Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I'm predicting right now that it's going to have performance problems with that display. While they haven't released exact resolution numbers per eye, 23M would give it a slightly higher resolution than the HTC Vive Pro 2, a headset which requires a GPU. While mobile chips have really impressive CPU performance, I don't think they're nearly as competitive in the graphics space.

Knowing Apple, they're also not going to support anything else besides Apple Hardware so you won't be able to hook it up to an actual gaming rig like you can with the Meta Quest 2. While this isn't a big deal for a lot of people, Apple is taking a huge risk releasing a very premium product like this without supporting the largest established VR market (gamers).



> Apple is taking a huge risk releasing a very premium product like this without supporting the largest established VR market (gamers).

This reads like "Apple is taking a huge risk releasing a new smartphone without supporting the largest established market (BlackBerry device users).

The VR gaming market is microscopic compared to what Apple is likely aiming for here. They do not give a single flying fuck about this "established market", nor have they for any other market they've entered. The entire Apple ethos is to completely change the narrative for whatever product category they enter. They did this for phones, for bluetooth audio, for watches, and—whether or not they're ultimately successful—you can bet your ass this is their intent for wearable headsets.

What's the eventual end goal for these devices? I'm not sure yet, but I'm certain it will become clearer in the coming years. My expectation is they anticipate this will come to replace fixed displays for a huge number of office workers. Maybe not with this first revision, but by gen 3 that's my bet for the market of this device. If you assume it get lighter and comfortable, higher res, and better battery life over the next few iterations it's clearly something that could just be your work machine with a paired bluetooth keyboard.


VR headsets are very personal from a cleanliness perspective. I would never share one. There's a reason why the padding around the visor is removable and washable.


I keep wondering how the demo units at Apple Stores are going to be kept non-vile.


Most people don't share monitors either. And very very few office workers share laptops, which is what they're suggesting


To chime in on the last part, I imagine that it could be beneficial for Apple’s offices alone; every employee is able to create their preferred workspace while using less physical space; only really needing a desk, keyboard, mouse, power & internet source and a seat


The only reason I sit in a fancy ergonomic chair is to be able to view my monitor(s) properly.

If the monitors could be virtual using an AR headset, I could just sit in a la-z-boy with a cupholder and a massaging seat :D


> nor have they for any other market they've entered

They don't care about iOS games? Apple Arcade?


> The VR gaming market is microscopic compared to what Apple is likely aiming for here. They do not give a single flying fuck about this "established market", nor have they for any other market they've entered. The entire Apple ethos is to completely change the narrative for whatever product category they enter. They did this for phones, for bluetooth audio, for watches, and—whether or not they're ultimately successful—you can bet your ass this is their intent for wearable headsets.

Apple is also the company which released https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Newton back in the day… They turned out to be right at the end but still had to renter the market entirely from scratch after 10 years. So far Apple has been great in “perfecting” products that already exist by doing the right thing at the right time.

They weren’t the first or the second to release a smartphone, smart watch, tablet, BT earphones etc. all of those had established markets and somewhat clear use cases Apple “just” streamlined and turned them into something that normal people would actually want to use. It’s seems a bit to early to do that for VR yet. So in a certain way they are in somewhat uncharted territory.


Whether or not they're successful is irrelevant to the question of what their intent is. But I find it telling that your initial reaction is to reach for a device that failed thirty years ago as if it has any relationship to modern Apple.

They didn't "just" streamline the smartphone. They destroyed virtually overnight the existing dominant players in the smartphone market and within a few years essentially ended the existence of non-smartphones as a market category entirely. They didn't "just" streamline the watch. Again, within five years of entering the market they overtook (in units) shipments of the entire traditional watch industry. Both of these examples are significantly larger and more entrenched than the existing VR gaming market.

Of course not every product of theirs is successful in doing this. But without question, this is their aim a majority of the time.


> find it telling that your initial reaction

Telling what? My point was that Newton was a brilliant idea yet the hardware wasn’t there yet and it didn’t have clear use cases. Both concerns apply for Vision Pro so at this point it’s still closer to the Newton than the iPad

> They didn't "just" streamline the smartphone

They did exactly that which is why it was so brilliant. You could do everything you could with an iPhone with other devices before it came out. It’s just that the experience was quite poor and all other devices were underdeveloped and had serious flaws in comparison (to be fair the first gen iPhone was a pretty lackluster device too).

You could browse the web, watch video content, send messages/emails, listens to music, play games, make video calls. Did Apple invent any of that? The iPhone was a just a device which could do it all with much nicer UX than anything on the market.

VR is very different in that regard.


> Apple is taking a huge risk

Let's contextualise this ... they have so much money in the bank there is literally no way to spend it. This could completely flunk and have zero impact on them. There's no risk here for Apple. Perhaps the question is why they aren't being more adventurous, or pushing this harder by subsidising the gen 1 device to get it off the ground.


The risk is brand dilution. Apple has a reputation for not launching products that flop


Yeah it's clear their focus isn't games. There's no way the GPU can push those pixels with the graphical fidelity expected by gamers. But I'm sure it will have no problem pushing the raw pixels as long as you stick to mostly graphical compositing-level graphics like all the productivity/lifestyle stuff they were showing in the demo.


Roughly double the amount of pixels = "slightly higher resolution"?


Sqrt(2) = 1.4 so there are 40% more pixels per inch. It’s not a different order of magnitude.


The Vive Pro 2 has ~12M pixels. This has 23M. That's nearly double. We don't know the FoV so we have no idea was the pixel per degree density is.


Double pixels still means only 41% better pixels per inch, per mm or per degree.


Performance wise, in the Platform State of the Union, they mentioned that they will use eye tracking to choose which parts of the "screen" to render at high resolution. That should help a bit.


First off, mobile chips are actually quite good at high resolutions (but usually lack bandwidth). But this is an M2. That's not a mobile chip.


100 games at launch isn’t aiming for gamers? That’s at least decent compared to the quest.


100 games on Apple Arcade*

How many of these will be windowed iOS apps? I assume most of them.


It doesn't matter what games it has if it doesn't have _my_ games.

That's really what sets casual gaming devices (Apple TV, iPhone, iPad, etc) apart from actual gaming devices.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: