10 ms·
Hopefully you're right, but the cynic in me thinks we've been saying the same thing about every VR headset that has come out in the last ten years.
by fouronnes3 3y ago
Hopefully you're right, but the cynic in me thinks we've been saying the same thing about every VR headset that has come out in the last ten years.
- 65 3y agoI'll only buy a VR device if it's in the form of glasses, not big goggles I need to strap to my face.
- dvngnt_ 3y agoglasses won't take over your entire fov though so it suck for VR. maybe better for AR
- someguydave 3y agoYeah but glasses are probably fine for the display replacement market
- int_19h 3y agoIf all you want is display replacement, you don't even need VR with head tracking.
- someguydave 3y agoIndeed, so I think that will likely become more popular when apple-like resolution is widely available
- lolinder 3y agoThere's nothing that says that a pair of glasses can't have panels on the sides and top to provide full coverage [0]. The main obstacle is miniaturizing the necessary compute and display technology. [0] A random example: https://www.amazon.com/Vision-Driving-Around-Sunglasses-Polarized/dp/B07M6L8YDQ/ https://www.amazon.com/Vision-Driving-Around-Sunglasses-Pola...
- hedora 3y agoMy main concern with the vision pro is that all use cases I know of (other than gaming) work better with some sort of pass through HUD display like the HoloLens. They spent a ton of company resources, weight and power making the wrong form factor emulate the right form factor, and are shipping with zero killer apps. You can’t even let your friends play with it without getting it re-fit to their head at the Apple Store, which basically kills social/word of mouth marketing. It certainly isn’t a fashion item / status symbol to be seen in public like all their other stuff. Maybe the “real” product is sitting in the wings and will be ready to ship in a few years, but the current form factor seems like a non-starter to me.
- basch 3y agoBut their work on the software side transfers seamlessly to a pass through device later. It still serves its purpose as a beta (beta meaning data collection and improvement process, not its modern “we just don’t support this” definition.
- outworlder 3y ago> and are shipping with zero killer apps. That's ok. That's exactly why they released the 'pro' first.
- lolinder 3y ago"Pro" is a misnomer here, though. "Pro" normally means "with extra features for professionals", where here it means "it's more of a dev kit than it is an actual product".
- j2bax 3y agoMy opinion, and its very naive because I've only really tried the Vision Pro for this type of content, but immersive video is the current killer app for the Vision Pro. Sitting in the studio with Alicia Keys warming up for her tour was almost equal parts uncomfortable and amazing.
- tsimionescu 3y agoThe main use case Apple presented, productivity, works much better with an opaque screen, not pass-through. There's a reason we don't make transparent screens, nor transparent windows on our screens: text and images are much easier to read if they are opaque.
- mettamage 3y agoFirst Oculus headset versus Quest 3 right now? Quest 3 wins. There's progress. Perhaps not as fast as we'd want. There is progress though. I suspect that progress will continue.
- gpm 3y agoThe cynic in you is overly cynical. Ten years ago was pre oculus rift. We weren't saying anything about VR headsets. Five years ago was pre valve index. We didn't have CPUs in a headset. Nor a battery. Cameras were only used for tracking. The things we were saying would improve is "screen door effect" and "tracking", both of which have.
- Jasper_ 3y agoThe optical pathway is pretty much locked in. LEEP was invented in the 80s, and that's still the optical system used today. Compare the size to NASA's VR system from the early 90s. https://images.nasa.gov/details/ARC-1992-AC89-0437-6 https://images.nasa.gov/details/ARC-1992-AC89-0437-6 It's been 30 years of massive improvements to all of the rest of computers, and VR has only shrunk a couple inches. There's not much else we can do to make it smaller.
- outworlder 3y agoI am looking at that picture and to me it definitely looks like way more than a couple of inches.
- veidr 3y agolol, indeed, that is the full monty
- serf 3y agoit's not much different in size than a vision pro or quest 3, it's just kinda un-wieldly. the photo of it sitting in a display case gives a decent sense of scale, I think. http://briteliteimmersive.com/blog/remembering-nasas-view-vr http://briteliteimmersive.com/blog/remembering-nasas-view-vr
- ok_dad 3y agoLook at the bigscreen vr headset!
- rightbyte 3y ago
- joenot443 3y agoThere were a lot of tablets before the iPad but it wasn’t until the iPad that tablets really took off as a serious market segment. Ditto with AirPods and Bluetooth earbuds. In the past, once Apple started pouring R&D money into a specific product type, the entire industry around it tends to advance very quickly. I’m optimistic about the Vision Pro, and I actually think the n+2 Meta release will be much better off for it.
- ryandrake 3y agoMy question is why does it seem like only Apple can do this, over and over? Why are they the only ones who seem to be able to knock a product category out of the park and legitimize it? Is it just the vast amount of money? Are they the only ones who can create products? Is everyone else that bad? Competitors work for ages and ages fighting each other, refining v1, v2, v2.1, v2.2, v2.25, and then suddenly Apple comes out with something v8-ish and the whole industry scrambles. Why does this keep happening?
- noneeeed 3y agoThey seem prepared to go in at higher price points. Most other manufacturers seem to take the approach of getting as many features on the side of the box and then compete on price. They cost engineer the crap out of everything and it ends up being somewhat disappointing. I often maintain that so much technology is 80% of the way to being amazing, but is stymied by commercial concerns that cause companies to cut corners and cheap out, or they hobble their own product to create barriers to interoperability. While Apple still have to strike the right balance between between features and cost, and also like to make their own walled gardens, they are able to go for the higher price points, and also integrate really well between a wide swathe of products. They are prepared to let specific products be less competative in general (e.g Homepod), because they know that they integrate well into their overall ecosystem.
- wkat4242 3y agoThe price thing isn't just about competition. Meta and oculus before it has a stated goal to bring it to the masses. That's not going to work at a $3500 price point. You need to get Devs interested too and that won't work if only the top 1% of the western world can afford it.
- bradly 3y agoApple has a history to sticking with things like this. Watch and HomePod were both seen as over-priced and sold poorly the first iterations. Apple leadership had the confidence to see through those initial versions. This was part of the internal culture during my time at Apple.
- noneeeed 3y agoWatch is my go-to comparison for the Vision Pro. That took several generations before people started to buy in large numbers.
- dmarcos 3y agoFitness trackers (Fitbit), traditional and sport watches (with GPS) were popular categories when Apple Watch launched. Apple Vision Pro is a different beast because AR/VR don’t have product-market fit yet besides a few game genres that Apple doesn’t care about. Apple is good at improving existing product categories less so at finding product-market fit that usually outsources to others.
- wolverine876 3y ago> This was part of the internal culture during my time at Apple. From a management perspective, how do they handle the people side of that - keeping good people on the team and keeping them motivated to do something extraordinary? People don't like spending time on unsuccessful projects and don't want their names associated with them, and don't want to work extra hard on something that won't come to fruition. Maybe Apple management has enough internal reputation that employees are willing to take that risk (but even Apple management has flops - the car seeming to be a recent example). But that doesn't feel like a sufficient explanation to me.
- euroderf 3y agoSo basically they have the patience, the cash stockpile, and the management culture to support large multi-year product field testing with non-employees.
- 3y ago
- zitterbewegung 3y agoI know this is anecdotal but my brother uses the Vison Pro daily ever since we have had it. He got a Oculus DK1 and a Oculus Quest 2 (I bought the Quest 2 off from him) and if he wasn't wearing it so much I have worn it and the best experience from it is media consumption. Its really a iPad with a ridiculous screen.
- baby 3y agoThe Quest line of VR headsets are amazing, just saying.
- pjmlp 3y agoGiven my age, I would say the same applies to all headsets I have seen since 1994, when I saw someone using one to play Doom at the Lisbon computer fair.
- TaylorAlexander 3y agoThe problem with every headset over the last ten years was that they just didn’t have the technical commitment to really overcome the major problems. Making good VR is a VERY tech heavy endeavor. Apple has shown that they can make hardware which really begins to solve those issues (good resolution and quality pass through being one, having a nice OS being another). The AVP is truly starting to make a difference in what is possible with VR. It’s not just more optimism.
- jimbokun 3y agoI haven’t heard anyone say they were going to work exclusively on their Occulus Rift, Having even a few people saying they are already doing that on the Vision Pro seems significant.