Hacker News Reader

Comment by zmmmmm | Hacker News Reader

> Current optical designs mean that there is a large out of focus area when you look anywhere that isn't forward

You sound like you are a year or two out of date with your "current" understanding. The industry has moved to pancake lenses which make the view clear edge to edge. There's no more out of focus peripheral view, in recent headsets you read and look around using your eyeballs and not your head just like you would naturally.

It is already known that the Apple headset uses this updated optical system, along with micro OLED displays at super high resolution (approx double current industry standards). The clarity and focus are going to be absolutely amazing.

View on HN

You mean like the pancake lenses in the Quest Pro? Those are still what I'd consider garbage tier old tech. Probably the best we are going to get down the path of fixed focal point acrylic lenses, but definitely not what I'd call sharp edge to edge. The edges might qualify as "very soft" instead of "totally out of focus" but that's about the best you can say.

Quest Pro is probably the leading example yes. If you're calling that garbage, then I think you're (a) setting impossibly high standards and (b) out of sync with most people's perception, as most people perceive these has having "edge to edge clarity".

Oddly enough, the reason I have so many VR headsets is because I mostly give demos to non-tech people. Quest Pro still gets the, "Pretty cool, but why is it so blurry," comments. Not as much as other headsets, but still enough that it will never fly for general use. Meta, to their credit, does a good job of masking the poor optics by keeping texture detail to a minimum in their own software and encouraging developers to do the same.

I think people really into VR get so used to looking around with their head and having low expectations that they don't notice just how poor it is. By comparison it's good. In isolation, not so much.

One of the perplexing things about Quest Pro is that Meta keeps the default UI rendering at the same scale for the Pro as for the Quest 2. The result is that all the home environments look blurry and poorly antialiased. It's hard to judge the lenses themselves properly actually without connecting it to PCVR mode and looking at some ultra high resolution content there. It really is very impressive when you do that.

It’s not. That’s the fanboy “Maybe you got a bad sample,” or “You’re just using it wrong,” angle. Every VR headset has one. Apple will no doubt adopt this strategy if their headset is garbage. I mean, they’ve done it before.

What do you mean by blurry? Like screen door effect? If it's actually blurry, likely the IPD is wrong or you haven't positioned the headset correctly. Although, I suppose it would be great for the lenses to auto position themselves based on pupil location.

Center sharpness is decent. I’d even call it “good”. The edges are very soft.

It is easy to miss the forrest for the trees, which I think is what is happening if your users can't get into immersion because it's not instant Retina focus. Good enough does not need to be perfect once the experience kicks in and you are actively engaged in doing something you otherwise could not do in the real world. If I'm at the theater; yes, if asked, I might tell you the seat could be more comfortable this way or that way, but it should not matter so much once the show starts.

If 50% of the screen at the theater was out of focus it would probably give people headaches and they'd walk out. But with VR some people expect users to just "deal with it" and then wonder why VR isn't taking off.

"Setting impossibly high standards" in very particular areas is something Apple excels at. When Jobs first announced the iphone, engineers at other phone companies thought the smooth scrolling / touch responsiveness was impossible. They actually thought Apple was faking it.

they are also extremely good at marketing it.

The "retina" display was a great example of that. People argued about whether it was true and whether Apple was really the first, but it didn't matter in the end. I expect the same here.

It’s interesting to dismiss this criticism as “impossibly high standards” when VR as a market is clearly a disaster. The person you replied to is of the same opinion as the vast majority of consumers, who have either not purchased a headset or did, but now leave it in a closet gathering dust. VR clearly will not be viable on a massive scale until it takes a major leap forward.

When those major leaps occur, Apple should be well-positioned. Remember they play the long game. My office mate had Apple's first tablet 30 years ago - the Newton. And even further back - 40 years ago - Jobs said he didn't want the Mac to have a keyboard and mouse. He rightfully considered those to be a very artificial means of human-machine interface. His engineers made him understand that current tech didn't yet fulfill his dream. But that dream was eventually realized.

Those major leaps will occur. Apple has the wherewithal the stay the course. I'll look at the first generation VR headset the way I looked at their first tablet 30 years ago. Or their first computer 40 years ago.

What dream was eventually realized? We still use kb and mouse

I suppose he must mean touchscreens? Which are about as inhuman as it gets.

Yes and no. Certainly the market thinks it's the best option at the moment.But certainly it won't be the interface we use in 20 years.

What if it only seems like impossibly high standards? Many companies might not be directly tackling that because they're prioritizing other problems too highly.

It sometimes takes courage to challenge the status quo, to take the risk to establish a new standard. To identify and pursue the "right" standards.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com