5 ms·

Apple's adventures in XR are weird. I started my career as a dev working in VR apss. At the time there was consensus in the industry that apple was about to re

Apple's adventures in XR are weird. I started my career as a dev working in VR apss. At the time there was consensus in the industry that apple was about to release something huge that would push the whole industry to the mainstream - and indeed you couldn't rely on any new VR/AR product or software without it being silently acquired in months and their website redirecting to apple. Fast forward one decade, nothing's happened yet. I moved to web dev long ago, but people seem to be still waiting.

hnra 2y ago
Didn’t they release a pair of VR glasses last year?
- api 2y ago
  The Vision Pro, and despite being pretty good they were kind of a flop. Like I said elsewhere I think VR and AR are niche products tech companies and investors keep trying to make go mainstream because they showed up in a lot of sci-fi. I don't think many people want them.
  - PaulHoule 2y ago
    Meta is having some success with the Meta Quest, but it is in the gaming sector where they have cultural problems. [1] The notable thing is that the Meta Quest consumer is price sensitive: when the MQ3 came out and they dropped the price of the MQ2, MQ2 sales surged. Next year they came out with the MQ3S which has the brains of an MQ3 in the body of an MQ2, so it is a cost-reduced device that can run MQ3 software. The AVP, on the other other hand, was just too expensive. At that price it could go with a seat of [2] (been a high end enterprise play) but no way was it going to compete with buying a big ass TV and a home theater system, which you can enjoy with other people. Worse than that, Apple rejected the immersive world experiences that are big fun on the MQ3 -- if a device is that expensive it has to do it all. [1] https://components.one/posts/gamer-and-nihilist-product-hunt https://components.one/posts/gamer-and-nihilist-product-hunt [2] https://www.3ds.com/3dexperience/ https://www.3ds.com/3dexperience/
  - jnsie 2y ago
    If the Vision Pro was indistinguishable from a regular pair of glasses and didn't cost over $1000 it would take over the world. I don't think it's a case that people don't want them, it's more that people want what's in sci-fi you spoke of and not this early iteration.
    - ghaff 2y ago
      Yeah (at least maybe). If AR were in a fashionable pair of glasses that you could effortlessly switch into a Google Lens mode for example or call up a Wikipedia article that starts getting interesting. But that's a long way off.
- threetonesun 2y ago
  The "something huge that would push the whole industry to the mainstream" seems to be the missing piece here. I'm sure the Vision Pro will get some follow up, but as someone who wears glasses I don't see the glasses/headset version of AR/XR ever catching on in the mainstream.
- paxys 2y ago
  Headset, not glasses
api 2y ago
I think this is a niche technology that people keep trying to make go mainstream, but most people just don't want it. For most people (including myself) trying VR a little is a novelty, but it's not something I want every day, and AR seems like it'd be useless or annoying unless I were using it in e.g. some industrial context like a heads up display. It's like NFTs in gaming, NFTs in general, AI shoehorned into places it doesn't make much sense, wifi connected can openers, Soylent, ... Startup founders are always told that there must be market pull, and many startups fail because they try to push an idea nobody wants, but it's not just startups. Big companies and VCs do this too.
- HPsquared 2y ago
  It's still just a bit too clunky, like PDAs. Still waiting for an iPhone moment.
  - api 2y ago
    I don't think it's even that. I don't think most people want it. VR is for gaming. I can see it finding a solid niche there. Make a VR headset that connects to a PC/Mac with extremely low latency and focus all the engineering on the quality of the display and making it lightweight. Gamers will buy it. AR is IMHO for industrial uses. I could see it being incredibly valuable doing inspections of industrial systems, working in a high-risk environment (for safety awareness), etc. I think the most practical depiction of AR in sci-fi is probably the heads up displays in The Expanse, which make perfect sense to augment human sensory in both military and industrial/maintenance operations in an environment like space. I actively do not want AR for civilian uses. Yeah, I want to wear glasses and contacts to superimpose ads and slop and Internet drama in front of my life. Get that the hell away from me. When I want to touch grass, I want to touch grass. A lot of that kind of stuff shows up in cyberpunk, and people forget that most cyberpunk is dystopian. The cyberpunk aesthetic is also kind of 1980s-1990s and is not contemporary. People are stuck in it. We're well past that and even on the tail end of "millennial minimalism" (the Apple aesthetic).
    - ghaff 2y ago
PaulHoule 2y ago
Apple is centered around the iPhone, it's hard for them to make anything that isn't a peripheral of it. The best idea they've had in the last ten years is the Apple Watch, but I'm using Garmin because I don't have an iPhone. The Mac benefited from all the work Apple has done on the iPhone CPU, but the software scene on the Mac has been deteriorating because developers are using the same tools and the same toolkits to develop desktop applications that are motivated by mobile. The article mentioned here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42930025 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42930025 claims to be about the deterioration of desktop interface but it's by someone who's so steeped in the Apple culture that they don't get it is really about the deterioration of Mac interfaces. Apple doesn't care if you buy a Mac, in fact they'd feel most comfortable if the Mac became a peripheral of the iPhone. It's hard for them to picture developing a new peripheral for the Mac, even something straightforward like the Magic Mouse. A peripheral for the Mac that's groundbreaking? It doesn't fit into their world view.
- sitkack 2y ago
  I got one, a shell you can put your phone in, so you can slide your phone around your desk AS your mouse. It can provide vibration feedback, alerts, sounds, etc. It can use the macro lens and the IMU for tracking its location across the desk. Would also serve as biometric auth for websites. Prior Art for G06F 3/0338 - Computer mice, trackballs or similar devices for computer control G06F 3/041 - Digitisers using touch-sensing G06F 21/32 - Biometric authentication See, you can have peripherals tha
- paxys 2y ago
  Macs obviously have an outsized mindshare and market share in Silicon Valley but globally make up like 5% of PC sales. In Apple’s own books the entire Mac division accounts for 8% of revenues. Apple is serious about the line, sure, but it doesn’t have anywhere close to the importance of iPhone for the company.
  - PaulHoule 2y ago
    I wonder if that's a 'kill your startup' pattern, that is, develop an app for Mac because you're surrounded by Mac users, but then you don't sell many units because the market is too small. I had a time when I was involved with startups of various kinds (sometimes West Coast, sometimes Research Triangle Park, more often NYC or upstate.) I was a Windows user in a MacOS world and the most important accessory I packed was whatever I needed to hook up to mini-Displayport.
wrfrmers 2y ago
Every company in the space realizes that it's the next computer pillar, after desktop PCs and smartphones. Even more so: these devices see everything their users see (and more), hear everything they hear (and more), and can provide significant insight into their mental and emotional states. The prospect of controlling the platform all of this takes place on? No one - especially incumbents that know their history - wants to get left behind. Everyone knows Apple's modus operandi: wait for others to experiment, then define the standard and run away with the market. So, Facebook bought Oculus (and slow-walked its R&D), Google shelved Project Tango, and everyone resolved to wait for Apple to make their move. Apple knew this, and kept pushing back their own reveal. The arrival and demise of upstart Magic Leap (and smaller failures from Vuzix and Snap, among others) confirmed to everyone that there was no point in trying anything until Apple had shown their hand. So, we've been in a stalemate for more than 10 years. The AVP finally had to come out - antsy investors - and turned out to be the overengineered product of Apple trying to outmaneuver everyone else's outmaneuver, with the entire field understanding that whoever wins this owns the next 20 years. However, it's a bit of a Chinese finger trap. Consumers and users want actual value out of this technology, and developers want to provide fantastically innovative uses, and both are at odds with the platform owners' lust for unilateral control. The platform that wins will be more like a PC than a Silicon Graphics workstation (which is what Apple et al seem hellbent on forcing down people's throats). Get something with basic functionality that just works out of the box, and that is open and ready for experimentation, into as many hands as possible. It will bulldoze the field. (This is why the Quest line has gotten so close. Shame about the owner.)
- phlipski 2y ago
  I agree with your sentiments on an open platform ultimately prevailing. The hardware is still not there yet for good AR glasses (IMO). The processing power, connectivity, power, displays, etc.... just can't be crammed into an almost invisible pair of glasses. You basically need to squeeze the equivalent of the latest apple watch into a form factor about the size of a stick of gum (cut in half length wise)....

hnra 2y ago

Didn’t they release a pair of VR glasses last year?

api 2y ago
The Vision Pro, and despite being pretty good they were kind of a flop. Like I said elsewhere I think VR and AR are niche products tech companies and investors keep trying to make go mainstream because they showed up in a lot of sci-fi. I don't think many people want them.
- PaulHoule 2y ago
  Meta is having some success with the Meta Quest, but it is in the gaming sector where they have cultural problems. [1] The notable thing is that the Meta Quest consumer is price sensitive: when the MQ3 came out and they dropped the price of the MQ2, MQ2 sales surged. Next year they came out with the MQ3S which has the brains of an MQ3 in the body of an MQ2, so it is a cost-reduced device that can run MQ3 software. The AVP, on the other other hand, was just too expensive. At that price it could go with a seat of [2] (been a high end enterprise play) but no way was it going to compete with buying a big ass TV and a home theater system, which you can enjoy with other people. Worse than that, Apple rejected the immersive world experiences that are big fun on the MQ3 -- if a device is that expensive it has to do it all. [1] https://components.one/posts/gamer-and-nihilist-product-hunt https://components.one/posts/gamer-and-nihilist-product-hunt [2] https://www.3ds.com/3dexperience/ https://www.3ds.com/3dexperience/
- jnsie 2y ago
  If the Vision Pro was indistinguishable from a regular pair of glasses and didn't cost over $1000 it would take over the world. I don't think it's a case that people don't want them, it's more that people want what's in sci-fi you spoke of and not this early iteration.
  - ghaff 2y ago
    Yeah (at least maybe). If AR were in a fashionable pair of glasses that you could effortlessly switch into a Google Lens mode for example or call up a Wikipedia article that starts getting interesting. But that's a long way off.
threetonesun 2y ago
The "something huge that would push the whole industry to the mainstream" seems to be the missing piece here. I'm sure the Vision Pro will get some follow up, but as someone who wears glasses I don't see the glasses/headset version of AR/XR ever catching on in the mainstream.
paxys 2y ago
Headset, not glasses

api 2y ago

I think this is a niche technology that people keep trying to make go mainstream, but most people just don't want it. For most people (including myself) trying VR a little is a novelty, but it's not something I want every day, and AR seems like it'd be useless or annoying unless I were using it in e.g. some industrial context like a heads up display. It's like NFTs in gaming, NFTs in general, AI shoehorned into places it doesn't make much sense, wifi connected can openers, Soylent, ... Startup founders are always told that there must be market pull, and many startups fail because they try to push an idea nobody wants, but it's not just startups. Big companies and VCs do this too.

HPsquared 2y ago
It's still just a bit too clunky, like PDAs. Still waiting for an iPhone moment.
- api 2y ago
  I don't think it's even that. I don't think most people want it. VR is for gaming. I can see it finding a solid niche there. Make a VR headset that connects to a PC/Mac with extremely low latency and focus all the engineering on the quality of the display and making it lightweight. Gamers will buy it. AR is IMHO for industrial uses. I could see it being incredibly valuable doing inspections of industrial systems, working in a high-risk environment (for safety awareness), etc. I think the most practical depiction of AR in sci-fi is probably the heads up displays in The Expanse, which make perfect sense to augment human sensory in both military and industrial/maintenance operations in an environment like space. I actively do not want AR for civilian uses. Yeah, I want to wear glasses and contacts to superimpose ads and slop and Internet drama in front of my life. Get that the hell away from me. When I want to touch grass, I want to touch grass. A lot of that kind of stuff shows up in cyberpunk, and people forget that most cyberpunk is dystopian. The cyberpunk aesthetic is also kind of 1980s-1990s and is not contemporary. People are stuck in it. We're well past that and even on the tail end of "millennial minimalism" (the Apple aesthetic).
  - ghaff 2y ago

PaulHoule 2y ago

Apple is centered around the iPhone, it's hard for them to make anything that isn't a peripheral of it. The best idea they've had in the last ten years is the Apple Watch, but I'm using Garmin because I don't have an iPhone. The Mac benefited from all the work Apple has done on the iPhone CPU, but the software scene on the Mac has been deteriorating because developers are using the same tools and the same toolkits to develop desktop applications that are motivated by mobile. The article mentioned here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42930025 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42930025 claims to be about the deterioration of desktop interface but it's by someone who's so steeped in the Apple culture that they don't get it is really about the deterioration of Mac interfaces. Apple doesn't care if you buy a Mac, in fact they'd feel most comfortable if the Mac became a peripheral of the iPhone. It's hard for them to picture developing a new peripheral for the Mac, even something straightforward like the Magic Mouse. A peripheral for the Mac that's groundbreaking? It doesn't fit into their world view.

sitkack 2y ago
I got one, a shell you can put your phone in, so you can slide your phone around your desk AS your mouse. It can provide vibration feedback, alerts, sounds, etc. It can use the macro lens and the IMU for tracking its location across the desk. Would also serve as biometric auth for websites. Prior Art for G06F 3/0338 - Computer mice, trackballs or similar devices for computer control G06F 3/041 - Digitisers using touch-sensing G06F 21/32 - Biometric authentication See, you can have peripherals tha
paxys 2y ago
Macs obviously have an outsized mindshare and market share in Silicon Valley but globally make up like 5% of PC sales. In Apple’s own books the entire Mac division accounts for 8% of revenues. Apple is serious about the line, sure, but it doesn’t have anywhere close to the importance of iPhone for the company.
- PaulHoule 2y ago
  I wonder if that's a 'kill your startup' pattern, that is, develop an app for Mac because you're surrounded by Mac users, but then you don't sell many units because the market is too small. I had a time when I was involved with startups of various kinds (sometimes West Coast, sometimes Research Triangle Park, more often NYC or upstate.) I was a Windows user in a MacOS world and the most important accessory I packed was whatever I needed to hook up to mini-Displayport.

wrfrmers 2y ago

Every company in the space realizes that it's the next computer pillar, after desktop PCs and smartphones. Even more so: these devices see everything their users see (and more), hear everything they hear (and more), and can provide significant insight into their mental and emotional states. The prospect of controlling the platform all of this takes place on? No one - especially incumbents that know their history - wants to get left behind. Everyone knows Apple's modus operandi: wait for others to experiment, then define the standard and run away with the market. So, Facebook bought Oculus (and slow-walked its R&D), Google shelved Project Tango, and everyone resolved to wait for Apple to make their move. Apple knew this, and kept pushing back their own reveal. The arrival and demise of upstart Magic Leap (and smaller failures from Vuzix and Snap, among others) confirmed to everyone that there was no point in trying anything until Apple had shown their hand. So, we've been in a stalemate for more than 10 years. The AVP finally had to come out - antsy investors - and turned out to be the overengineered product of Apple trying to outmaneuver everyone else's outmaneuver, with the entire field understanding that whoever wins this owns the next 20 years. However, it's a bit of a Chinese finger trap. Consumers and users want actual value out of this technology, and developers want to provide fantastically innovative uses, and both are at odds with the platform owners' lust for unilateral control. The platform that wins will be more like a PC than a Silicon Graphics workstation (which is what Apple et al seem hellbent on forcing down people's throats). Get something with basic functionality that just works out of the box, and that is open and ready for experimentation, into as many hands as possible. It will bulldoze the field. (This is why the Quest line has gotten so close. Shame about the owner.)

phlipski 2y ago
I agree with your sentiments on an open platform ultimately prevailing. The hardware is still not there yet for good AR glasses (IMO). The processing power, connectivity, power, displays, etc.... just can't be crammed into an almost invisible pair of glasses. You basically need to squeeze the equivalent of the latest apple watch into a form factor about the size of a stick of gum (cut in half length wise)....