4 ms·

> The fundamental interaction model in VisionOS feels like it will be copied by all future VR/AR headsets Apple loves to claim that they invented everything, l

> The fundamental interaction model in VisionOS feels like it will be copied by all future VR/AR headsets Apple loves to claim that they invented everything, last I recall was the mute button on browser tabs. This is another case of that. This can be done with almost all headsets today. You couldn't do it with Apple products, so I guess there's that. This is a paid PR piece. It's not a review. Claiming that issues on a $3000 device "are fine because it's the first iteration" is not reasonable considering that multiple competitors have those issues largely solved for far less.

thefz 3y ago
> This is a paid PR piece. It's not a review. Well it's Gruber, notorious for not being impartial.
noSyncCloud 3y ago
I also liked being reminded how Apple bravely invented status LEDs.
Ancapistani 3y ago
> This can be done with almost all headsets today. I’ve owned a Rift, Rift S, Quest 2, Quest 3, and a Pimax Crystal QLED. None of them supported this interaction style. Perhaps you misunderstood the description? This seems to allow you to look at an element (without moving your head) and pinch to select it (without moving your arms off your lap or desk).
- zamalek 3y ago
  You can do the hand stuff if you adhere a leap motion to the front of the HMD - I was doing that during the DK2 era. Leap Motion had additional gestures beyond gaze (gaze interaction isn't a first here, but admittedly gaze-and-pinch is), for example, you could attach a controller to the back of your hand - almost like a watch. You could then interact with that controller, tactile feedback and all. There's also the natural gesture of holding something, but that was rather pedestrian compared to the other UX ideas that Leap were exploring. I think what's "wowing" people is the sensation of having your hands appear in VR. From personal experience it does take presence (as the formal VR term) to a whole new level. In addition, adding 2D windows to 3D space isn't really "spatial computing." The pinnacle of VR/AR has always been a 3D interface, in my opinion. I have no idea how that would look/work (I do believe Leap were on their way to a solution), but it's certainly not slapping existing concepts into 3D space in the laziest - most demoable - way possible. Tilt Brush would be further along the spectrum in VR UX, but they only solved for drawing. This isn't a leap forward. It's yet another idea that fails to hit the mark. While Apple isn't alone in that regard, nobody else is asking $3000 for 2D windows in 3D space.
  - Ancapistani 3y ago
    I have a LEAP Motion, that I bought shortly after release around a decade ago. I've used it quite a bit, but you still have to place it under your hands - they can't rest on the desktop, which means fatigue over time. That said, it's incredibly useful for manipulation of 3D objects, which was my use case back then. > I think what's "wowing" people is the sensation of having your hands appear in VR. Oh, for sure. A lot of the reviews that I'm seeing are from people who obviously haven't been following the market over the past few years. > In addition, adding 2D windows to 3D space isn't really "spatial computing." I agree. At this point I see "spatial computing" as a promise, not as something this specific device will deliver. For that matter, it looks like the Mac screen representation is not nearly as good as it could be. I've been speaking to the developers of Immersed (which I've used a ton on Quest 2), and they're working hard right now to release on the AVP. That will include multiple, virtual monitors with configurable resolution and aspect ratio. I expect that will be a turning point for me productivity-wise. > This isn't a leap forward. It's yet another idea that fails to hit the mark. While Apple isn't alone in that regard, nobody else is asking $3000 for 2D windows in 3D space. I don't think the AVP is intended to be a mass-market device. Having not yet laid hands on one - I expect to have mine by the end of next week - it appears to be at the very bleeding edge of what's technically possibly hardware-wise, and a lot of thought has gone into building and polishing visionOS. That's not enough to justify the cost. I see three markets for it today: * early-adopters/enthusiasts, who don't really need to justify the purchase beyond wanting it. These will provide some revenue but the devices will mostly collect dust. * "influencers", who will (attempt to) recoup the cost through videos posted on social media. These people will effectively be marketing the product for Apple, and otherwise not contribute to the ecosystem * developers. Apple needs applications for this platform, which they're obviously throwing a huge amount of money at. I see myself in this group. I plan to use my AVP for my day-to-day work, but I'm also planning to build at least a few small apps to explore the APIs with the intention of publishing at least one highly-polished app in the near future. If I can get anywhere near the top of a category in the visionOS App Store by the time Apple releases a lighter version of this at a price point of ~$2k, I have zero doubt I'll be able to more than make back the cost of the device itself.
    - 3y ago
wkat4242 3y ago
> This is a paid PR piece. It's not a review It's Gruber. He's got strong ties to Apple insiders (he had many exclusives in the past) and he's a big fan. Personally I also feel that shining through in his blog, not just this time. I wouldn't call it paid PR but I do sense some loyalty too. So I take it with a grain of salt :) Besides the usual "Apple is amazing" subtext I find this article more balanced than he usually is though. And indeed meta already used similar interaction with finger pinching for the last 2 years. Just not the eye tracking because it lacks the hardware. As most reviewers have pointed out though, it's not very comfortable having to look at what you interact with. This is what I found too using other eye tracking headsets. With my meta quests I prefer the controllers anyway which Apple doesn't have. But even if it comes to Europe it's so ridiculously out of my price range to consider anyway (and I'm a VR enthusiast). But of course incomes vary. Ps from the reviews I found the Verge's the best, they managed to break through the reality distortion field the best in my opinion. But the lack of a killer app, something to offset the huge price tag by offering something you couldn't do before that's so incredibly valuable it becomes worth it, that's just missing. In my opinion that's even more of a problem than the physical limitations of today's tech.

thefz 3y ago

> This is a paid PR piece. It's not a review. Well it's Gruber, notorious for not being impartial.

noSyncCloud 3y ago

I also liked being reminded how Apple bravely invented status LEDs.

Ancapistani 3y ago

> This can be done with almost all headsets today. I’ve owned a Rift, Rift S, Quest 2, Quest 3, and a Pimax Crystal QLED. None of them supported this interaction style. Perhaps you misunderstood the description? This seems to allow you to look at an element (without moving your head) and pinch to select it (without moving your arms off your lap or desk).

zamalek 3y ago
You can do the hand stuff if you adhere a leap motion to the front of the HMD - I was doing that during the DK2 era. Leap Motion had additional gestures beyond gaze (gaze interaction isn't a first here, but admittedly gaze-and-pinch is), for example, you could attach a controller to the back of your hand - almost like a watch. You could then interact with that controller, tactile feedback and all. There's also the natural gesture of holding something, but that was rather pedestrian compared to the other UX ideas that Leap were exploring. I think what's "wowing" people is the sensation of having your hands appear in VR. From personal experience it does take presence (as the formal VR term) to a whole new level. In addition, adding 2D windows to 3D space isn't really "spatial computing." The pinnacle of VR/AR has always been a 3D interface, in my opinion. I have no idea how that would look/work (I do believe Leap were on their way to a solution), but it's certainly not slapping existing concepts into 3D space in the laziest - most demoable - way possible. Tilt Brush would be further along the spectrum in VR UX, but they only solved for drawing. This isn't a leap forward. It's yet another idea that fails to hit the mark. While Apple isn't alone in that regard, nobody else is asking $3000 for 2D windows in 3D space.
- Ancapistani 3y ago
  I have a LEAP Motion, that I bought shortly after release around a decade ago. I've used it quite a bit, but you still have to place it under your hands - they can't rest on the desktop, which means fatigue over time. That said, it's incredibly useful for manipulation of 3D objects, which was my use case back then. > I think what's "wowing" people is the sensation of having your hands appear in VR. Oh, for sure. A lot of the reviews that I'm seeing are from people who obviously haven't been following the market over the past few years. > In addition, adding 2D windows to 3D space isn't really "spatial computing." I agree. At this point I see "spatial computing" as a promise, not as something this specific device will deliver. For that matter, it looks like the Mac screen representation is not nearly as good as it could be. I've been speaking to the developers of Immersed (which I've used a ton on Quest 2), and they're working hard right now to release on the AVP. That will include multiple, virtual monitors with configurable resolution and aspect ratio. I expect that will be a turning point for me productivity-wise. > This isn't a leap forward. It's yet another idea that fails to hit the mark. While Apple isn't alone in that regard, nobody else is asking $3000 for 2D windows in 3D space. I don't think the AVP is intended to be a mass-market device. Having not yet laid hands on one - I expect to have mine by the end of next week - it appears to be at the very bleeding edge of what's technically possibly hardware-wise, and a lot of thought has gone into building and polishing visionOS. That's not enough to justify the cost. I see three markets for it today: * early-adopters/enthusiasts, who don't really need to justify the purchase beyond wanting it. These will provide some revenue but the devices will mostly collect dust. * "influencers", who will (attempt to) recoup the cost through videos posted on social media. These people will effectively be marketing the product for Apple, and otherwise not contribute to the ecosystem * developers. Apple needs applications for this platform, which they're obviously throwing a huge amount of money at. I see myself in this group. I plan to use my AVP for my day-to-day work, but I'm also planning to build at least a few small apps to explore the APIs with the intention of publishing at least one highly-polished app in the near future. If I can get anywhere near the top of a category in the visionOS App Store by the time Apple releases a lighter version of this at a price point of ~$2k, I have zero doubt I'll be able to more than make back the cost of the device itself.
  - 3y ago

wkat4242 3y ago

> This is a paid PR piece. It's not a review It's Gruber. He's got strong ties to Apple insiders (he had many exclusives in the past) and he's a big fan. Personally I also feel that shining through in his blog, not just this time. I wouldn't call it paid PR but I do sense some loyalty too. So I take it with a grain of salt :) Besides the usual "Apple is amazing" subtext I find this article more balanced than he usually is though. And indeed meta already used similar interaction with finger pinching for the last 2 years. Just not the eye tracking because it lacks the hardware. As most reviewers have pointed out though, it's not very comfortable having to look at what you interact with. This is what I found too using other eye tracking headsets. With my meta quests I prefer the controllers anyway which Apple doesn't have. But even if it comes to Europe it's so ridiculously out of my price range to consider anyway (and I'm a VR enthusiast). But of course incomes vary. Ps from the reviews I found the Verge's the best, they managed to break through the reality distortion field the best in my opinion. But the lack of a killer app, something to offset the huge price tag by offering something you couldn't do before that's so incredibly valuable it becomes worth it, that's just missing. In my opinion that's even more of a problem than the physical limitations of today's tech.