Hacker News Reader

Comment by billconan | Hacker News Reader

I prefer no outward-facing display if that can make Vision Pro cheaper.

I think that more than anything, the inclusion of this feature is a hint about where Apple intends to take this product, and that they want to send a crystal clear message that this device is meant for interacting with other people.

And it seems this is such an important aspect of the product that they're willing to reduce the addressable market from a cost perspective.

This, to me, is what makes this product intriguing. And it makes me think that Apple's real goal is something closer to a pair of glasses, and they just know they can't get there without a long series of iterations.

> that they want to send a crystal clear message that this device is meant for interacting with other people.

But that display increases the "creepy factor" by orders of magnitude.

This product isn't in the public's hands yet, so I think it's a bit early to conclude that it's categorically creepy.

But even if it ends up being a bit creepy, a) I think Apple is well aware of that and b) again I think this highlights how important they think it is to send the message from day 1 that solving for isolation is a top priority and intrinsic to their end-goal.

> This product isn't in the public's hands yet, so I think it's a bit early to conclude that it's categorically creepy

I was just going by the materials that Apple has released. It's true that I haven't personally seen the device in action in real life. But what Apple has shown certainly triggers a "creepy factor" in me.

Whether or not this is an issue for many people, and whether or not Apple will address it, isn't really relevant. What I've seen right now creeps me out a bit.

> Whether or not this is an issue for many people, and whether or not Apple will address it, isn't really relevant

Why/how is this not relevant in a broader sense?

Or are you just saying this isn’t relevant to you personally?

Yes, to me, personally. I should have made that more clear. Sorry.

Makes more sense and thanks for clarifying.

Pretty much everyone I have spoken to about the thing has been like “that’s fucking creepy”.

A few have hoped you can display something else on it - like cat eyes or something to make it less fucking weird.

Face filters in video were considered extremely creepy 3 years ago.

When google glass came out, there was the question of if you want to talk to someone who has a camera running at all times, (recording?). Its weird how perspective shifts.

Of course in some places if its recording all the time it might be in some weird wire taping situation.

> Its weird how perspective shifts.

It's not clear that it has shifted yet. It wasn't clear that Google Glass would be rejected until people started wearing them publicly.

Google is also in the market of using every bit of data it can possibly record of you to show you ads.

It's a shame I don't trust Apple not to do the same anymore. If the advertisement creep into MacOS is any indication, the Vision Pro might have more pop-ups than the Quest.

Huh. To me it massively decreases the "creepy factor", as the idea that someone is watching me when I can't see their eyes looking at me is where the creepiness originates... the only thing we normally interact with where that happens with people are mirrored sunglasses, and those are themselves often associated with cops and (if you even consider this a separate category ;P) creeps.

At least you KNOW they're not interacting with you.

With the exterior glass projection you THINK you're making eye contact with them, while both of you are looking at screens through cameras.

dystopian!

This scenario seems functionally similar to a FaceTime call or other form of video communication. Both parties know they’re not literally gazing into each other’s eyes, but the technical medium creates a pretty decent long distance approximation of doing just that.

A video call will never replace the real thing, but I don’t think I’d say it’s dystopian.

And I don’t find the tech in this headset all that different, the exception being that there isn’t a 2nd set of cameras and screens on the non-headset side of the conversation.

On the other hand, maybe it is dystopian, but if so, I’d argue that dystopia is already here and has been for awhile.

I don't know what kind of Facetime calls you're having but 99% of the time I'm looking at someone's face, but we're not making eye contact.

The video is almost never exactly where the camera is, and if the person is using an external camera or a secondary monitor, the eyeline will never line up.

It's fine! But you never have the illusion that you're talking to the person directly. Which may be is good enough for adults working on professional projects.

But it's not good enough for a parent interacting with a young child.

> This scenario seems functionally similar to a FaceTime call or other form of video communication.

But in a video call, the "distance" the video causes is something that you put up with in exchange for a greater benefit. If I'm talking with someone that has a screen in front of their face showing me their face, that's distance that provides no benefit, so it's a loss without gain. It makes the person seem sketchy.

But you still can't see their eyes. You're seeing an image on a screen. That strikes my creepy nerve because it seems even more opaque than if they are wearing sunglasses or something. Rather than just being aware that their eyes are being hidden, it feels like an attempt is being made to actively deceive me.

It's the same sort of creepy I get when someone is wearing a realistic mask.

in apple's eyes, that would make you a VR zombie

apple has decided VR zombies hurt their brand & they won't allow it

the world is biased against us introverts by forcing us to socialize.

you see, we wear a noise cancelling headset to pretend to be working, in order to avoid unwanted socialization.

Look on the bright side, maybe you can hack the vision pro to emulate direct eye contact in a conversation, when in reality you're scrolling hn comments.

Honestly not a bad idea. You could even fall asleep and continue to display blinking eyes with no one catching on.

This is funny, because to my eyes their main marketing image for the Vision Pro (dark-skinned woman) makes a face like a dazed zombie.

I have to try it out to see whether it's worth it. But since the display can be fairly low-resolution, I don't except that it adds a lot of cost. Weight would be a bigger concern to me..

My concern is primarily power draw. For a device with only a 2 hour battery, every erg matters.

While the displays are significant areas of power draw, for this product I don't think they're the low-hanging fruit. This is a device that's performing a whole bunch of computation in real time: video, lidar, infrared, eye tracking, and then it has to drive two 4K+ displays, one for each eye, with 3D-accelerated content being rendered at all times.

Go to an AR web page on your phone and start playing around with 3D objects in your space and you'll notice your phone getting significantly warmer and drawing more power. The Vision Pro is doing this literally all the time.

Also, the camera and sensor work that is tracking your eyes has to happen whether or not there is an outward-facing display.

Apple makes a watch with a display that is always on, and their phones have high resolution OLEDs that can stay on for over 13 hours (iPhone 14 Pro Max 150 nits brightness doing continuous 5G web browsing).

It's not on all the time. Only when you interact with people.

Hm, doesn't it use the outward-facing display at all times, to display your status (whether you're fully immersed, are able to see others, or are recording a video, etc.?) I'm sure there's more processing required to show the eyes, but it's still illuminating the display when it's showing these other states. These could be done via simple LED indicators, saving some energy.

Considering the amount of processing, rendering, sensors, eye tracking and 10x higher resolution displays all happening inside the headset, it's unlikely that the external display consumes enough power to affect battery life significantly. It would probably only save a few minutes at most.

It uses slow refresh like new iphones

How heavy is an OLED panel? Isn't it like a piece of flexible plastic?

Early reviewers seem to say that the metal construction of the Vision Pro seems to be contributing a lot to its weight. Most other headsets are all plastic.

I think it's one of the most important features of the design. Apple is trying to get VR/AR users out in public so that it can be a mainstream device.

In the long run, adding a second screen isn't that expensive, and the cameras that capture the video of your eyes already have to be inside the system to perform eye tracking. If smartphone manufacturers can make folding phones with second screens for under $1000 I think that the outward-facing display is not the lowest hanging fruit for cost reduction.

Apple isn't generally in the habit of cutting corners

The first iPhone only had 2G, the first iPad was super slow, and first AppleWatch had unusable apps.

They’re always evaluating if they can cut a corner.

They cut headphone jacks to save space. No reason you can't cut a pointless outer display to save space too!

The 7 had space for a jack (see StrangeParts retrofitting one); they removed it purely for sleekness (and money).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com