3 ms·

At the time of writing of this comment this story is number one on hacker news front page. While it’s an interesting read, it’s hard for me to want to view it

At the time of writing of this comment this story is number one on hacker news front page. While it’s an interesting read, it’s hard for me to want to view it as an interesting take because there is no indication that the writer has ever actually tried the hardware being discussed.

TaylorAlexander 3y ago
I don't see how that is particularly relevant really. Reviews of the hardware being discussed are abundant. The point of this article is to share this look back - a book review, taking what we thought of AR in the past and relating it to the present. I had never heard of this book before. That's what I got out of this. MKBHD, Casey Neistat, and all the others have done a fine job of covering the present already.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 3y ago
  I think it’s relevant specifically because the book itself and the points in the article are talking about physical reactions and responses to the hardware. If it was conceptually more about other things that weren’t directly related to the physical aspect of the interface I would agree with your take. Especially because the article ends with what could be constituted as a somewhat sweeping generalization that directly speaks to the physical interface aspect of the device. This isn’t like reviewing Christopher Nolan’s new psychological thriller in that you can get the basic gist of it from the SparkNotes and say something pithy about society. You need to actually try it to form an opinion when you are talking about how far or not it has come in meeting some science fiction fantasy
  - buffington 3y ago
    It's totally reasonable that one can observe the many videos of the AVP in use and in many real world situations with plenty of evidence of "physical reactions and responses to the hardware," and draw their own conclusions about how those compare with the book they read without owning the damn thing.
monoscient 3y ago
— Every reader has for sure noticed that, in my description of the device, I rely quite heavily on a multitude on reviews, which I extensively quote. The reason is now clear: in spite of its occasional brilliance, the device is ultimately not worth trying, which is why I also wrote this review without trying it. [https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/a-muddle-instead-of-a-movie/ https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/a-muddle-instead-of-a-movi...]
- topato 3y ago
  [flagged]
j4yav 3y ago
The impression I got from it was it was intended more to highlight how people conceived these kinds of devices in the past rather than a review of an one of the specific devices on the market today, and in that it did a good job imho.
codezero 3y ago
fwiw, I have tried it and I agree with their assessment. I do think reviews pretty accurately capture the experience of using it. My only real comparison though is the Quest 2. The fidelity of AVP graphics is through the roof and the eye and hand tracking for focusing on UI elements is very good, smoother and more stable than using a controller on Quest 2. I don't think you could wear it all day comfortably though, but it won't be long before you can if Apple sticks with it.

TaylorAlexander 3y ago

I don't see how that is particularly relevant really. Reviews of the hardware being discussed are abundant. The point of this article is to share this look back - a book review, taking what we thought of AR in the past and relating it to the present. I had never heard of this book before. That's what I got out of this. MKBHD, Casey Neistat, and all the others have done a fine job of covering the present already.

SOLAR_FIELDS 3y ago
I think it’s relevant specifically because the book itself and the points in the article are talking about physical reactions and responses to the hardware. If it was conceptually more about other things that weren’t directly related to the physical aspect of the interface I would agree with your take. Especially because the article ends with what could be constituted as a somewhat sweeping generalization that directly speaks to the physical interface aspect of the device. This isn’t like reviewing Christopher Nolan’s new psychological thriller in that you can get the basic gist of it from the SparkNotes and say something pithy about society. You need to actually try it to form an opinion when you are talking about how far or not it has come in meeting some science fiction fantasy
- buffington 3y ago
  It's totally reasonable that one can observe the many videos of the AVP in use and in many real world situations with plenty of evidence of "physical reactions and responses to the hardware," and draw their own conclusions about how those compare with the book they read without owning the damn thing.

monoscient 3y ago

— Every reader has for sure noticed that, in my description of the device, I rely quite heavily on a multitude on reviews, which I extensively quote. The reason is now clear: in spite of its occasional brilliance, the device is ultimately not worth trying, which is why I also wrote this review without trying it. [https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/a-muddle-instead-of-a-movie/ https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/a-muddle-instead-of-a-movi...]

topato 3y ago
[flagged]

j4yav 3y ago

The impression I got from it was it was intended more to highlight how people conceived these kinds of devices in the past rather than a review of an one of the specific devices on the market today, and in that it did a good job imho.

codezero 3y ago

fwiw, I have tried it and I agree with their assessment. I do think reviews pretty accurately capture the experience of using it. My only real comparison though is the Quest 2. The fidelity of AVP graphics is through the roof and the eye and hand tracking for focusing on UI elements is very good, smoother and more stable than using a controller on Quest 2. I don't think you could wear it all day comfortably though, but it won't be long before you can if Apple sticks with it.