Hacker News Reader

Comment by Multiplayer | Hacker News Reader

I have a Quest Pro, after having had many of the predecessors - Vive, etc. I think that A/R needs to succeed before VR can really take off. And I think AR is going to really succeed.

By VR I mean being totally cutoff from the rest of the world into this new world. It's exhausting in a way and feels like you are at a disadvantage if other people are around.

The Pro has some limited AR and it's actually really exciting. Being in both worlds at the same time feels really really interesting.

Apple is so far ahead, conceptually, that it makes sense to me for Meta/quest to recalibrate here.

View on HN

100% agree. I've said similar things before on HN and got dismissive replies. Have a really good AR integration is essential for long term VR use. I should be able to toggle in and out of VR experiences and go back to real life when needed, just with googles on. But also have a digital interface layered over (without a full VR fake room like a Quest but my living room).

That would make the experience far smoother and relaxing.

The most basic thing is good pass through, I used to box every night on my Quest 2 and having a drink from my shake bottle was challenging and annoying.

I really hope not. I get AR might work for some situation p, but the Quest is really good for I’m erosive situations where you just want slice some blocks apart with light sabers according to a nice song. Beat Saber is still the Quest’s killer app. How would AR improve on that experience?

I don’t see much point to the quest pro and eagerly await the quest 3.

> Apple is so far ahead, conceptually

I'm curious what you mean by this.

Quest Pro supposedly being a pro device cannot replace my desktop screens. Resolution is just not there. With Apple Vision seems to be actually capable of doing this. I am looking forward to ditching my screens.

My napkin math and some googling (with the information I could find at the time of release, so probably inaccurate in multiple ways):

Quest 2= ~18PPD

Quest pro = ~20PPD

Quest 3 = ~25PPD

Apple Vision = ~36PPD

Real life vision 60-120PPD

1920x1080 27" screen from a "normal" distance is roughly 36PPD.

So I think Apple vision will feel like previous generation of screens (pre "retina"), and it makes sense why they pushed it so far. I wouldn't want to look at anything with worse quality (720p for example). And this is just talking about "pro" developers that use multiple screens.

Well sure. It's 10x the price of a Quest 2 and has a good spec bump for it, but is that a conceptual leap? It feels like it's just focusing on the high end of the market. Is it even a moat? Won't Meta have a similar device in a few years?

What Apple gets right are all the tiny details that make it feel like an AR pass-through device. Aside from the impressive spec differences that are required for usability, these are the things they focused on that really matter to me from a user perspective:

1. No noticeable lag due to very high refresh rate

2. The viewpoint and perspective of the cameras mimics your actual view almost exactly

3. AR-first, and user-friendly VR shows other people when they approach you

4. Quick, accurate eye tracking and comfortable gesture controls

1, 2, and 4 are basically speculation at this point, no?

We don't have hard numbers for them, but we do have everyone who tried the demo units being basically unanimous on those points, including people already familiar with existing VR devices.

Also hiding the cord for like 99% of the marketing

>What Apple gets right

they haven't released anything yet

But in a few years Apple will have new devices too. They’ll be cheaper for the “low end” due to better economies of scale and not using brand new cutting edge tech like the screens are today. The high end will be even better.

And they’ll have a few years more experience and refinement.

By then Meta’s similar device may not be enough, or even if the hardware is up there the lack of experience on high-end AR may end up showing.

This is speculation, Apple doesn’t generally produce cheaper-for-the-low-end, they wait for inflation and expectations to climb and make their high-end products “normal”.

I suppose Apple's product is not a VR product but "Spatial Computing"

Quote "Vision Pro, on the other hand, is primarily an AR device that just happens to have a few VR features"

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/06/hands-on-with-apple-...

"Spatial computing" is 95% just a marketing term. Understandably Apple wants to project the perception they are doing something new here. So they invented a new term. There are a few novel aspects to it, but it's honestly just VR/AR like everyone else has been doing in terms of all of its fundamental features. Which isn't to say I'm not curious about what novel things they will introduce. However what's visible so far is actually behind status quo in terms of true "spatial computing" eg: shared spatial anchors API [0] has been out for a while and lets multiple users collaborate in the same mixed reality space. So far Vision Pro doesn't seem to even support this fundamental use case that you would expect to see from a "spatial computing" device.

I do expect Apple to rapidly implement all this though and do everything better at the same time, so it's very exciting.

[0] https://developer.oculus.com/documentation/unity/unity-share...

I think you’re right, but I’d rephrase it as Apple focusing on what can be a great experience right now (viewing any iPad or macOS app spatially, a massive improvement over using either platform currently) vs highlighting what can only be a mediocre or enthusiast experience at the moment (full VR environments, and 3D AR).

They’re smart to set a minimum bar for quality experience and work on future applications over time vs Meta and Google’s typical approach of developing beta products in public.

You know, they didn't put it in the marketing materials because it's a $7000 minimum feature but I think the AVP likely does support the existing iOS anchor API.

In the same way "retina display" is not fundamentally unique, the Quest line is just as capable of "spatial computing."

I'll argue that the one major difference in Apple's approach is they're going with multi-app support out of the gate. It positions the device as a low friction compute device instead of an engrossing entertainment device.

...but that's just software and I think it's within Meta's reach. It'll be interesting to see when Meta decides to make the pivot themselves and how much of Apple's custom stack will need to be replicated and how far ahead they actually are.

“Meta’s reach” from my perspective was to take an excellent Oculus, rename it, and put everything behind an annoying facebook account. Can’t wait to see their further “innovations” in this space.

Meta already have multi tasking on the Quest Pro. What they don’t have is a significant app ecosystem outside of games

Consider that the Vision Pro not only runs iOS and iPadOS apps without modification, but also the fact that you can modify those apps to progressively adopt visionOS features.

To me, the killer software differentiator is that the Vision Pro will likely let you do most things you want within the headset. The quest requires you to take it off to do non gaming things or use often subpar web interfaces instead.

The multitasking is really not the same. You can't have multiple spatial apps on the quest simultaneously in the same way the AVP was demoed, at least not yet.

In theory there's a play for Meta to lean into deeper Android app compatibility. The apps do currently run on the device. The issue is the lack of Google services and app store but perhaps Meta could make it work or make a deal.

I do think Meta still lags behind on the app store front, both from a consumer and dev perspective. They've focused on gaming and they've done well to bring up a very solid game console but it's not the same thing. Their biggest gap to catch up on is the app side of the store and they have to do it through jeers that they've abandoned gamers.

Hmm I thought meta had demoed multiple apps at once, but I also find they show a lot of simulated content that they don’t deliver on so I’m not surprised either. That’s actually one thing I admire from the Vision Pro announcement is that it was all real. I own a Quest but I honestly haven’t been interested by the Quest Pro as a result.

I agree with you that Meta could make a deal with Google. Though at the same time, they want to own their platform and I can see their desire for that get in the way of true Android app compatibility.

And yeah, I liken the Quest to a console whereas the Vision Pro seems like a computer. It’s a good console but Meta clearly want to make it more than that but I’m doubtful they can.

Vision Pro has at least grasped the idea that serious effort and specs need to be put into bringing AR to the world, and has made a valiant, priced-to-match first effort.

Quest Pro doesn't seem to know what it is; its an over-priced Quest tottering about in Professional Heels, showing a leg at the productivity types as they walk by scratching their heads.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com