Hacker News Reader

Comment by zoky | Hacker News Reader

It's interesting how he mentions Google Glass having captured the public's interest in such technology… which it did, if only for a hot minute. Now, ten years later, Apple has thrown its hat into the ring, and we'll see where it goes.

Could this be another iPod or iPhone moment—where Apple wasn't the first to do it, or arguably even the best, but they somehow, despite being ostensibly late to the party, managed to get it right in a way where it truly changed things? My gut reaction is honestly, no, people still aren't going to want to walk around with digital goggles on their heads, regardless of whether their eyes are visible on the front or not. But then, if I were able to predict which of Apple's products would be unexpectedly and wildly successful, I'd be very wealthy, so…

View on HN

> My gut reaction is honestly, no, people still aren't going to want to walk around with digital goggles on their heads, regardless of whether their eyes are visible on the front or not.

My interpretation here is that they're expecting it to only get worn in public on planes and at some high-nerd-quotient workplaces, but trying to prime the pump for 5 or 10 years down the road when they have a version that's as light and comfortable as (actual, not exaggerated) ski goggles with a battery that lasts as long as a current phone.

"Could this be another iPod or iPhone moment—where Apple wasn't the first to do it, or arguably even the best, but they somehow, despite being ostensibly late to the party, managed to get it right in a way where it truly changed things?"

The iPod and iPhone didn't cost $3500

But they did cost what we considered unreasonable at the time. Some of us still do.

I think it is aimed at professionals and home theater enthusiasts to break into the market.

It will be interesting to see the next iterations, if they can slim down the size and price enough that it takes off.

I guess one question is whether--assuming these can substitute for large screens--people (perhaps specially in smaller urban apartments) would want to dispense with larger monitors and TVs.

Living in a house, I'm a bit skeptical I'd have any personal utility.

I don't really consider the Vision Pro "AR" as most people think of it; Apple was probably smart to just coin another term. I watched the launch keynote and it seems more like an in-home VR+ as opposed to a HUD for people out walking around. Could it change? Sure. But there's a lot of technological distance between where things are now and what idealized outdoor AR looks like.

AR + AI assistant could be great: - "I see you are about to eat the 3rd donat today. It would put you over 3000 Cal target. The wedding is in 2 months.." - "the sign says you can't park here." - "the car on the left is slowing down. You can cross the street" - "this yogurt cost 10% less in the shop next door"

Seems more likely you would see ads for those donuts, then gym memberships and diet books and weight-loss apps. The goggles would steer you towards the more expensive yogurt because they paid for promotion.

> people still aren't going to want to walk around with digital goggles on their heads

The battery would need to last more than 2 hours

This could also be an AppleTV moment, where it takes a long time to turn into a real product that a lot of people will want. And even then might still not be a new core pillar of the Apple ecosystem.

I dunno. I've had problems with every AR/VR system I've ever tried in the past 20+ years, so I don't know that Apple will be able to solve this one.

But of all the companies who have at least announced products in this space, I think Apple is best equipped to make it happen. If anyone can do it, I think it's Apple. Just maybe not this decade.

The iPod and iPhone tried to look sexy.

Only someone with a cyborg fetish could consider that headset sexy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com