Hacker News Reader

Comment by TotoHorner | Hacker News Reader

Lol when the iPhone came out, literally everyone was criticizing it for how expensive it was.

Also, looking at the functionality it had when it first came out, it wouldn't have really been very useful for me (no app store, basically just an iPod + shitty browser + phone).

Anyway, does anyone actually think that VR isn't going to revolutionize computing over the next 10 years?

View on HN

> shitty browser

Well, well, even the iOS Safari that shipped with the first iPhone was miles ahead of anything else out there.

Sure, I just meant compared to what we have today.

People who used a blackberry can understand how big of a jump the iPhone was for mobile browsing.

TBF back then no site was optimized to be viewed on a small screen, only after the iPhone and then Android came along did we get "mobile-friendly" or even "mobile-first" sites...

That's not entirely true. WAP browsing was the norm for most mobile devices. The stuff we call "mobile-friendly" now is light years ahead of what we had then.

Opera on Windows Mobile?

Fennec (Mozilla Firefox for Mobile) was already a thing before iPhone was released.

The distortion here is that capacitive touch took on with iPhone release. Which lead to a surge of websites supporting such (albeit usually optimized for iPhone/iOS + Safari).

No mainstream phone launched with Fennec. Safari on iPhone was a game changer when everyone else was used to WAP browsing which was all scaled down, text-based web pages.

Of course, but that doesn't mean Fennec wasn't miles ahead. I mean, the original iPhone didn't even have multitouch zoom. Innovation vs invention. People have rose-tinted glasses about the past. They forget the bad, only remember the good.

Sorry but you're wrong. It doesn't matter if Fennec was miles ahead if there was no device to use it on (unless you knew the magic incantations to get it working on one) and the original iPhone did have multitouch zoom too. Jobs demoed it on-stage.

Absolutely, I don't believe VR will revolutionize computing in the next 10 years. It already has had two chances of doing so. Like 3D screens it has a wow effect but isn't that much better given its very real downsides.

Video conferencing using existing equipment and connections is arguably just about the only more immersive virtual experience that has really taken off. And that was somewhat forced on people and plenty here are still "FU. I'm not turning my camera on" in a work context as it is.

We can conceive of other uses but turns out that you can either get most of the way there for far less money and effort and/or the market for "spare no expense" is tiny.

When the iPhone came out they lowered the price by 1/3rd 3 months later. This brought it in-line with Palm/Windows/Blackberry handsets. The browser was also really incredible compared to other phones/devices at the time.

I think the fundamental problem of the Apple Vision Pro as it stands is that you can't put it in your pocket like the iPhone. It's also a lot more awkward to put in a shoulder bag than the iPad is, and the iPad hasn't exactly revolutionised computing either.

When the iPhone came out, people criticized it for the lack of keyboard and 3G. The price was similar to other premium phones of the time.

VR has always been about to revolutionize computing in the next n years. The technology has been available for decades, but so far nobody has been able to find good mainstream use cases for it.

How has the technology been available for decades? There are many requirements for useful headsets beyond just strapping a low-resolution screen to each eye. Even the Vision Pro at $3500+ isn't quite there yet: it's heavy, external battery with a short battery life, has a limited field of view.

The technology to make VR/AR useful for specialized applications has been available for decades. For example, South African fighter pilots had AR sights in the 70s, and the Soviets copied the idea in the 80s. The technology has improved over the decades, but so far nobody has found good mainstream uses for it.

I do think this is going to be similar to the iPhone launch in 10-20 years. The VR headsets that we have in 2035 will be useful, affordable, and revolutionary.

But this is not yet that.

> Anyway, does anyone actually think that VR isn't going to revolutionize computing over the next 10 years?

Well, Apple doesn't think so, since they're careful to call it a spatial computer and not a VR device.

What? No, they're calling it a spatial computer because they don't want it to be lumped in the same category as the other VR devices. Because... theirs is $3500 while other VR devices are $400.

They literally just built a VR headset... do you seriously not think the Apple Vision Pro is a VR headset?

> They literally just built a VR headset... do you seriously not think the Apple Vision Pro is a VR headset?

I think it's an AR headset, which is different. If it was VR it would need better immersive sound, but instead it has a million cameras.

But it also has the entire computer in it; "headset" kind of feels like it means a peripheral.

Your description also fits the Meta Quest 3, which is clearly marketed as VR headset. Granted, the Apple device has far better hardware and seems to be more polished, but the capabilities are very similar from what we've seen so far.

At the very least it's a VR and AR headset so no, it's not just a VR headset. And, considering Apple's track record on stuff like this, it's probably more accurate to call it a spatial computer since spatial awareness while using it can be adjusted on the fly. You can't do that with any VR headset right now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com