Hacker News Reader

Comment by dagmx | Hacker News Reader

The big win I think will be the App Store rather than just the Apple Store. the App Store will provide reducing the need to take the headset off to use general apps.

When you use an oculus, if you need to do something like reply to a text, check an email or reply to someone on social media, you have to take off your headset or kill your current task and switch to virtual desktop.

Having all your iOS apps on it, and being able to multitask means people won’t be taking off their headset as often and they’ll not have to consider dedicated VR time.

To me, that’s the biggest software differentiator

View on HN

> and they’ll not have to consider dedicated VR time

The reported battery life on the Vision Pro is still going to require that you have dedicated "goggles on" time for the foreseeable future.

the battery has a usb-c port in photos that implies you can charge it while using it.

This has been mostly missed by reviewers and pundits. They’ve presented a primarily sitting/static experience; the battery is for when you need to walk around between sedentary moments. In that context 2 hrs is going to be (mostly) plenty

So do my headphones, but I can't charge them in use either.

If you watch the keynote there’s direct discussion of a power cable for the headset that is meant for constant power.

The first thing Apple says about battery life is "all day while plugged in". The device is intended to be used as long as desired while plugged in, just like a laptop.

>*Software differentiator*

The reasons I would not like to have one of these devices ;

* Apple's closed moat

* App store lock-in

* 'DLC' model whereby not a single thing you do on this $3,500 device will be free - and no matter what app you choose, Apple takes 30% of whatever revenue stream that app wants...

* The piss-poor apple fix-service market, and their shitty designs of the iphone which break so fn easily that VCs (YC+) have had to invest in cottage industry of phone repairs

I've had iphones since the first day of launch... and while I prefer them over android, I still hate ios ecosystem.

The infra-mechanics of it are awesome, but compared to the smarmy and condescending greedy Apple, i still hate ios.

While I sympathize with feeling disappointed in having to pay for apps for use with such an expensive headset, I believe that its price would have severely restricted the number of free apps available for it in the first place. Developers are going to want to recuperate their investment, and that'd remain true even if it were possible to install whatever one pleased on it.

It's technically possible to develop on the simulator alone, but given that the simulator is confined to a 2D window on a computer screen I can't imagine that apps developed in this manner would be able to stand up to competition developed without such limitations.

Yeah, I understand both sides of the Coin. I appreciate your response, and it deepens my concern is that there will be an entirely new DLC-ish content model whereby you have one price for an ios app - and then a different price for the "Apple Headset AR *EXPERIENCE*" version of all the apps - and certain features will be lock-outs to non AR-paying-premium customers...

Its just FN financially-dystopian

---

@scarface_74 ;

"*May you please ELI5 expand on your comment - as I am OOTL and would like to understand what you mean, precisely. (because I want to learn, kthxbai)*"

/as-i-am-posting-too-fast....

Surprisingly the GP didn't include price of the device as a reason, but the 30% Apple cut/likely uplift in price that developers need to charge to recuperate development costs - which are far more significant than developer hardware costs.

A non-Apple device without the moat would be better. GP also didn't ask for free apps.

Yes that must be why there is a thriving profitable market for apps on Android that don’t go through the Play Store.

Almost every non game app on the iPhone/iPad of note require a subscription and most outside of the App Store.

> The reasons I would not like to have one of these devices ;

I'm sure there are a number of people here who will agree with you.

On the other hand, the fact that Apple now has a $3 trillion-with-a-"t" market cap indicates that most people do not care about any of these issues. Not in the slightest.

Having replied to a text, checked my emails and responded to people on HN all from my first-gen Oculus Quest, I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. Do you not find a web browser sufficient for those tasks? Is there something inherent to the Quest ecosystem that should be stopping me here?

1. Many people prefer apps over browser experiences.

2. Many commonly used apps don’t have a browser experiences with equivalent features. Take Instagram for example.

3. With the Quest , you can’t really multitask, except for the Quest Pro.

The Quest 1-3 are equivalent to game consoles in many ways. I can use a web browser on my PS4. It doesn’t mean it’s a full productivity system with multitasking.

> The big win I think will be the App Store rather than just the Apple Store

It won't be using the app store, though. It's using a brand-new store, built from scratch. No iOS apps will be there unless the authors rewrite them to be compatible with visionOS.

You’re incorrect. It runs iOS and iPadOS apps out of the box. You can even see some if you download the simulator.

https://developer.apple.com/wwdc23/10090

Reply on news.ycombinator.com