Hacker News Reader

Comment by bryan0 | Hacker News Reader

While still pretty clunky, I think I'd rather wear these for extended periods of time than Vision Pro glasses (100g vs 600g). This is the type of v1 minimalist design I was hoping Apple would go for. I assume Apple investigated this path but realized they would be cost prohibitive? (although when has that ever stopped Apple before?)

View on HN

These are entirely different tech skill trees. Meta has been acquiring research companies and empowering researchers to invent cutting edge solutions like micro-led projects and Waveguides whereas the Vision Pro is a traditional VR headset architecture.

Similarly Google has invested in 3D displays that use lightfield displays, with Project Starline.

One would assume Apple has many lines of research towards AR glasses, but nothing is publicly known.

Meta plays the asymmetry game. Apple and OpenAI are secret shops. Meta Orion and Llama can benefit from being more open.

People are generally assuming Apple is also developing these internally. They just don't show off their tech until it is ready. But I would love to know where they are in comparison with respect to weight, size and field of view. I know it is not obvious unless you are very in the scene, but 70 degrees field of view here in this form factor is a massive breakthrough. Most similar glasses are struggling to do 45 degrees.

Apple delayed their effort 'indefinitely' to work on cheaper Vision Pro. They are at least 3-5 years behind Meta at this point. And if past is any sign of the future, Zuck is not slowing down this effort anytime soon for Apple to catch up.

This is going to be a very interesting platform battle to watch.

https://www.tomsguide.com/news/apple-glasses-reportedly-dela...

Around 10 years ago, in an obscure private close-knit investment chat group, a senior Apple engineer inadvertently blurted out how Apple has mostly solved iris gaze tracking and foveated rendering. When I pressed him why in the world Apple would be investing R&D dollars in this (I failed to make the logical leap to Apple mixed reality devices), he clamped up.

Apple plays the long game clearly. Wouldn’t be surprised if the Apple Vision Air already exists in an early beta form in their labs.

I'm sure Apple has prototypes like this internally. Apple clearly thinks AR is the way to go, and even tries to avoid calling Vision Pro VR. I think it's simply the tech isn't ready yet, and Apple isn't the type of company that develops in public. When we see what they have to offer, we'll be able to buy it within a matter of weeks or months.

Vision Pro could even be a red herring to get apps developed, so when their true mass market product launches it will already have thousands of native apps.

At $10K per pair in the first dev batch and the consumer version price still unknown, it's not surprising that this was not a reasonable option for Apple. It's going to be interesting to see the actual price and the specs once these glasses are launched.

Vision Pro is an XR device not purely AR.

So there are many things very important to Apple e.g. running apps, creating content, watching movies etc. that AR glasses are completely useless for.

Never really understand why people keep comparing AR to XR. Very different use cases.

Most people aren’t actually familiar with the products or technology. Most only look at a checklist on paper and don’t bother with the details beyond that.

Till these products are common place and people have tried them, it’s unfortunately always going to be the case that the distinction is not intuitive to (effectively) a layperson.

100 grams is still quite a lot of weight to have on the bridge of your nose. My glasses are ~22 grams and I can notice them after a full day.

Heh I just weighed mine: 28g (warby Parker frames). I really don’t notice them at all after a full day

Yeah it’s “cool prototype” vs debugged assembly line, manufacturing process, customer complaints, etc.

It's not cost; waveguide displays are not great.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com