Ask HN: Vision Pro owners, are you still using it? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Vision Pro owners, are you still using it?

148 pointscheerioty84 comments

If so, what are you using it for?

Yes using it regularly multiple times a week.

I watch tons of media on it. My background was in film production and I firmly believe this is the best current way to watch films at home , as long as you don’t mind doing so alone.

The only better experience visually is a laser projector with active shutter glasses. I literally exclaimed out loud when I saw some of my shots on here for the first time. Depth for stereo movies adds so much, but you lose so much vibrancy and light with passive glasses. This solves both issues. I get why James Cameron said it was a religious experience. For fellow film makers, this is the highest quality way that I’ve experienced my own work.

It also is probably the only place at home to experience these movies at that quality. Nobody else has 4k 3D HDR with HFR. Nobody.

So as a previous film buff, it’s worth it alone for me for that.

However I also use it for work regularly. I join industry meetings with it, I multitask regularly. I spend more time on the couch working off my laptop with this as my screen now.

The passthrough and eyesight features have been surprisingly great for being with my family. While people think it’s sad that I’m doing my own thing in the headset, the reality is that we all do our own hobbies in the evening after work. I can now spend that time with my partner and interact with them while they do their thing.

I think it’ll take a while for Apple and the app developers to really get into the swing of things, but it’s been a huge, positive change for me.

That’s a great insight.

I have the Vision Pro and do like the quality and sound from my Sony a90j and Sonos system a bit more, but the size of the screen in the Vision Pro is amazing

> Nobody else has 4k 3D HDR with HFR

Sadly that content basically doesn't exist outside of computer games.

I got myself a 240 Hz OLED HDR monitor and I wanted to see Gemini Man in 120 fps, but it turns out that this is unobtainable by the public. The only other HFR movie I'm aware of is the Hobbit series, but they're only 48 fps.

It's a bit weird to me that I have an ordinary consumer camera that can capture 120 fps or 8K at 60 fps, but that content fidelity exists only in YouTube or Vimeo.

Well that’s just down to a difference in definition and need for high frame rates.

The content is there. But the definition doesn’t match your own. Much like how many film and game results don’t match each other as well outside of just HFR .

Anything above 24/30 fps is high frame rate for film.

Frame rate for film is an aesthetic choice, and a business choice. Unlike gaming, which only conceptually uses a pinhole camera model, frame rate changes dramatically change the lighting needed, the quality of motion blur and the emotional response.

> frame rate changes dramatically change the lighting needed

Can you explain this?

Each frame is a effectively a still taken at some shutter speed. Suppose you shoot at 1/1000 shutter speed and you're comparing 60 vs 120 FPS. In theory you get twice as many frames at 120 FPS, but every other frame should be identical to what you'd capture at 60 FPS (in a hypothetical world where you can position two cameras simultaneously in the same physical space).

I just don't get how changing FPS influences lighting unless you're making an assumption that FPS and shutter speed are entangled somehow. But I don't see how that fundamentally needs to be true except at the very slow end of shutter speeds.

Frame rate and shutter speed are entangled fundamentally.

Frame rates put a cap on shutter speeds. At 24 fps, the fastest you can go is 1/24s. At 120 fps, the fastest you can go is 1/120s.

Start first with the aesthetic aspect of motion blur.

Most film is shot relative to a rotary shutter [1], with a 180 shutter being the norm, which is effectively half the frame rate. This is essential to the look of cinema today. Anything longer feels streaky and prone to feeling a bit drunk (see open shutter films by Dante Spinotti etc) and anything shorter feels like it becomes too sharp and soap opera like (see the first hobbit).

The second hobbit film went to great lengths to make the motion blur feel more like 24fps motion blur. At 48fps you have to shoot open shutter (1/48s) to match 24fps style motion blur. Any higher than 48fps and you cannot match the 24fps look.

Now this is a purely subjective choice, as is 24fps today ,given we don’t rely on optical audio track,, but it’s ingrained in people for the past 100 years. It’s the cinematic look.

Then there’s the practical aspects.

Firstly is lighting. Increasing frame rate puts a cap on shutter open time. That’s significantly more light that’s needed for every shot. This greatly increases the complexity of films where we’re already using massively high power lights. That means a ton more heat and expenditure.

Then there’s the heat of the cameras. Filming is brutal on cameras. As you increase frame rate, you increase the load significantly, leading to potentially much shorter shooting times.

Beyond that, there’s the expenditure of more frames in general. Doubling frame rates also doubles cost for storage, and the cost of post effects.

And for what benefit really? As much as I like some aspects of 48fps, audiences have pretty universally panned any shifts away from 24fps as unnatural.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_disc_shutter

HFR sequences in avatar2 were weird at first, but after 10-15 minutes became wonderful and caused the 24 FPS ones to feel jarring.

Thanks for the reply. I really do appreciate it, because coming from the still photography world I've never understood this.

Not to be pendantic, but you can't you achieve motion blur by blending frames? That is, shoot at 1/240 and either average or add 10 frames together in an overlapping sequence to get 240 FPS with motion blur that looks like 24 FPS?

I'm only half convinced about lighting. Certainly, if a great deal of light is already required, then running a faster shutter speed means you need more light. That's basic physics. But I've been doing still photography indoors, with horrible lighting, and often I don't need to shoot any slower than 1/90 or so (and often can't, depending on the lens I'm using, since I shoot handheld). Maybe I'm using a larger aperture? Not sure what gives because with modern digital camera bodies, sensors have gotten really, really good.

Blending frames only works in very few scenarios. It’s not something that scales well to the multitude of things that need to be shot. For example, If something enters the frame, how do you blend backwards without a frame to do so?

Frame interpolation and generation ignores the contents of the screen and softens all elements, resulting in the overly mushy results you see on TVs with motion smoothing turned on. Impacts are softer, lip syncs may be off.

To your other question, even with your stills camera, you compensate for your higher shutter speed by changing exposure elsewhere.

Either you need a wider aperture, but now you’ve set limits on your depth of field, and potential sharpness. This is part of storytelling, for both stills and motion.

Or you’ve added more noise by bumping sensitivity. Which people don’t notice as much on a still, but do with subsequent frames when noise isn’t spatially and temporally stable. You’re also not driving your sensor for extended periods of time with stills where that heat buildup of extra sensitivity can matter.

Or you need more light.

The camera is one of the most emotional parts of a film. Yes you can do all these other things, but by doing that you place hard limits on the story the camera itself tells.

I feel like I've taken college courses that taught me less than your series of comments here. Bravo, fellow HN'er.

Haha, I appreciate it. Perhaps the perks of having worked both on set and post production , and both on the creative and technical side.

Did you mean, at 24 fps the _slowest_ you can go is 1/24 s, and at 120 fps, the _slowest_ you can go is 1/120 s?

I have old Oculus Quest 2, and yes even with lower resolution, it is far superior experience than watching movies on the TV. I can only imagine what it is like with Vision Pro.

I think it’s not just about picture quality but also about its ability to isolate you from your surroundings, can’t take a quick peek at your phone during boring scenes, screen appears huge, etc

I sent it back before the return deadline, would have considered keeping it if it had supported showing more than one display of my MacBook. I know by now they've released some sort of a "very wide display" in a VisionOS update, but back then it didn't really make sense. I thought, ok, I'll just try using one Mac desktop and all the other apps, messages & browser would be the Vision OS native ones open side by side. Then it turned out I had to connect my bluetooth mouse/keyboard to the Vision device instead (if I wanted to type something into the browser/Messages) and it was too much friction.

I did like the brief period of working (or just browsing stuff) while lying on the couch, but I knew from the beginning that I didn't need an even lazier position for staring at a screen all day.

Up to 5 monitors: https://immersed.com/

“Hi-Res Screens: Enjoy up to 5 high-resolution screens with support for resolutions up to 2560x1400 (with Immersed Pro subscription), supports curved and portrait screens.”

https://immersed.helpscoutdocs.com/article/6-immersed-on-app...

Asking as a newb: Why separate screens? Can you use it as one massive screen but move windows within?

Pushing further - the concept of window doesn't even make sense on such device.

Here's how I understand it, to make a VR app which can display one or more of your physical monitors you "just" need to make an app that's a fancy upgrade to VNC, nothing trivial but you'll be building on some fairly solid ground.

To make a VR app where programs all just float around in space you need to build more like a whole Window System like X11 or Wayland, which is a decent chunk of an entire OS.

Yeah, but why would I pay $3500 to use a 3rd party application that works fine on a $500 Quest 3 headset? Since graphics are only marginally better on Apple, this is silly they can't figure out how to do this themselves.

I’m still using Vision Pro for about 10-15 hours each week, but the bulk of that is spent mirroring my Mac or having focused writing time using the Obsidian iPad app—there really aren’t apps that take full advantage of the platform yet (and I don’t watch a lot of movies). Still, it’s been the best way to stay productive away from my desk. The launch was a bit rocky with bugs and missing features, but the recent updates to mirroring and keyboard/mouse support are starting to hint that Apple is focusing in on productivity as a first-class use case. I’m okay paying the premium knowing that this platform has the potential to keep heading in this direction. It feels like the hardware has a decent amount of headroom.

how do you type in the text? virtual keyboard? bluetooth?

If you’re mirroring your Mac, the computer’s mouse/keyboard/trackpad work across both the virtual screen and Vision OS’s interface. You can also pair Bluetooth peripherals directly to the headset.

There was a thread about it three weeks ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40660270

I bought and returned mine. Without decent window management integration in OSX it feels limited to only "fun" use cases. If it were able to pair with a Bluetooth keyboard and sync to my MacBook with many screens... I would buy one again immediately.

It does pair with a Bluetooth keyboard and VisionOS 2 introduces an ultrawide monitor mode that’s equivalent to two displays, fwiw.

That's definitely getting closer! I bought mine at release so it's been a minute. Great to know though :)

Ah I remember that I wasn't able to use the Bluetooth mouse and keyboard to control my Mac when screen mirroring. Hopefully they've fixed that now

Yes, daily.

Mobile workspace for programming with Mac screen + 1 visionOS safari window for documentation and + 1 visionOS safari window for Kagi Assistant (Ai chatbot access)

General browsing, reading and watching apple tv or youtube (via juno).

Writing...magic keyboard + vision pro. Missing are decent writing apps...the popular iOS/iPadOS/macOS disabled their access on visionOS. I end up using Notes because I don't have a microsoft office subscription and Pages also isn't on visionOS.

I don't use it for all of these use cases every day.

I use it as a fancy monitor that I can strap to my face and fits in a suitcase. sometimes I want to work lying down and it's great for that. It being based on ipados makes it kinda useless aside from the display.

How do you type when lying down?

Could have been a typo.

Not the OP but you can do it with a split keyboard

Not OP, but I type while lying down in bed. I don't have the AVP, but I do have xreal Air AR glasses that basically mirror my macbook pro's screen. I rest my Apple keyboard across my crotch/upper thighs, wherever my arms are most comfortable. To my right (on the bed) is my Apple Trackpad. It's kind of a hastle to move my hand from keyboard to trackpad, but I can drive almost all functions on my computer through the keyboard, so it's only used as a last resort. I also have airpods in my ears because the laptop is closed and on the floor.

I do this when my sciatica pain is preventing me from sitting and I'm tired of standing at my desk. I can work lying down for up to a couple of hours and find the position to be highly comfortable and productive.

Yes, everyday. Use it for work computing, video calls, movie watching, etc.

https://pasteboard.co/Uxu6mwAv5svN.png

FYI, your links says "Image not found"

Nope I have not been using mind. It is sitting next to my Oculus Quest now.

I wish there were more interesting things to do in it.

Honestly having that strapped to my head for any long thing (such as a movie) is a bit much. It's also heavy-ish and the field of view is still quite limited.

But most importantly there is really not much to do in it once the novelty wears off.

They had some good perspectives on the latest vergecast about this.

https://www.theverge.com/2024/7/2/24190641/apple-vision-pro-...

Interesting this is top of HN but no comments.

A lot more folks interested in the answer than able to answer perhaps.

It’s just too expensive for many to have an opinion on it.

Truly, just too many other things I would rather spend $4000 on than a first generation Apple product. Hopefully the next revision can start at $2000, more palatable.

Something like the Quest link cable and SteamVR support would also be tremendous, but I'm not holding my breath on that.

That would be great, my Q3 spends almost all of its time in SteamVR in a fantastic and free overlay called Desktop+.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/1494460/Desktop/

Everything being more legible on the AVP would make it even better. However, it’s also controlling some Windows things that I don’t think would be permitted on macOS.

I don’t have one to be able to test Steam Link or anything similar.

Also, importantly it’s had a very limited release. US only till this last week. Supposedly only 450k units available this year in total, which in the grand scheme is a very low distribution likelihood among a given demographic.

I am interested in people’s responses but I do not own one.

The market much be quite small, even within the HN audience.

It's a gimmick product for $4000 released during cost of living crisis. There is no universe in which this makes sense. I know that Apple is pushing hard for the whole "spatial computing" or whatever thing, but this is not how people want to use VR. The only thing Vision Pro excels at is showing you how it feels to be buying a computer if you live in a poor country and you're the first person in the village to spend two entire salaries on a device that has no clear practical use cases besides entertainment but your kid spent six months telling you otherwise. That porn though, totally worth it.

3500€ is steep for a vanity device that you are basically not paid to beta test.

I hope Apple makes a comparison product to Meta Ray Bans which i use daily. Though today using my Ray Bans and asking it questions got tedious and annoying as the reliability of "Hey Meta," working is 60 to 65 percent of the time. I did wish for a display to get the info (use a ring on my finger to control what I see ... the swiping UX on the glasses is clumsy..it needs more tactile type buttons) instead of having to ask questions and intently listen.

Though overall i love my Meta Ray Bans .. i feel they are a no brainer purchase for people who wear sunglasses and take pics with their phone. Meta Ray Bans are only $300.

What do you do with it daily?

Use it to block the sun of course and take pics and sometimes videos. It's super handy to take pics and videos and a better experience then pulling out your phone to do the same thing. Yesterday used it while river tubing to easily capture pics and videos of my journey and of course to give my eyes protection from the sun.

It’s almost completely replaced any other screen for watching video — suddenly, my televisions look unconscionably small. Sandwich Vision’s two apps, Television and Theater, have become my default ways to watch YouTube. And it can’t be understated how cool it is watching things on your own personal movie screen.

But this fits my lifestyle. I’m single, so if I had someone I wanted to watch this stuff with, I bet the Vision Pro might begin to feel isolating.

I don’t really use it for anything else. I’ve yet to find many (any?) compelling native apps aside from those that display video.

Once Apple apps like Pages or Logic or Final Cut — or third-party apps I use regularly on my Mac like iA Writer — are native to VisionOS, I’d certainly be more interested in this platform, but as is, the dearth of useful software is painful. I regularly check the App Store to see if any of the thousands of apps I’ve purchased since 2008 have been updated for the Vision Pro and I’m always disappointed.

Yes, daily, as a virtual screen for my Macbook using a BLE mouse and keyboard paired to the Macbook not the AVP. Then I supplement the Mac with the occasional AVP side app using fingers and eye gaze control.

If only the AVP ran MacOS natively on the M2. Somewhat ironic that I have to park an M1 Macbook on a table next to my AVP, screen open so I can unlock it (requirement for the screen pairing).

I’m considering putting my Mac Studio into ‘never screen lock’ and then using a long range Logitech dongle for the wireless keyboard and mouse so I can use my AVP without an opened Macbook by my side all the time.

A big bonus for me was VisionOS 2 added lower latency screen mirroring (and I think foviated rendering of the mirrored screen). Prior to that I had to use a developer strap with a second usb cable to the Macbook to get no noticeable latency on the screen and cursor.

I barely use it, but I might be particularly sensitive to blurriness/vision discomfort. Objects are not perfectly crisp for me unless ~2 feet away. I got my eyes checked and will re-try with the minor prescription. Mac mirroring was especially blurry. So far it's been good for watching videos while traveling.

This is unfortunately just the physics of a fixed lens system. You’re experiencing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vergence-accommodation_conflic...

To overcome this, there would need to be a significant development in optics to enable varifocal lenses.

Meta have made a few public attempts but the results have huge tradeoffs in weight, mechanics and response time with todays technology.

I have the same problem with everything being slightly blurry, including Mac mirroring, rendering it unusable. It's very annoying given I have very good vision normally, but have so much trouble seeing in Vision.

I discovered recently that I can focus fine on my hand a few inches from my face in real life, but the default onscreen keyboard position on Vision is too close for me to see clearly, even though its "much further away".

I sold mine about a month after purchase. It’s ok at a lot of things like general app usage, browsing, and running an external monitor for your laptop.

It is absolutely incredible for watching video, even 2D video. The 3D video it can produce is stunning. For me it was the best way to watch video, imo on par with or better than an IMAX screen. Just insane.

However, what got me selling it was: - It doesnt work well on flights. If it did, I could have justified keeping it. - I don’t watch much video alone at home. - Weight. If it was lighter and more comfortable the things it is ok at would be better.

In 10-15yrs, I think this type of device will be as widely used as smartphones are today.

Flights seemed to be one of the use cases they talked about being an amazing immersive experience even though you’re physically confined to a (usually) small seat. What about it didn’t work?

I know people who work on AR/VR systems for Apple, Meta, and Microsoft. None of them use these toys for productivity at home. They rarely use them for entertainment. The technology to make a useful AR device just doesn't exist yet, despite Apple marketing's heroic efforts to fool people into thinking otherwise. It's like telling people that they should have a computer at home built with vacuum tubes. It's multiple technological breakthroughs too early.

> toys

Apt description to me. I do wonder if APPL has managed to wring every dollar out of the market with their inflated price and limited delivery quantity. Kudos to them if they did.

just using it to dynamically run a multi-monitor battlestation at the local cafe for now

Battlestation?

Probably in the /r/battlestations/ sense.

https://www.reddit.com/r/battlestations/

computer desk

It generally includes the desk and everything that's on it, the chair, and the whole area surrounding the desk, and sometimes the whole room.

Yes, but in a fairly specific niche. I've found that the primary use case is for travel. It is really quite compact if you disconnect the straps. Being able to have the functional equivalent to desktop monitors is really quite handy for doing work on the road. It does struggles when not using a laptop with it despite having tried to make that work a couple times.

I found it put too much pressure on my face (even with the dual loop band) and not useful enough to justify the discomfort. I haven't used it since February, but I keep telling myself I'll eventually take it out and try it again if they come up with a compelling use case for it.

Echoing dagmx, I use mine constantly for movies and TV. Binged Fallout in 2 days — I’ve never done that before. Just watched ep5 of The Last Of Us 30 minutes ago. And so many movies, after watching probably <10 movies a year prior.

What makes it better than simply watching it on a TV?

To watch a show or movie on a gigantic and sharp screen is just a qualitatively better, and often jaw-dropping experience. Pause the screen and you truly appreciate the art of cinematography.

This was totally unexpected. I figured I’d use it for a few VR games and then put it down. But I wind up not playing any games at all.

Huge VR fan here. I tried the demo in the Apple Store. It was cool and all, but nothing game changing. From a company like Apple - somewhat disappointing even. The technology just isn't there yet for a compelling product.

Apple should wait until they have this in a glasses form factor before hyping it up any more.

Yes. That's what Carmack said when he quit Oculus. The headgear has to get down to swim goggle size to get any traction, and eyeglass size to go mainstream.

Apple got it down from a brick on your head to a half-brick, but that's not good enough.

It doesn’t seem like they were even prioritizing size and weight. They made it out of heavy glass and aluminum, and sacrificed size to add the front-facing screen.

Ski goggles seem like existence proof that Vision Pro is only roughly 2x bigger than it needs to be for people to feel comfortable wearing it in public.

I've mostly been using mine to watch TV/movies, though when I get some extra time I've been meaning to try the AVLR port that makes it work with SteamVR as a VR headset with joycons serving as controllers.

it is trash and I worked on it

Perhaps you can help it attain its full garbage potential -- casually slip in suggestions to integrate AI into version 2.0: e.g. setting a "background glow" color based on the user's mood, holographic flying creature-pets and other cool-sounding-but-actually-asinine ideas.

You can make a difference :D

Care to elaborate?

If sim racing had better Mac support I would buy one in a heartbeat. It’d be much better than buying wrap around screens.

You’d get that quality with a bigscreenvr headset at a lower cost even if you would have to buy a new computer.

https://youtu.be/tIIWYh601tg?si=3azdig7logfSWYKu

Check what this simmer is saying about it, it was an eyeopener for me as well

Yes, but I'll use it a lot more when 2.0 comes out, so I can see my keyboard in environments, which is my biggest complaint.

Mostly it's the best cinema screen I've ever viewed in my life. "Avatar 2", in 3D and at 48fps, is an absolutely stunning viewing experience. I wish high-framerate movies were more common. They look incredible.

Not really using it much anymore. I want to get Steam integration setup. It's fun for movies, but only if you are watching yourself, and honestly, the comfort is not worth it. Still, really cool, pinching to control is magic, and I can't wait to see where this goes. Yeah - probably not worth it yet, if you dev, can be fun.

People who own Bigscreen headsets as well as Vision Pro, how do they compare for you?

For all the people laughing at the Vision Pro and saying it's useless, just remember that when the first iPhone came out people were saying the same thing. It's often the second or third generation of a product where it really starts to shine.

There are also plenty of products that just aren’t that good or useful from the beginning and it doesn’t matter how many revisions it gets.

Also, Apples version is on its first generation but it’s not like VR as a whole is, “modern” VR has been around for a decade.

I’m happy to wait and see what they come up with. Tempted to get a quest in the meantime. AVP was too heavy, quest a bit too limiting.

I’ll say that I was very happy with my G1 instead of an iPhone back in the day.

We can also remember Siri when it came out. Jaw-dropping demo, but still more less useless after 10 years.

The iPhone had a killer feature back then which allowed you to make phone calls. Less needed nowadays I suppose but back then it was key to success.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com