Hacker News Reader

Comment by ChildOfChaos | Hacker News Reader

I think 'killer app' is missing the point.

Looking for a killer app you are looking at this to be a traditional VR or even AR device, that is not what this is.

This is about having a screen anywhere, multiple screens and turning anything into a screen and any environment into one, hence the name Vision Pro, that is how Apple are trying to sell it.

If you watched the keynote I think that was clear, everyone else seems to missing the point and comparing this to traditional headsets.

The fact when they showed gaming, it wasn't a VR or AR game, it was a traditional game on an AR screen says it all.

View on HN

But that's silly, it can do all that and also have a killer app.

I can already do all that traditional stuff on a macbook or ipad, and "have a screen anywhere", and those things are more portable because I can just sit it on the table instead of having to untangle A CABLE from my clothing and then find somewhere to place a headset that doesnt sit flat like an ipad or macbook.

Then there's the fact that ipads and macbooks have keyboards.

With no killer app, this is a boondoggle, I think.

The 3D FaceTime with eye contact could end up being the killer app.

With creepy rendered avatars? No thanks.

Sounds like a mental illness and behavioural illness generation device

Are they creepy though? The linked article didn't think so.

Looking at the WWDC video, for me it looks like it's gone through uncanny valley and reached the final climb towards realism, but it's still not quite right.

I've noticed different people have the valley in different places, so I'm not at all surprised if it creeps some people out.

The linked article is effectively an advertisement

I suspect that, like self driving, that last 10%, 1%, 0.1% will be both functionally essential and exponentially difficult.

Video calls work great (well once we've sorted out the eye contact issue - now there's a real problem that needs really solving[1]), even with all the ML in the world avatars will be just a pale reflection of the real thing.

[1] You need a screen that is also a composite camera array, so that software can track the eyes on the incoming video feed and place the camera for the outgoing feed at that (moving) location. Sort of like a phased array for light. Thus when you look at someone's eyes, they see you looking directly down the camera.

I don’t want to 3D FaceTime someone with $3,500 to blow on a 3D FaceTime machine.

What’s the killer app for Apple Watch?

Notifications and health tracking

the wrist vibration alarm that won't wake up your spouse (unlike a phone alarm or alarm clock)

Reading and responding to a text without using your phone.

That comparison comes with the form factor though -- it's a headset. It's not something you can wear and mostly forget about. It needs a purpose to make me want to wear it, otherwise it's just an iPad without the nice tactile association.

> everyone else seems to missing the point and comparing this to traditional headsets.

I think most people are trying to find better value in the product.

Headsets focused on providing a screen already exists, NReal is a decently selling product. Sure the Vision Pro has way better resolution, but we're also assuming that NReal and co will have better resolution in their next iterations.

To jest, if a VR screen dedicated device comes to market in 2024 with a tad lower resolution than the Vision Pro at half or a third of the price, will the Vision Pro still have a market as a virtual screen ? At that point it will need to justify the price with all the other things, the hand tracking, the surroundings integration etc. All the stuff people are trying to find value in outside of it being a screen.

I own a pair of NReal. They'd need to do serious improvements in reducing jitter and improving AR tracking. Now I like their glasses form factor better, but I doubt they'll be able to match Apples polish. Even if it's just due to not being able to purchase ARM chips as powerful as Apple's.

I don't see myself wearing that huge thing on your face if not for a brief moment and a killer app. Much less for 3500 (+ TAX!!!!) dollars.

> Much less for 3500 (+ TAX!!!!) dollars.

You overestimate the purchasing power of 3500 these days.

Paradigmatically that's of little to no value to anyone beyond an amusement.

It's Project Looking Glass 2.0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Looking_Glass

I suppose Project Looking Glass was more of a demo of Java. Maybe because Java on the desktop had a bad name? Such DEs and WMs already existed (3DWM, for example), and Compiz was also taking off back then.

However, Vision Pro is by Apple. The first iteration is probably as useless as the first iPhone and first Apple Watch. Its for early adopters, and it just has to be Good Enough (tm), with prospect to become better. Compared to say AirPower, the hurdles were purely technical, and couldn't be solved for the first iteration to be Good Enough (tm); so it was canned. Also, once its a commodity, Apple seems to shy away. See AirPort.

> Also, once its a commodity, Apple seems to shy away

Apple only works on something after it's a commodity that they can polish better than others and overprice it. Which is why I'm amazed about statements that they are the ones that introduced personal computing, mobile computing and other stuff. The reality distortion field pays off really well.

It could have a million screens, if there’s nothing good on the screens what’s the point?

Most of what I do with computers is reading browser windows.

Merely being able to do that on a nice screen is enough for me. I don’t want to or need to get directions for assembling my furniture. Heck, in real life, I like many people will just fiddle with the furniture and read no directions at all…

What if just not instructions, but instructions from the perspective of your eyes? Imagine an interactive instruction that guides you step by step according to your progress

Imagine putting a floating PDF in the air next to the pile of parts and you get 90% of the experience for 10% of the dev effort. That's what Apple is clearly focused on. Making your regular computer use functional while wearing techno googly eyes. That's Apple's killer app. AR is not going to get a lot of those experience investments because it makes no monetary sense. It's a massive money and time sink for a very fickle audience. Disney announced exactly what you're asking for, but it's crystal clear that we'll get something like four things a year. Maybe next season of Captain America gets a cool interactive border when looking at it. You can put Disney World on your kitchen table.

No one will care and studios are going to explore this field until they converge on a cheap but good enough standard to enhance their regular content. Maybe it will be a projection of the color palette of the scene outside the viewport. Maybe they will scan the surroundings of the scene and project it. But I'm pretty sure they'll just tout the quality of the 3D experience and that'll be good enough.

How do I find the right PDF? What if it’s big? What if it has two pages on each page and it’s kind of hard to read? What if the PDF is high res and causes the interface to choke out?

Welcome to spatial computing: it has the same problems we’ve always had, but now you’re wearing the computer on your face.

I don’t think it’s about having a screen everywhere though: I would be uncomfortable going out in public with it, for fear of being mugged for it.

This happened early in the life of the iPad. Insurance companies wouldn’t include it in personal articles since there was high theft rate. That subsided over time due to ubiquity and software security.

>This is about having a screen anywhere, multiple screens and turning anything into a screen and any environment into one

Which is what traditional VR and AR devices offer. Being able to use apps in VR or AR isn't new.

Exactly. The Quest 2 has offered this for years and cost $300 at launch.

Theoretically yes, you can have large multiple screens on the quest 2

In reality, they are worthless, it's like looking at a CRT from 1995

At a certain point higher resolution changes how you can use it

No, you’re still just displaying traditional apps on a headset. They just look better. You still have a big dumb headset on.

I dont care about about wearing a big headset.

I just want to display fake screen, in HD, everywhere in my environment.

The quest does not have high enough resolution for this.

Not really. The passthrough and resolution is not quite good enough on the quest 2 or the pro for it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com