Hacker News Reader

Comment by pavlov | Hacker News Reader

The report says that Apple's $3,000 mixed reality headset is still planned for this year, probably followed up by a cheaper (but still expensive!) $1,500 model by 2025.

IMHO this would be good news for Meta which has spent years figuring out how to ship this technology in a $400 consumer-level unit.

Apple's entry would validate the market, and make it more obvious what a good deal the Quest actually is (from a pure hardware POV — the quality of the software deal remains in argument).

View on HN

Meta's $400 headset is not an AR platform, it's a VR platform.

Tomato tomato

AR and VR are very much not the same thing.

VR is for replacing reality, AR is for putting (useful?) digital things on top of the real world.

They are two extremes on a spectrum. AR approaches VR the more virtual elements are visible.

And VR with passthrough is AR unless you're being pedantic.

>And VR with passthrough is AR unless you're being pedantic.

It isn't. It doesn't do what AR does. It's just an ease of use of feature. IUf you watch a security camera through a VR HMD is it AR? No, because none of the virtual world is being cast into the real world. It doesn't meet the basic requirements of being AR.

Have you used any passthrough apps on VR headsets? I work on one and it's functionality is the same whether it runs on VR/passthrough or traditional AR hardware.

Given that AR headset also tend to reduce vision (need to block incoming light to be able to project these 'augmented' object), I'm not sure that the distinction between AR and VR-with-passtrough is very important.

There are different AR implementations possible with different tradeoffs.

It all gets a bit hazy as soon as you start bringing in video from the headset cameras.

But, AR is generally now meant to mean see through displays. Where as MR is cameras capturing and then reprojecting images to the display inside a light proof case.

In terms of software they basically have the same requirements, in terms of hardware, the screens don't exist yet, and the batteries don't either.

I don't think its hazy. video pass through on these headsets don't extend the VR into AR, its an ease of use function to let you navigate your environment while wearing a headset. It might be in the future cheap headsets have AR, but that not is the case today.

I see what youre saying. Oculus passthrough was a way to hint that you've fucked up and way past the guardian.

but, equally I think we will have much higher fidelity pass through "MR" way before we have AR that's capable of rendering stuff over real objects.

Can you explain the clear, bright line as you see it?

AR to VR has always been a spectrum and passthrough is a point on that spectrum. That seems pretty hazy to me.

VR replaces your world with a virtual one. AR casts virtual things into the normal world.

Camera pass through isn't AR, the same way a security camera isn't AR just because you could potentially view it on a VR HMD. There needs to be the component of combining the normal and virtual worlds. Camera pass through is just an ease of use feature.

> Camera pass through isn't AR, the same way a security camera isn't AR just because you could potentially view it on a VR HMD.

I would suggest that this is a very modern interpretation. Pokemon go is an "AR" game, even though its camera-mediated. Wayfair has an "AR" furniture viewer, apple has "AR" feature to view the new mac mini: https://www.apple.com/mac-mini/ (search for AR)

as I said, its hazy, and its only now that laser/waveguide see through displays are possible that we can have real-world overlays.

> There needs to be the component of combining the normal and virtual worlds. Camera pass through is just an ease of use feature.

Passthrough can be overlaid with synthetic elements:

https://developer.oculus.com/blog/mixed-reality-with-passthr...

There's entire apps based around this feature and has been for quite a while (Google Daydream introduced an API before it's demise)

They are doing both. The recent XR headset Quest Pro and a R&D phase AR glasses. It is no wonder they acquired a AR glasses / eyewear company. [0]

Oculus will prove to be of significant value to Meta in the coming years, beyond VR.

[0] https://techcrunch.com/2022/12/30/meta-acquires-luxexcel-a-s...

The $400 headset in question is not doing both. What might happen in the future is for the discussion about the future. currently not the case.

> The $400 headset in question is not doing both.

And? I'm not talking about the $400 headset that was doing both. That was the Quest Pro (which already exists in the market as mixed reality) and eventually the fully AR glasses in R&D assuming you read my comment? Meta already has more than one product for this.

> What might happen in the future is for the discussion about the future. currently not the case.

The over-arching discussion is already about the future Apple AR glasses, and Meta's intention about their own AR glasses couldn't have been more clearer and relevant with their acquisitions.

I think the next $400 unit from Meta will focus on camera-based XR features. The new $1,500 Quest Pro is clearly a trial round for features they're hoping to be able to include in the next consumer unit.

That's debatable - the Quest Pro has been roundly criticised for having passthrough that isn't good enough for many AR applications (e.g.: you can't read text through it and it has very poor temporal stability), while being marketed for those applications. If they can't do great passthrough at 1,500 dollars, it unlikely that they'll do good passthrough for 400. Hope to be proven wrong, as I'd love to use a headset for productivity.

There's a good overview here - https://kguttag.com/2023/01/03/meta-quest-pro-part-1-unbelie...

I have a Quest Pro and I find the passthrough pretty impressive (not knowing any better I suppose — I wasn't expecting to read a newspaper wearing the headset anyway).

If the same capability were available in a $400 unit, I think it would appeal to many people.

I respect Karl's knowledge and experience but he overplays his hands several times in that article.

It might be that the next one might have those features, but not the current one, and so the $400 meta headset in question is not an AR platform.

I agree the Quest is a good deal at $399 (I paid $299, the original price) but is something still a good deal if it's no longer used and on a shelf with similar dusty inert equipment?

Well, it's certainly a better deal than paying $3,000 for the same result?

What I'm trying to say is that Apple introducing such an expensive unit will make people take another look at the Quest as an option to see what the XR fuss is about. $400 is impulse buy territory for a lot of people who might be willing to try out the technology, while $3k isn't.

Concur

Supposedly, the $3000 Apple mixed reality model is significantly cheaper than AR device that Apple just delayed.

AR/“Mixed reality” isn't VR. It’s VR plus low latency actual reality plus processing data from the actual reality to interact with VR.

So, its not the same market as the $400 Quest, but the $3,500 Hololens.

> "It’s VR plus low latency actual reality plus processing data from the actual reality to interact with VR."

Yes, exactly what the Quest Pro does, and presumably what the next consumer Quest will focus on.

Event the $400 Quest can do that

I doubt that Apple’s offer, if/when it comes, will give “the same result” as the $400 Quest.

But will it be 8x better?

If the result is “sitting on a shelf unused”, yes, both $3000 and $400 devices are equally capable of that. (As my own history of excited gadget purchases bears testimony…)

The point was, if you’re unsure whether you actually would keep using it, the Quest is a much cheaper way to scratch that VR/XR urge.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com