Quest was $300-400, fairly comfortable, self-contained and standalone with tethering capability. If you just wanted to watch TV or browse the web in VR, that's what you'd want to buy. Oculus made the Steam Deck of VR, and all the other business models seem kinda extreme by comparison. I doubt we'd be seeing the reservation towards Vision Pro today if there weren't cheaper entertainment-focused headsets already on the market.
- dgellow 3y ago
  Valve with the Steam Deck
chaostheory 3y ago
That’s also a good summary of the 1st iPhone’s reviews.
- saiya-jin 3y ago
  Its not comparable. At that time, phone was already a necessity for most folks and most had one. VR (they are not AR from outside)? Still 90% of folks around me (doctors, IT, rest of reality) think whole concept of VR/AR is for kids and... big old kids lets say. Also it costs 10x as much with huge drawback above. Inflation makes this a smaller number but the difference is still massive, for a plastic toy soon to be obsolete looking like kids ski googles. But if they persist, which all reviews seem to hang their overall positive rating on, magic we all hope for might eventually happen
  - chaostheory 3y ago
    > Its not comparable. At that time, phone was already a necessity for most folks and most had one. A cell phone was necessary, but a smart phone was not. At the time, most people were still using non-smart cell phones. It’s still a valid comparison. > Still 90% of folks around me (doctors, IT, rest of reality) think whole concept of VR/AR is for kids This is exactly why Apple insists on only using the term “spatial computing” in order to fight the strange bias people have for something they haven’t even tried yet > But if they persist, which all reviews seem to hang their overall positive rating on, magic we all hope for might eventually happen Yes, it mirrors the reviews for the original iPhone

It's interesting to see a common theme of "It's great, but not there yet."

by htk 3y ago

It's interesting to see a common theme of "It's great, but not there yet."

Can you think of examples where a company starts making a product in a new category and nails it on the first iteration? Experience shows that they will keep on iterating on it year after year. The thing I was most interested in was if they could nail an intuitive UI right from the outset.

browningstreet 3y ago
VR headsets have been around for many years now and why does anyone believe a somewhat better version of those things would hit critical mass? It seems like the form factor is as much the problem as any of the implementations. Many people really wanted an Apple version to be a game changer. Maybe this game can’t really be changed?
- whamlastxmas 3y ago
  If this was $500 I’d call it a game changer, and hopefully it gets there in 5 years
  - rootusrootus 3y ago
    I wonder what the BOM cost of the device is. At $500 they'd sell 100x as many. Hell, even at $999 they'd sell quite a lot of them. I'd probably give it a try for that price, but I'm hesitant to blow $3500.
    - HDThoreaun 3y ago
      I heard the display alone costs $1000. And thats with apples supply chain know how
    - pzo 3y ago
      2x iPad Pro 11 inch cost 2x$800 = $1600 - and they also have big profit margin on those. A lot of tech and sensors are similar if not the same, like: Lidar, TrueDepth, Cameras, IMU, wifi, bluetooth, M2 chip. The only obvious thing not available in iPad Pro is much smaller and higher quality screen. Hopefully they can reduce price to $1500 in next few generations and increase functionality: - macOS support (We can only probably dream about it) - usb-c / hdmi out so this can replace desktop iMac when connected to external monitor (still probably unlikely) - 3rd party access to cameras stream if given permission - hard to make any innovation with this hardware if you cannot even detect QRCodes because Apple doesn't provide any API and you don't have access to camera feed.
- GeekyBear 3y ago
  This isn't the mass market version of the tech. This iteration is a developer kit that early adopters can also buy. Apple has always said that they want a version that fits in a glasses style form factor as their mass market product, but the tech wasn't there yet. > Apple CEO Tim Cook said that it will be a while before the technology available for augmented reality glasses rises to Apple’s standards, according to British Vogue. “There are rumours and gossip about companies working on that, and we obviously don’t talk about what we work on. But today I can tell you that the technology itself doesn’t exist to do that in a quality way,” Cook told Vogue. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/11/apple-ar-glasses-tim-cook-says-tech-wont-be-ready-any-time-soon.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/11/apple-ar-glasses-tim-cook-sa... They keep iterating on it in-house, and keep finding that the tech still isn't ready. https://www.tomsguide.com/news/apple-glasses https://www.tomsguide.com/news/apple-glasses I think the current plans are to focus on a cheaper version of Vision Pro in the short term. https://www.tomsguide.com/news/apple-glasses-reportedly-delayed-but-a-cheaper-vrar-headset-could-be-coming https://www.tomsguide.com/news/apple-glasses-reportedly-dela...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - browningstreet 3y ago
    When they released dev kits, that’s what they called them. This is a Pro product release. I’m personally inclined to believe that this product is more likely to kill off the entire VR/goggles dream than lead to a $500-$1000 iteration that’s at least as big as iPad. Glasses? Like the ones I have on my face? Not in my lifetime… This is Tim Cook’s trash can Mac.
    - mynameisvlad 3y ago
      > Glasses? Like the ones I have on my face? Not in my lifetime… Your remaining lifetime must be pretty short. Technology evolves at a ridiculously fast pace. Just as a reminder, the Nokia 3310 was one of the most popular phones in 2000. We went from tiny, monochrome displays to foldable full-color displays with magnitudes higher resolution in what most call a quarter of a lifetime.
smoldesu 3y ago
The original Oculus Quest was pretty much that. Granted, they had an unrealistic amount of talent on their side and a decent history taking stabs at the whole "consumer VR" thing. But I mean, look at it - the first Quest was $300-400, fairly comfortable, self-contained and standalone with tethering capability. If you just wanted to watch TV or browse the web in VR, that's what you'd want to buy. Oculus made the Steam Deck of VR, and all the other business models seem kinda extreme by comparison. I doubt we'd be seeing the reservation towards Vision Pro today if there weren't cheaper entertainment-focused headsets already on the market.
dgellow 3y ago
Valve with the Steam Deck

chaostheory 3y ago

That’s also a good summary of the 1st iPhone’s reviews.

saiya-jin 3y ago
Its not comparable. At that time, phone was already a necessity for most folks and most had one. VR (they are not AR from outside)? Still 90% of folks around me (doctors, IT, rest of reality) think whole concept of VR/AR is for kids and... big old kids lets say. Also it costs 10x as much with huge drawback above. Inflation makes this a smaller number but the difference is still massive, for a plastic toy soon to be obsolete looking like kids ski googles. But if they persist, which all reviews seem to hang their overall positive rating on, magic we all hope for might eventually happen
- chaostheory 3y ago
  > Its not comparable. At that time, phone was already a necessity for most folks and most had one. A cell phone was necessary, but a smart phone was not. At the time, most people were still using non-smart cell phones. It’s still a valid comparison. > Still 90% of folks around me (doctors, IT, rest of reality) think whole concept of VR/AR is for kids This is exactly why Apple insists on only using the term “spatial computing” in order to fight the strange bias people have for something they haven’t even tried yet > But if they persist, which all reviews seem to hang their overall positive rating on, magic we all hope for might eventually happen Yes, it mirrors the reviews for the original iPhone