Hacker News Reader

Comment by JumpCrisscross | Hacker News Reader

> Does someone watch an entire 2+ hour movie with a sweaty headset strapped to them (and plugged into a socket) instead of on a couch with their family/friends?

Flights. This might become a must-have for the jet-setting class. That not only makes Apples first-year numbers, it fertilizes the market for developers.

View on HN

VR movies in economy maybe. To tune out the awful experience of sitting in a 17" wide seat with not nearly enough leg room.

Nobody is paying business or first class prices and wearing a VR headset. Certainly not devoting carry on baggage space for it.

> Nobody is paying business or first class prices and wearing a VR headset. Certainly not devoting carry on baggage space for it.

Why not? The screens aren’t that great. And I may want to watch my own content.

It's actually pleasant to interact with the flight attendants. They have nice things to share, like snacks, drinks, and food.

> actually pleasant to interact with the flight attendants. They have nice things to share, like snacks, drinks, and food

I'm generally a book and chat flier. But most people aren't. And I'm not all the time. My limited rebuttal is to the claim that for some reason front cabin passengers won't want an escape.

Hell, I could see e.g. Delta having a VR stream that makes it look like you're super-manning when laying flat.

Every time I fly First, the best part of it is that the attendants are non-intrusive. If I were to go and convert that into an interrupt-driven experience I think it would be a massive downgrade.

"Yes, I'd like to be woken for meals alone, please". Lie down, effectively teleport a few thousand miles away, wake up to eat, teleport the rest of the way. One time, I was so tired I just went to sleep in London and woke up in San Francisco. Captain Kirk had nothing on me. The plane was a teleportation chamber.

Now I'm sure the thing that many people like is talking to flight attendants, but personally when people wait on me I prefer it completely in the background with a minimum of questions and interruptions.

Great. You can have virtual flight attendants interrupt your day every 10 minutes if you like.

Are you paying for business class to chat with flight attendants?

Well, anyone who does will get a nice chat, just saying! :)

Personally, the best chats I have had were near the back of a partially full flight. The ones in first and or business rate right up there.

I like to talk with the crew when they want to. One learns all sorts of stuff and or just talks right through a long flight over before one knows it.

What sets the Apple Vision Pro apart from VR headsets is that you can interact with the flight attendants.

I fly business class all the time and would absolutely use this.

I get to watch my own content on a significantly larger and better quality screen.

I bet they absolutely will. If I could afford business/first, I'd absolutely buy something like this just to be able to watch content or work on a bigger screen and without the constant interruptions you get on in-flight entertainment.

Then in economy, not having to cram a laptop where it can get crushed by the seat in front, or craning your neck, etc - that'd be fantastic.

The Quest Go came out in 2018 (first "real" VR headset for this kind of thing) and I've never ever seen someone use one in flight. Not once in four+ years. I average about one flight a month.

> Quest Go came out in 2018 (first "real" VR headset for this kind of thing)

It’s lower quality than an iPad and looks dorky.

The Quest headsets seem pitched for fitness-type games as much as anything else, whereas this pushes the higher resolution for workspace and content consumption.

Here is a thread about someone using one on a flight: https://www.reddit.com/r/OculusQuest2/comments/s1fy2i/quest_...

I've never seen someone use a Switch on a flight, but I'd assume it's not uncommon.

I’m not sure. If you regularly pay for first class, then these goggles probably seem downright cheap. P

Oh they 100% absolutely will. Also, most people in business class don’t actually pay full price. It’s mostly upgrades and such.

I met someone at a party once who does this. I later found out they founded a popular video game streaming website.

But it fertilizes the market for what kind of developers? Currently I see no real convincing reason why this should be substantially different than existing headsets except for a better operating system experience.

I can see this being an exceptional gaming device if the screen specs are anything to go by. But any game that would justify spending the substantial premium for that device would likely need an extra PC with really beefy specs, bumping the price up even higher, further limiting the target audience.

I've read other peoples thoughts about 3D modelling usecases. For most CAD related use-cases this thing is almost definitely overspeced considering the shitty textures most CAD prototypes utilize. Maybe it would be cool for architecture studios, but thats also a fairly limited audience.

I'm sure developers will come up with very creative use-cases for that device, but I cant imagine most of them being as impactful in the average persons everyday life as the introduction of the iPhone was. What I'm very certain is that this device is launching at a bad time economically. 3.5k is a significant expense, even for people with higher incomes. In a time where disposable incomes shrink and uncertainty is continuing to stress many employees, I don't think as many people would be willing to drop the 3.5k on that device as maybe 3 years ago.

But hey, maybe this comment will age as poorly as the famous dropbox one.

Existing headsets are predominately VR.

This is the first true mixed reality headset as it allows you to gradually transition between VR to AR. That's going to make the headset a lot more usable outside or in collaborative environments.

Completely agree with your points here. I personally see nearly zero times when I would use this given what I've seen so far. I imagined consuming content with the cheap Oculus Go would be cool, but mine has been gathering dust for years.

This Apple device seems like a moonshot. I am actually really glad for them to use some of their $100B+ of cash to take a shot at this product rather than other things that might be more sure-fire profit makers. I think if there is a killer app for AR/VR, we haven't seen it yet, and also, it'll be mind-blowing. But I think the chance of that happening anytime in the next 5 years is minimal. It's a low probability of something really awesome, so I'm rooting for it even though Apple is overall not my favorite company.

Maybe it would be cool for architecture studios, but thats also a fairly limited audience.

A guy I know does VR high quality architectural renderings of apartments etc that are sold off plan. So the potential buyer can actually go through their apartment before it’s even built. That doesn’t seem like a small use case.

I also thought flights were a compelling use case until I saw that the battery life was “up to” a whopping 2 hours

Unless it's plugged in, in which case it can be used indefinitely. Many planes today allow you to plug in devices from your seat.

Many also do not. Maybe even most?

Then you get to use it for 2 hours. Most domestic flights only have two hours or so of time when you're allowed to use your laptop.

I typically fly one airline so it could just be their planes, but I don't remember the last plane I was on that didn't have outlets[1]. And certainly the folks that can drop $3,500 on this are more likely to either be in business class or flying "nicer" airlines, so plug access feels like a non-issue to me.

[1] That being said, the number of times a plug has been able to support a charging brick directly is...miniscule. They're usually so worn out that they can't support the weight, so I have to carry the extension just for that reason.

Usually very limited amperage, almost certainly insufficient to keep this thing going indefinitely.

This is not true. Most seats have a 120/240v receptacle that can keep laptops charged while in use.

You’re forgetting this thing uses a mostly passive M2 chip. Not to mention I’m sure they designed it so it could be powered from the USB c ports on their laptops. The headset won’t use anywhere near the amount of power you seem to be implying.

That's voltage, not amperage. Just because it's a 120V receptacle doesn't mean you can draw large current. My laptop charger gets booted off the grid pretty frequently on a full plane.

Even if it's limited to 1A, 1A/120V must be enough. It can't have loud fan so must be power efficient.

I wouldn’t assume you can draw 1A.

Aside from the in-seat power, I think another likely solution will be third parties like Belkin making a less "apple-esque" but longer lasting battery that's compatible with the magnetic connector. The OEM solution looks quite small as is. [1]

1 https://www.apple.com/v/apple-vision-pro/a/images/overview/d...

Interesting, it doesn't show a way to charge that brick. I assumed it would have USB-C for charging, though perhaps MagSafe makes more sense given the propensity of the user to stand up and start walking without realizing he's plugged into the wall!

I also wonder if it will use the other type of MagSafe (like on the iPhone) charging. I could see the argument for convenience, but presumably this would be significantly slower charging than over USB-C.

The real-world photos of the demo units show a USB-C port next to the cable.

Or the 10,000 battery bricks that have existed for 10 years.

Two extra batteries will likely be trivial cost in the context of a $3500 device, not sure why this isn't clear to everyone critiquing the battery life?

I'm assuming 3rd parties (like Anker, Belkin, etc) will be producing batteries for this not long after it's launched that will run much larger. If we assume the Apple battery for 2 hours is something like 40Wh, a 100Wh battery (the TSA max I believe) will give you 5 hours (enough for approximately 2-3 movies), which seems like plenty.

on a flight you just plug it into your seat

i can certainly see the appeal of a VR headset on flights, but if that's all i'm buying it for why would i go for a $3500 apple device instead of a $299 headset from meta?

can i even use noise-cancelling headphones with the reality pro, or is it locked to the built-in spacial audio headest? because i'd rather block out the noise than the peripheral vision on a plane.

a) Meta Quest is heavier, bulkier with significantly poorer quality displays.

b) You can use any earphones you like. There are videos of people using the AirPods Pro which are the best noise cancelling IEMs on the market today.

> a) Meta Quest is heavier, bulkier with significantly poorer quality displays

It's also made by Facebook. We tend to underestimate the power of brands in tech. There are few places I've seen as loud of a status-signaling system than commercial aviation.

The screens are totally different, as are the apps.

Maybe, but you'd need to wear bulky Bose on top of the VR headset to get decent audio quality + noise cancelation.

> you'd need to wear bulky Bose on top of the VR headset to get decent audio quality + noise cancelation

I have a Bose and AirPods Pros, and I can't say one is a class above the other.

Vision Pro has speakers, not earphone or headphone. Noise cancelling won't work. Apple will just recommend a AirPods Pro if you want a NC.

XReal(Nreal) glasses are much cheaper and lighter and with good reputations for that use case.

Does anyone know what is the privacy status of XReal? I would like to buy one, but I'm quite concerned about privacy.

I kept picturing someone, having turned the "immersiveness" crown to the max and put on noise-cancellation, sitting in a window seat, smiling and calmly watching Ted Lasso all the way down while everyone around them braces for impact and grabs their life preservers!

As somebody with severe airphobia, this is reason enough to buy this thing

That actually sounds preferable to being fully present, in that situation. I'd rather go out peacefully than screaming in panic

Doubt. It might provide an (expensive) escape from the misery that is economy class, but if you are travel in first class or on private jets then you're already living in a very pleasant version of the world.

That’s my take as well. You can stretch out, watch a movie on a flat screen TV, sleep, stand up and walk around, have food and drink with a sturdy table, or curl up with a book or otherwise. I recently did international first class for the first time and wasn’t particularly dying to escape the hellishness of it all.

All the most enjoyable stuff I've done in VR has involved, at a minimum, lots of arm movement, and typically also leg movement as well. Think Beat Saber, or Half-Life: Alyx. I don't really see this working in a seated plane environment.

We're talking about watching movies, not playing rhythm games.

Is it going to be worth $3500 to have a better movie experience on an airplane? Absolutely not. Is it going to be awesome? Probably.

It depends on how often you fly. I can see a frequent flyer benefiting from this, or maybe airlines will just had them out to their biz class flyers.

VR headsets get pretty grody (I've seen how this goes at a VR cafe). I'm not sure widely shared headsets are really a business class experience.

Usually the piece that attaches to the headset between the face is detachable. Also, you can add a disposable silicon face piece cover to the mix.

I don't know if watching movies is a great use case for VR though? Unless it's gonna be a fully immersive 3D experience, I'd rather just watch it on a normal screen and give my eyes and head a rest.

My M2 air works great on flights no matter the seat configuration and I'm not small person. Costs a lot less than the ar as well.

For productivity, the M2 MBA is great. But for movie-watching, this is no comparison. I'm not a member of "the jet-setting class", but I completely agree that this is going to be de rigueur for those folks. I wouldn't be surprised if first class cabins came with free rentals in the near future.

Flights is one of the most compelling use cases for me personally. I’m tall and would love this. I also could use my ergonomic keyboard while looking up and ahead.

so you're going to be a tangle of wires that cant see the person in the seat next to you with these on on the plane. your ergo keyboard to the headset through a usbc adaptor with a mouse and the battery pack all on a tiny seat tray while you can't really see the keyboard or the mouse. got it.

I've done full passthrough, and the digital overlays over the keyboard suck when they come close to lining up correctly.

Done virtual desktop on the plane as well. if they're using kalman filters at all to correct for camera placement they freak out whne the plane moves at all. which it does, it's a plane. and let me tell you slow drift is how you toss your cookies.

I get how much people want them to be right. I do to. same as how cloud gaming just isn't quite there.

Doesn't a tangle of wires require more than one wire? This would seem like less of a tangle than someone wearing wired headphones.

They need a better story for the lenses for that to become a reality. Anyone who needs corrective lenses will need to bring their own and my guess is they are going to cost around $500. I’ll eat my shoe if they are less than half of that cost.

I'm seriously looking at implantable contacts just to avoid having to mess around with multiple pairs of glasses/ lenses.

Given the existence of prescription insert manufacturers, third party choices are likely to be an option. They're about 60 USD for the other headsets.

Flights are my most compelling use case for my Nreal Airs.

Nothing worse than being 1" too deep and having to work at a terrible, awkward angle.

They focus on AR experiences, so doesn't fit into flights. Why would I need to see my sweaty passenger?

there's a lot of graded levels of visible background in the keynote

They've said there's a "crown" (like on their watches) on the headset you can turn to adjust seeing your surroundings or not. And there's a video demonstrating that on the page this thread links to. So no, you're not stuck seeing your surroundings if you don't want to see them.

On flights you want noise cancellation. Maybe you could pair these with noise-cancelling AirPods, but then would you still get the "spatial audio"?

1. Airpod pros have spatial audio

2. Their presentation showed someone using it with airpods on a plane

https://twitter.com/techAU/status/1665790510093697024

How do airpods compare with noise canceling Bose over the ear? (Genuine question, not rhetorical)

Two years ago they were better than the best in-ear noise cancelling earphones Bose had. I've not kept up to date or tried Bose since then so maybe they've got even better (they weren't bad, just not as good as Airpods Pro, IMO).

AirPods ate some of the most highly rated wireless earphones at the moment. Compared to full size Bose, I would say they are 90% comparable.

I have both and prefer the AirPods Pro. The Bose noise cancelling always felt a bit unnatural; there was a pressure difference that would make me feel slightly dizzy. For me, the AirPods Pro do not cause the same dizzyness issue and have comparable noise cancelling. Even if they had noticeably worse noise cancelling the charging and pairing experience are so much better than what Bose can achieve that I'd probably still use the AirPods.

I have Sony over ears and airpods pro and I never wear airpods on flights. Far too uncomfortable for long ones and noise cancelling is far better on over ears, by design. Of course airpods are more versatile if that's what you after tho.

I have both the Sony over the ear noise canceling headphones and AirPods Pro.

I haven’t brought the Sonys on a flight since I got the AirPods. The Sonys do a marginally better job, but they take up so much more space in your carryon that the small advantage isn’t worth it.

Comfort is more subjective. Over the ear headphones start to hurt my head after a couple hours. Earbuds don’t bother me much in comparison.

It’s something that gives me pause about these VR headsets for longer durations. If I don’t even like wearing the relatively light over the ear Sonys, hard for to imagine myself being all that comfortable wearing a whole screen on my face.

This sounds absolutely awful and everyone on the flight will think you're a massive tool. It also costs $3500, people that can afford that just for flights are flying business or first class anyhow. I also don't know how much hand room you need to navigate the thing and personally don't like the idea that the person next to me on a flight could be watching porn, flights are already kinda gross.

Might as well go all in after you land, get into your Tesla, put it in auto-pilot to home and continue looking absurd driving the down the road.

The idea that everyone who spends $3500 for a bleeding-edge device is surely spending $10k for a first class ticket is absurd.

Business class from Seattle to Tokyo is only $6k these days. That is compared to $1500 in economy though. Even if I could afford this new VR system, I still couldn’t afford international business class.

If I could choose between having THC gummies on a long distance flight in economy, vs first with all this fancy VR gear... ha. No contest.

I know HN is generally people that make decent money in tech, but $3500 for most people is a lot of money, especially for a first-generation unproven product. You are much more likely to find a person in business class that is buying this than a person in coach. That's just a fact. Meanwhile, there is no reason to wear the headset in first or business class because you aren't trying to escape the grim realities of the airplane.

Who cares what anyone else on a flight thinks of them?

My goal on a flight is to spend as little time as possible interacting with anyone else, and then trying to purge the experience from my mind minutes after landing.

A headset that makes it all disappear sounds like a godsend.

You may not care, but social pressure is effects -most- people. If you think you look like a moron to everyone around you, you're much less likely to take part in something. If a "headset that makes it all disappear" is a Godsend...why haven't you already bought the various headsets currently available that could already do that and worn it on a flight? I imagine there are two reasons, it looks silly and because it has no brand value associated with it (like Apple), it looks -really- silly.

Generally because they’re terrible experiences with low quality screens that make me sick.

You’re acting like there’s a high quality experience in this space to be had and the only missing thing is an Apple logo. That is not the case.

The Quest 2 which cost $400 or so has a high-quality screen. I don't know the last time you've put on a headset, but the screens aren't the problem anymore. The problem are the other various fundamental flaws with the concept. In terms of having one in public, I have yet to see one, even this new Apple one, that doesn't look completely absurd. Tim Cook didn't even take a picture with the product on, because it looks ridiculous and is memeable. That is incredibly important, like it or not.

I have used a quest 2. It was… fine. It’s pretty charitable of you to say those screens aren’t a problem anymore, though. Still had screen door. Still made me feel a little unwell. Did it even do pass through? I seem to remember some awful grainy video feed.

We all have different standards though. Some people are already saying the Apple Vision screen isn’t high enough resolution either. Granted, none of them have gone hands on so I’m not sure what they’re basing that on.

Tim not wearing one. Good observation. I guess Mark keeps humiliating himself and Tim gets to learn from that

There was a lot of negativity online about the iPad and iWatch. I knew they'd all be successful the first time I boarded a flight after their intro.

Everyone in first class had one. As first class goes, so goes at least America.

That's an arbitrary over-generalization. I'm sure first class was carrying blackberries long after 2007.

Fair comparison, I felt the same about the AirPods. What these three devices have in common? They are not pro devices and their physicality is portable and easily accessible. Is the same true for the Vision Pro? I am purposefully excluding price.

Phones, Tablets and smart watches existed and had big market penetration before those products were introduced. The same is true of earbuds, wireless and otherwise. This is a space with incredibly low penetration, it will be much harder to get traction.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com