Apple Vision Pro Speeds Up Endoscopic Surgery by Almost 20% | Hacker News Reader

Apple Vision Pro Speeds Up Endoscopic Surgery by Almost 20%

macrumors.com

4 pointsMBCook4 comments

This is pretty reminiscent of what Microsoft did with their flopped Mixed Reality products. "Hololens Industrial Edition" and the US Army contracts made it pretty clear that these were not going to be a mass-market hit. And the benefit of hindsight has not really vindicated the XR paradigm at all, Google Glass still looks as goofy and awkward as the day it was prototyped.

Why Apple decided to steer directly into the same minefield, well, only Tim Cook could say for sure. Would be embarrassing if it was just insecurity that Zuck would beat him to market.

I think it’s much better than HoloLens. I also think it could’ve been a lot more successful if they didn’t force it to be a fancy iPad and left it more open like a Mac.

The price is way too high for something that locked down.

Why, is AR all of the sudden useful and highly-demanded when you can run native Mac apps, instead of streaming them or using the iPad/VisionOS versions? Doesn't seem to be the case.

I've come around to an understanding that the Vision Pro would be DOA even with regular VR features like OpenXR/sideloading enabled for normies. For the high-end VR/simming market you can buy much better hardware at a lower price from Pimax, and the all-in-one philosophy of the Meta Quest and Steam Frame is much more appealing than Apple's tethered battery brick. If we're being honest with ourselves, it's the exact same cowpie as Hololens with the exact same cognitive dissonance that killed Windows MR. I'd be shocked if the next Vision product (if we get one) treats the Steam Frame as a legitimate competitor, it's just not in Apple's blood to fight those battles.

I don’t think it would’ve sold like hot cakes. But I think it could’ve gotten a decent toehold. Be more than the near joke it is now.

I know two people who have them and like them quite a bit. I bought one to try it, but returned it during the initial window. Neat technology, but it wasn’t there for me.

What it needs is apps and good use cases. Every barrier you put in front of that, like Apple’s ridiculous App Store policies, is only going to keep that away.

There are other issues. They could’ve made it cheaper and lighter. Not even lending them to selected developers before the launch seems like a complete failure.

So instead it does media consumption, like an iPad or a quest, acts as a virtual Mac display, which some people really like, and runs iPad apps.

For $3500.

Surely someone would’ve thought of something neat to do with it if they weren’t trapped in the sandbox.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com