Hacker News Reader

Comment by Grombobulous | Hacker News Reader

It’s HoloLens reinvented I guess.

What problem does it solve? I see a bunch of potential uses but I don’t see any problems looking to be solved.

Will I like gaming better if I control the games with my hands instead of a controller?

Will I like working in my glasses better than my laptop screen? Or even a dual laptop screen like a ZenBook Duo? Or a cheap second portable display? Do these glasses fit better in a backpack than a laptop and a second portable screen? They can’t collapse flat.

Are these glasses more portable and convenient than a smartphone? What are the benefits to watching an NBA game on this compared to a phone or my TV screen at home?

I can’t believe Meta is blowing their money on this stuff still.

View on HN

I think this is a big stopgap until an actual transparent AR glasses and an admission that Meta and the entire AR industry have no instant next quarter solution for shortcomings of Meta Ray-Ban Display.

The geometric waveguide technology used in the Display glasses is quite complicated and costly, the birdbath optic that Xreal uses is stupid, so to speak, and various holographic solutions used by Even Realities and likes is not so spectacular in light loss(IIUC the fancy term is "quantum efficiency"), as well as multi color feasibility(needs 3 layers with separate image sources).

Prior to now we didn't know if Meta will be doing a Display 2 or Quest 4, or if they plan to do something else. This is that something else.

They had to get something out to undercut Snap finally formally entering the market with a consumer product. That's my read. Their entire strategy for years has been doing whatever they can to box-out potential XR space competitors.

Rumor is they are going to do a Quest 4 (late next year).

I agree that these seem like a stopgap short of the thing everyone wants - Vision Pro specs (ahaha) in a pair of regular glasses.

Personally, as a glasses-wearer, I'm not quite convinced it's the right target though - even my 20 gram glasses are uncomfortable to wear all day and I take them off whenever they're not needed. I'd rather have a ski-goggle device (similarly light, but with the weight more evenly distributed, and still with optical see-through) with fewer performance compromises. Of course that wouldn't let the manufacturer dominate "the next form of personal computing" or whatever.

Yeah, I've switched to ultra-light rimless glasses and I really do not want to go back. I no longer have sore nose-pad dents at the end of the day.

(I have a fairly strong prescription, so the literal glass in my glasses does weigh a fair bit more than for most people. Yay modern optional media! It's so much nicer than it used to be)

I might consider them if I can wire it to my laptop. I use the meta quest for development because of infinite virtual screens and due to my apartment being so small I can't fit a proper desk and office chair. But still is a very niche usage, if I had space I would very likely get a desk with a dual or triple monitor setup. If the resolution is good, it is actually nice to have a very portable infinite screen setup if you travel a lot.

You can do this already with xreal glasses for like 1/4 of the price

https://us.shop.xreal.com/products/xreal-xbx-a01

Thanks, i will check it out. I think I did a couple years ago but mac os support was bad at the time? I don't quite remember, but this seems great now. Do you have one? Any experience with using it for work on mac os with multiple virtual screens?

It’s terrible.

I’ve always wanted it to be better, but it’s just terrible. It’s like working on a projector screen where the pixels never line up.

Really? Did you ever try adjusting the text sharpness?

I've a pair of Nreal Air glasses (before the rebrand) and a pair of Xreal Ones. I have found the latter remarkably comfortable and sharp enough for coding, reading text, playing games, etc. for extended periods of time.

The new widescreen modes are a real treat too. Still waiting for Real 3D to get upgraded to 60FPS though.

fwiw unlike the other person, I use it for hours with my macbook and have no complaints. you will like it if regular vr makes you feel claustrophobic/isolated, since you still see the real world while using it. I don't understand the obsession with extreme text crispness many people have.

Blurry text is horribly noticeable after a while, and it also creates eye fatigue from trying to focus your vision on it. It also means you can't use smaller font sizes, which is important for some people since you can have more text on screen.

This for me is the FAIL with both Vision Pro and XReal glasses: blurry text. Can't stand it from the get-go.

You can wire it to a laptop. It supports direct DisplayPort over USB 3 input, which it will display on a large virtual monitor.

I live in a small apartment too. Our setup for work from home is a monitor and desk pad that lives in our closet and we bring it out to the kitchen table.

This is a 4K monitor that cost roughly $500 along with a real keyboard and mouse.

As far as portable screen setups, we have a portable monitor, which slips into a backpack like a laptop. It’s about the size of an iPad.

I’m not saying any of this to criticize your setup at all. I agree that it’s a use case that probably works for some people.

Still, it’s clear that traditional alternatives exist, and they lack a lot of the downsides that VR has.

You can even buy laptops that already have two screens built-in like the ZenBook Duo.

Zenbook Duo is not an option for me unfortunately (company provides the laptop). A nice large monitor not an option neither (well, if it was up to me, I would get 2 nice 4k monitors, but wife was very clear she did not want a bulky monitor and me occupying a good chunk of the dinner table lol). But I am pretty sure she will be fine with a portable monitor, I didn't know these were a thing, and they fit my use case perfectly! Thanks a lot!

Yes! Those portable monitors are great, and extremely inexpensive.

I recommend getting one that’s above 1080p, probably marketed as 2K or 2.5K. 4K is probably overkill since it’s gonna be a pretty small screen.

I’ve also been of the mind that really only one external monitor in addition to the laptop screen is really helpful, but I know opinions vary on that.

You can

From the video they have on their site: watching movies in places where you normally would stare at a tiny screen; they also show folks using virtual floating keyboards in front of a VR desktop to work.

So: no problems solved.

I have watched hundreds of movies with my 27" 4k monitor, or 24" 1080p monitor a few years back. Screen size is never something that bothered me. And I know people who watched more stuff on their laptop screen with terrible color accuracy.

I have a VR headset, but other than the one time I tried Skybox just to see what it looks like, it never occurred to me to take the headset out to watch a full length movie. It's just not worth it.

Makes me wonder how often people use it for "watching content on a gigantic screen at home", or it's just mostly theoretical in VR headset marketing material.

VR desktop: that's supposedly the "killer application" of Apple Vision Pro back in 2005 (and only usable on high resolution headsets like those). Guess what, these days nobody talks about it. I haven't seen anyone bringing it up on HN for a long time.

Your wait is over.

I received my Vision Pro on release day (February 24, 2004). After trying every feature and use case, today (2.5 years later) the ONLY times I use it are 1) To watch films like "Disclosure Day," "Crime 101," "Dune," etc. in 4k on a virtual 30 foot screen — at any time of day — since I can black out the screen surrounding with the control knob, and 2) Watch the short (10 minutes or so long) Immersive Videos that Apple releases more or less monthly. They're fantastic.

N.B. All use is while lying down flat with my head comfortably supported on a pillow, using Apple's Version 2 headstrap. Only the supine position enables even enough distribution of the device's weight across my forehead and under my eyes such that I can (for the most part) not be aware of the VP's weight.

Live NBA and MLB: FAIL

3D movies: meh

Working with virtual Mac screen(s): FAIL because 1) text is blurry, and 2) headset is just too heavy after 15 minutes or so.

In summary: 1) I would NEVER recommend the device to anyone, and 2) I'm glad I bought it because when in use it's like something that came from the future, the viewing experience is so detailed and enveloping and the sound so perfect.

You can also see this with the used eBay values. Vision Pros have depreciated unlike any other Apple product I’ve ever seen.

Under $2,000 for a device that retails brand new for $3500.

Imagine if you could hop on eBay and buy a pristine condition MacBook Air M5 for $600.

Regarding heavy weight and use case, I think Valve has the right product design going on with the Steam Frame. They’re taking a product and refining it for what its actually good at with proven utility: gaming, with real controllers, streaming from a powerful PC, and minimizing weight on your head.

Apple and Meta have already effectively disproven the other hypothetical use cases of the technology. The Steam Frame probably won’t even sell that well despite being the most focused product on the market.

Related: I watched one (1) live NBA game on Vision Pro. It was terrible in all ways compared to watching on TV. Same with a live baseball game. Apple doesn't grok sports.

That’s interesting because I kept hearing so much about how its the ultimate movie theater.

If we really step back and think about how most people enjoy sports I think the whole idea of VR being a top tier option is a little silly.

Sports are very much community and family activities. How much fun are they to alone compared to watching with fans?

I see VR as something of a backup method like if you’re on a plane or something. And once we are thinking about that use case we might think to ourselves all the reasons why an iPad is better for that use case.

i thought it was incredible compared to watching on tv. the scale, the proximity, the fidelity. i even had my virtual desktop open so the "second screen" experience was pretty much intact

What made it less than ideal for me was the fact that I couldn't see the pitches en route to the batter in the big view — only in the much higher resolution inset "Jumbotron."

This product line already exists for years. Meta is just entering it.

It's essentially the xr-glasses /vr glasses category. Plenty of options around on stores

> It’s HoloLens reinvented I guess.

Hololens was a transparent display with stuff drawn on top of it.

This has reality drawn on top of opaque display

I mentioned Jaron Lanier in another comment… I've been watching VR try to establish itself and fail for close to 30 years now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com