4 ms·

The author of this article and quite a few people in this HN thread all seem to be mainly looking at Vision Pro through the lens of VR gaming. Why else would t

by fouc 3y ago

The author of this article and quite a few people in this HN thread all seem to be mainly looking at Vision Pro through the lens of VR gaming. Why else would the author return his Vision Pro? What makes Vision Pro truly interesting to me is that we can replace our laptop screen with a view containing a larger display and multiple ancillary displays.

causal 3y ago
Except most reviews find the fov and resolution inadequate for desktop work, and eschewing gamers cuts out the majority of existing VR enthusiasts.
- outworlder 3y ago
  > Except most reviews find the fov and resolution inadequate for desktop work I have not heard any such complaints. Sure, I heard some complaining that the FOV should be wider, but not being able to work because of it? Not a peep. The resolution is incredible, you can't see any pixels at all. There's zero screen door effect. If the concern is with the Mac Virtual Display, then it's understandable. There seems to be some compression going on and it doesn't look as crisp. Native apps though? They are perfect > eschewing gamers They are not doing that. It's the companies not porting games over (the ones that don't have issues with the lack of controllers). It may be simply a matter of time, as just porting games and keeping existing assets will make them look terrible with the higher resolution of the Vision Pro.
  - layer8 3y ago
    The article explains that you can’t see the pixels because the AVP is purposely blurring them. The effective resolution of a mirrored Mac screen is below that of a physical 4K screen.
aeturnum 3y ago
I don't think you are accurately reflecting the article - the author is pointing out that Vision Pro is surprisingly weak in the area of "VR Gaming," which is the most successful experience category for headsets so far. He's not suggesting that's the only use - in fact he spends most of the article talking about other uses. He also goes into detail about his thoughts around displays and says that the Vision Pro will be a compelling alternative as a travel display in the near future - but that he does not see it replacing high quality physical displays. My sense is that the Vision Pro is certainly, at least, the best "travel monitor" ever built - and it's at a price point and comfort point where that is very hard to use to justify a purchase. That said, future work can improve both substantially.
falcor84 3y ago
The author of this article is looking at it through the lens of wanting to get consumers to buy it. He spends a very large part of the post talking about consumer sentiment and willingness to pay for different use-cases, including why the current generation headsets (including Apple's) are not quite there yet for daily productivity.
zmmmmm 3y ago
You seem to have missed the entire 30-50% of the article that systematically breaks down its use for productivity including as a virtual display.

by fouc 3y ago

causal 3y ago

Except most reviews find the fov and resolution inadequate for desktop work, and eschewing gamers cuts out the majority of existing VR enthusiasts.

outworlder 3y ago
> Except most reviews find the fov and resolution inadequate for desktop work I have not heard any such complaints. Sure, I heard some complaining that the FOV should be wider, but not being able to work because of it? Not a peep. The resolution is incredible, you can't see any pixels at all. There's zero screen door effect. If the concern is with the Mac Virtual Display, then it's understandable. There seems to be some compression going on and it doesn't look as crisp. Native apps though? They are perfect > eschewing gamers They are not doing that. It's the companies not porting games over (the ones that don't have issues with the lack of controllers). It may be simply a matter of time, as just porting games and keeping existing assets will make them look terrible with the higher resolution of the Vision Pro.
- layer8 3y ago
  The article explains that you can’t see the pixels because the AVP is purposely blurring them. The effective resolution of a mirrored Mac screen is below that of a physical 4K screen.

aeturnum 3y ago

I don't think you are accurately reflecting the article - the author is pointing out that Vision Pro is surprisingly weak in the area of "VR Gaming," which is the most successful experience category for headsets so far. He's not suggesting that's the only use - in fact he spends most of the article talking about other uses. He also goes into detail about his thoughts around displays and says that the Vision Pro will be a compelling alternative as a travel display in the near future - but that he does not see it replacing high quality physical displays. My sense is that the Vision Pro is certainly, at least, the best "travel monitor" ever built - and it's at a price point and comfort point where that is very hard to use to justify a purchase. That said, future work can improve both substantially.

falcor84 3y ago

The author of this article is looking at it through the lens of wanting to get consumers to buy it. He spends a very large part of the post talking about consumer sentiment and willingness to pay for different use-cases, including why the current generation headsets (including Apple's) are not quite there yet for daily productivity.

zmmmmm 3y ago

You seem to have missed the entire 30-50% of the article that systematically breaks down its use for productivity including as a virtual display.