Hacker News Reader

Comment by georgespencer | Hacker News Reader

> Are you still using your Vision Pro?

> [150 words about a totally different product and platform]

Vision Pro isn't something I would use regularly, but you're bringing opinions about a 14" CRT monitor to a thread soliciting opinions on a specific 30" 1080P TV. I think we are beyond the stage where useful generalizations about "the state of AR/VR" can be drawn from exposure to a single device.

The disparity in screen quality and OS sophistication between Oculus 3 and Vision Pro is enormous (and both platforms are self-evidently in their infancy).

Whether you think they have succeeded or not, and whether you think the price point is reasonable or not, Vision Pro is as different to Quest 3 as a BlackBerry Bold 9700 was to a Nokia 7650.

View on HN

No it's not. When tossing up a vr purchase it's Vision pro, quest 3 or big screen beyond. Price points all vary but they are literally all the same shiz just served on a different shovel.

Each have their pros, each have their cons (well the mvp has mostly cons being the worst of the 3 but hey its having a crack).

Putting aside the enormous hardware difference between the two, even if they were "the same shiz" spec-wise, Id still not comment on Vision Pro over Quest - the reason being I have Macook Air. Spec-wise, that laptop is almost identical to any other laptop, but the level of refinement is on another planet. Its tousands little things that make using Air a joy, while dealing with my work HP Zbook is a pain in every way.

For that same reason, I dont dare to compare Vision to any other VR (and I tried a few, not Vision Pro tho).

> Spec-wise, that laptop is almost identical to any other laptop

Post-M series I hear this from time to time and always ask people to show me something in the same weight class with equivalent battery life, performance, and screen quality.

Has the market finally caught up to the point where your statement is true? (Not asking you to research, just curious if any spring to mind from any pre-purchase research you did.)

> Putting aside the enormous hardware difference between the two

I think this is far too charitable.

1. We are a largely technical audience.

2. We are discussing a product category where, per the last ten years of discussion about early hardware drawbacks (and the critical consensus on Vision Pro), the screen inescapably defines the experience.

Anyone on HN describing Vision Pro's screen as "the same shiz" as Quest 3 must either be a troll or operating with a knowledge gap so vast as to make meaningful discussion very, very difficult.

Like, if you don't understand the math, read the reviews and trust that this is not a global cabal of Apple apologists making shit up. Occam's Razor: this is a $3500 device where 35% of the BOM is the screens ($550-ish), compared to a $500 device where ~19% of the BOM is screens ($80). Of course they aren't in the same league.

> Post-M series I hear this from time to time and always ask people to show me something in the same weight class with equivalent battery life, performance, and screen quality

Law of diminishing returns. If I only need 8 hours of battery life, the fact that the M6 MacPro has a 48-day battery won't move me - a Framework/Dell with a 12-hour battery life would be on par as "good enough for me" on the battery life metric.

> If I only need 8 hours of battery life, the fact that the M6 MacPro has a 48-day battery won't move me

But it will. Suddenly you don't need to worry about putting it on charger on the evening, it will still be there second day with enough charge to leave you worry free. It's a fundamental change that competition just doesn't get.

I am still a bit surprised they went with so much aluminium, but I expected the final weight to be bigger. Can't wait for Vision Air. Imagine it supporting OpenXR from windows machine, instant hit for massive gamer audience already used to spending thousands on peripherals.

> they are literally all the same shiz

Oculus Quest 3 screens: LCD displays with a per-eye resolution of 2064×2208p (4.56 million pixels per eye)

Apple Vision Pro screens: micro-OLED displays with a per-eye resolution of 3,680x3,140 (11.5 million pixels per eye)

Disproof by counterexample. Perhaps you could refine your theory?

Some experts say that the Quest 3 has a higher effective resolution: https://www.roadtovr.com/meta-quest-3-apple-vision-pro-resol...

You just listed the shovels. It's all just vr. That's the shiz, the shovel is the specs. The end use though is the same shiz between them with the same goal, the goal is to provide vr.

It's all just car. Goal is provide driving. It doesn't matter whether it's a Ford Model T or a Honda Civid. Goal is driving. Car go drive.

It's all just phonecall. Goal is provide phonecalling. It no matter whether it iPhone or landline phone. Goal is talky talk. Phone go talky talk.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com