Meta’s Reality Labs prototype hardware(meta.com)
meta.com
Meta’s Reality Labs prototype hardware
https://www.meta.com/en-gb/blog/quest/reality-labs-research-display-systems-siggraph-2023-butterscotch-varifocal-flamera/
232 コメント
It’s more that Meta uses the showing of incomplete & currently not functional hardware/software as a marketing ploy.
Apple has never really done that (at least in the post Jobs return era). They demonstrate what their intention is… then release the device. Zip, except maybe some WWDC stuff in-between.
Which makes sense: Apple is Product Vision & UX focused, Meta (and most other companies) are Product Delivery & User Consumption focused.
Neither is wrong, they’re just aiming at different goals.
Apple has never really done that (at least in the post Jobs return era). They demonstrate what their intention is… then release the device. Zip, except maybe some WWDC stuff in-between.
Which makes sense: Apple is Product Vision & UX focused, Meta (and most other companies) are Product Delivery & User Consumption focused.
Neither is wrong, they’re just aiming at different goals.
> Apple has never really done that (at least in the post Jobs return era).
The trashcan Mac Pro desktop was heavily promoted to tech journalists before release to try and keep pro users from abandoning Apple. IPads and iPhones were going gangbusters then, and Apple had gone a long time without refreshing the Mac Pro. The common sentiment was Apple no longer cared about professionals that required workstation-level performance. IIRC, this was in the aftermath of the release of a neutered Final Cut Pro which seemed to cater more to prosumers than pros, since it removed key features.
The intention was to signal pros to hang in there, and then the trashcan got released and had perf issues with throttling due to thermal challenges. Good times.
The trashcan Mac Pro desktop was heavily promoted to tech journalists before release to try and keep pro users from abandoning Apple. IPads and iPhones were going gangbusters then, and Apple had gone a long time without refreshing the Mac Pro. The common sentiment was Apple no longer cared about professionals that required workstation-level performance. IIRC, this was in the aftermath of the release of a neutered Final Cut Pro which seemed to cater more to prosumers than pros, since it removed key features.
The intention was to signal pros to hang in there, and then the trashcan got released and had perf issues with throttling due to thermal challenges. Good times.
> The trashcan Mac Pro desktop was heavily promoted to tech journalists
They had one meeting where they told journalists they were not going to abandon the pro market space. This was when the trashcan had been out for a long time. Too long in fact.
> The intention was to signal pros to hang in there, and then the trashcan got released
No, the trashcan was released way before that meeting. One of the things discussed in the meeting was limitations of the trash can form factor.
They had one meeting where they told journalists they were not going to abandon the pro market space. This was when the trashcan had been out for a long time. Too long in fact.
> The intention was to signal pros to hang in there, and then the trashcan got released
No, the trashcan was released way before that meeting. One of the things discussed in the meeting was limitations of the trash can form factor.
> No, the trashcan was released way before that meeting
I'm afraid you're referring to yet another Mac Pro marketing push that came later (for the 2019 "Lattice" / cheese grater redux version).
I just looked up the dates & it lines up with my recollection and initial comment: the previous refresh (pre-trashcan) was in 2010. The Final Cut "Pro" X release that frustrated video professionals came out in 2011 and the trashcan itself was finally released in 2013. A lot of loyal video pros abandoned Apple for the Adobe/PC ecosystem in that era.
I'm afraid you're referring to yet another Mac Pro marketing push that came later (for the 2019 "Lattice" / cheese grater redux version).
I just looked up the dates & it lines up with my recollection and initial comment: the previous refresh (pre-trashcan) was in 2010. The Final Cut "Pro" X release that frustrated video professionals came out in 2011 and the trashcan itself was finally released in 2013. A lot of loyal video pros abandoned Apple for the Adobe/PC ecosystem in that era.
That’s true, though it was mostly only around the announce cycle part of that phase.
Definitely a stronger push around it for sure tho.
(I still say it was a great design, they just best on the wrong direction of chip/etc tech with it so it rapidly got useless)
Definitely a stronger push around it for sure tho.
(I still say it was a great design, they just best on the wrong direction of chip/etc tech with it so it rapidly got useless)
> Apple is Product Vision & UX focused, Meta (and most other companies) are Product Delivery & User Consumption focused.
Great insight
Great insight
The general maxim I always use is “Apple is a Design company.”
They ship hardware & software, but their core product feature for each is the design of it. Both individually and as a whole ecosystem.
It’s actually kind of incredible they’ve done so well at this after Jobs & Ive left. Speaks to their culture.
They ship hardware & software, but their core product feature for each is the design of it. Both individually and as a whole ecosystem.
It’s actually kind of incredible they’ve done so well at this after Jobs & Ive left. Speaks to their culture.
Related quote I like:
”Most people make the mistake of thinking design is what it looks like,” says Steve Jobs, Apple’s C.E.O. ”People think it’s this veneer — that the designers are handed this box and told, ‘Make it look good!’ That’s not what we think design is. It’s not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works.”
The Guts of a New Machine: https://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/30/magazine/the-guts-of-a-ne...
”Most people make the mistake of thinking design is what it looks like,” says Steve Jobs, Apple’s C.E.O. ”People think it’s this veneer — that the designers are handed this box and told, ‘Make it look good!’ That’s not what we think design is. It’s not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works.”
The Guts of a New Machine: https://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/30/magazine/the-guts-of-a-ne...
Which is funny because Apple often does design fails with regards to how stuff works. The obvious Magic Mouse 2 charging port, their mices continued insistence that there be only one physical click button so it's literally impossible to right and left click at the same time despite games and other software occasionally needing that, being maybe the only monitor manufacturer in the world to still ship a monitor with a single input, the Mac Mini constantly being plagued by Bluetooth/Wifi issues because of its chassis design etc.
> Which is funny because Apple often does design fails with regards to how stuff works.
Even exquisitely-designed things aren't right for everybody, which is fine. I also personally like old-fashioned clicky 2-button mice like my Logitech M720.
(The one item on your list that isn't a "different strokes for different folks" thing isn't something I've ever experienced with my Mac minis, FWIW.)
Even exquisitely-designed things aren't right for everybody, which is fine. I also personally like old-fashioned clicky 2-button mice like my Logitech M720.
(The one item on your list that isn't a "different strokes for different folks" thing isn't something I've ever experienced with my Mac minis, FWIW.)
Who are these folks that don't even want the possibility they can use their mouse while charging? And aren't just being Apple apologists.
A 2-3m charge will get you through the day, but my point was simply that "one size fits all" design doesn't exist.
Do you have examples of needing to use both mouse buttons at the same time?
In games it's common. Example would be holding down rmb for one action like aiming, then clicking the lmb to shoot.
Basically every FPS post-Call of Duty. Right mouse button to aim down the sight, left mouse button to shoot.
Right, exactly. I feel design has really been pigeonholed into “visual design” by many.
> The general maxim I always use is “Apple is a Design company.”
I would say a “taste” company.
I would say a “taste” company.
> Which makes sense: Apple is Product Vision & UX focused, Meta (and most other companies) are Product Delivery & User Consumption focused.
They are not competing goals.
All companies have to show progress.
Apple can afford to show finished products because it has multiple product lines. At any given time, at least one product line is shipping a finished version.
Meta, on the other hand, won't be shipping a finished product for their pitch ("Meta"-verse) anytime soon. So they have to be content with work-in-progress.
They are not competing goals.
All companies have to show progress.
Apple can afford to show finished products because it has multiple product lines. At any given time, at least one product line is shipping a finished version.
Meta, on the other hand, won't be shipping a finished product for their pitch ("Meta"-verse) anytime soon. So they have to be content with work-in-progress.
> They are not competing goals.
They are competing focuses however. Obviously they can all be satisfied, but you can’t focus on all of it. Otherwise it becomes “everything is a priority, so nothing is”.
I’ve worked at places that tried that. It’s foolhardy & doomed.
They are competing focuses however. Obviously they can all be satisfied, but you can’t focus on all of it. Otherwise it becomes “everything is a priority, so nothing is”.
I’ve worked at places that tried that. It’s foolhardy & doomed.
There was that Apple wireless charging pad that never came out because they couldn’t get it to work.
But that’s sort of what I mean: announced, never any mention again. Just cancelled. No additional “here’s that thing but it’s half built”, just… dropped
And it’s a pretty rare thing to have that mode of failure for them.
And it’s a pretty rare thing to have that mode of failure for them.
Yeah, I feel that this is why Apple announcements are exciting: they won’t show prototypes that may or may not be released to consumers. What they show they intend to ship within a year.
There was also the infamous white iPhone 4 debacle, they had almost shipped the next one the following year before anyone got a white handset. A white handset may not sound like a big deal, but people really wanted that thing.
That sticks out as one of the worst delays between announcement and shipping I can recall in Apple's history (~10 months and multiple delays).
> https://venturebeat.com/mobile/apple-explains-white-iphone-d...
That sticks out as one of the worst delays between announcement and shipping I can recall in Apple's history (~10 months and multiple delays).
> https://venturebeat.com/mobile/apple-explains-white-iphone-d...
Yeah, that was a technical delay (or rather a quality delay with a technical process). Was a super interesting problem they ran into.
Very fascinating from a material science standpoint
Very fascinating from a material science standpoint
Can you fill me in without search? I somehow missed the whole thing.
IIRC
The home button and the bezel were made by different manufacturers IIRC, and the two plastics aged/coloured at different rates.
It took them ages to get it such that the button and bezel will colour match perfectly.
Easy to do with black, very difficult with white.
The home button and the bezel were made by different manufacturers IIRC, and the two plastics aged/coloured at different rates.
It took them ages to get it such that the button and bezel will colour match perfectly.
Easy to do with black, very difficult with white.
Fill you in about what exactly? And what do you mean by "without search"? There is contemporaneous reporting on the matter available online, it's going to be more useful for you than someone's twelve year old recollections.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2010/06/apple-delays-white-i...
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2010/06/apple-delays-white-i...
> Apple has never really done that (at least in the post Jobs return era).
Apple Maps.
I still remember the hilarity.
https://www.tomshardware.com/picturestory/607-ios-maps-fail....
Apple Maps.
I still remember the hilarity.
https://www.tomshardware.com/picturestory/607-ios-maps-fail....
When did they use an incomplete, pre release, version of Apple Maps for tech journalism marketing?
They didn’t. So not a counter example.
They didn’t. So not a counter example.
Isn't Apple known for demoing pre release versions of everything on stage?
I think that fairly counts as a "marketing ploy"? Apple is so good at it that folks that folks don't even realize what is happening.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVthxoS6H9k
I think that fairly counts as a "marketing ploy"? Apple is so good at it that folks that folks don't even realize what is happening.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVthxoS6H9k
That’s when they announce it, yes. That’s usually they only time they do that.
Compare with Meta: pretty sure this is the 3rd “sneak peak” cycle on this hardware in the last couple of months.
Compare with Meta: pretty sure this is the 3rd “sneak peak” cycle on this hardware in the last couple of months.
No, it's not. It's different technologies each time that their research lab is working on at the moment.
I wouldn't call that pre-release by the standard definition.
The product is complete and it's just about ramping up production and sending stock to retail stores.
The product is complete and it's just about ramping up production and sending stock to retail stores.
Exactly. Meta always shows a preview because as you said their focus is user consumption - their vision is completely dependent on how the public vision forms around their idea. Beyond their core idea I think they observe usage and then figure out how to best exploit that. We’re seeing it now with threads- they’ve basically piloted it and have tons of data to guide their path to profitability.
It seems they’re figuring out how to do this with hardware - by giving public previews they can gather all feedback.
Tldr when your goal is to exploit peoples time you are reactive more than innovative, less secrets other than understanding human nature. When the goal like apple is to create the sleekest highest status product, it must be original and based on more objective standards (like aesthetics)
Tldr when your goal is to exploit peoples time you are reactive more than innovative, less secrets other than understanding human nature. When the goal like apple is to create the sleekest highest status product, it must be original and based on more objective standards (like aesthetics)
The difference is Apple can drop 1 video of vr and get 400k sales.
Meta cannot. Basically nobody can. Meta must drum up interest and hype to get people continuing to care about vr.
Meta cannot. Basically nobody can. Meta must drum up interest and hype to get people continuing to care about vr.
I was approached by both Apple and Facebook back in the days, and decided to join Facebook instead of Apple. Why? I like to be able to post about the research I do, and I didn't like the secrecy approach of Apple. I'm guessing that this is a big factor for more than just me when choosing a company to join, especially when you do interesting things that you want to be able to share with the world.
I remember reading that Mark Rober was at Apple (nobody knew about that!) and I just feel like that must have sucked massively for someone who loves making youtube videos to work in a place like that.
I remember reading that Mark Rober was at Apple (nobody knew about that!) and I just feel like that must have sucked massively for someone who loves making youtube videos to work in a place like that.
Yeah, on point observation. I worked at both companies. I left Apple to work at Facebook because I wanted to be able to participate in open source projects and talk about my work with my coworkers openly.
You're banned from working on your own open source projects at Apple? Had no idea, disappointing if true.
I could understand now talking about current work but if you have an open source project that's unrelated you can't publicly do anything?
I could understand now talking about current work but if you have an open source project that's unrelated you can't publicly do anything?
Another way of looking at it is - one company has a deep history of shipping successful and often innovative hardware products, and the other one doesn't.
It's hard to argue that that the one that ships is taking the wrong approach.
It's hard to argue that that the one that ships is taking the wrong approach.
You're comparing a hardware company with a software company. Meta only got into hardware in recent years. I would also point out that Meta is massively ahead of everyone in terms of VR (including Apple).
I certainly wouldn’t call Apple a hardware company. Their software is as much a part of the story of their products as their hardware, if not more so in many areas.
They definitely have a strong hardware history however.
I'm not sure if you're arguing that Meta/Occulus wasn't innovative or their hardware isn't successful. The Quest Pro would perhaps be a failure, but then will the new Mac Pro be a wild success ?
Meta acquired Occulus and so far have released only a single popular product.
And no one other than yourself thinks that the Mac Pro is going to be a wild success. It's a highly niche product with the Mac Studio being the mainstream version.
And no one other than yourself thinks that the Mac Pro is going to be a wild success. It's a highly niche product with the Mac Studio being the mainstream version.
Quest 2 outsold Xbox X/S. That's not bad for literally the only general consumer product they've released so far.
It’s also a little more than half the price. It’s not bad, but it builds strongly on brand recognition as well. They were really the only major game in town.
It’s a good sign for them but far from convincing
It’s a good sign for them but far from convincing
> It’s also a little more than half the price
The Series S is the same price, and estimates put it at around half of units sold.
The Series S is the same price, and estimates put it at around half of units sold.
> is going to be a wild success
The Mac Pro accounts for 11% of all Mac computers sold and 40-50% (~$20bln) of Mac revenues in 2022 (including laptops); the Mac Studio is only 1% of units shipped. What's your definition of wild success?
The Mac Pro accounts for 11% of all Mac computers sold and 40-50% (~$20bln) of Mac revenues in 2022 (including laptops); the Mac Studio is only 1% of units shipped. What's your definition of wild success?
Not sure where CIRP gets its numbers.
Because the Mac Pro outselling the Mac mini by 10x doesn't seem believable to me.
And especially in 2022 when the Intel Mac Pro was being outperformed by the Mac Studio.
Because the Mac Pro outselling the Mac mini by 10x doesn't seem believable to me.
And especially in 2022 when the Intel Mac Pro was being outperformed by the Mac Studio.
There's a reason the Mac Mini went longer than the Pro without an update. Compared to the Studio, the Pro has dual 10Gb Ethernet, SATA and PCIe Gen 4, and a rack-mounted chassis option. For certain classes of enterprise workloads, that makes a difference. Think VFX, post production, sound stages and recording that can't use the Studio for lack of PCIe expansion slots for industry-related hardware (HDX/DSP).
Well, those same VFX people now can't use their GPUs on the new Mac Pro.
Thankfully VFX Reference Platform also accounts for Windows and Linux, https://vfxplatform.com/
Thankfully VFX Reference Platform also accounts for Windows and Linux, https://vfxplatform.com/
Why would you need a separate GPU when you have integrated 60-core GPU with access to up to 198gb of memory? Like what you'd need a render farm? Apple Metal is already a target for all the important tools.
Because GPUs are more than just memory, and in regards to your memory comment, unified memory is not the same as having a dedicated.
And when the GPUs no longer can keep up, one doesn't need to throw away the whole computer.
And when the GPUs no longer can keep up, one doesn't need to throw away the whole computer.
[deleted]
The Mac Pro is their lowest volume computer. You’re thinking of MacBook Pro, perhaps. The MacBook Pro is a laptop and the Mac Pro is a full tower desktop.
Nope. The MacBook Pro outsells it four to one, but the Mac Pro _starts_ at $7k and goes up to $25-50k fully loaded. It's easy to underestimate the enterprise market.
https://9to5mac.com/2023/01/09/apples-most-popular-mac/
https://9to5mac.com/2023/01/09/apples-most-popular-mac/
Oh, that report. No comment on the accuracy. I did misunderstand you to be talking about all Mac revenue and not just desktops. I work on a 2019 Mac Pro so am familiar with the price range.
VR being a niche in itself, I don't see absolute sales number for headset to be a failure (if you excuse the Mac Pro for being niche, any of the Meta headsets are probably a blasing success. Makes me wonder how many trash can were sold during these years)
Through that lens, I don't see Meta has having slacked and failed to capture the market when they're definitely the leader and pushed it a decent amount forward.
The comparison point could be HTC, who's also continuing pushing the envellope but can't touch Meta in terms of scale and price point.
Through that lens, I don't see Meta has having slacked and failed to capture the market when they're definitely the leader and pushed it a decent amount forward.
The comparison point could be HTC, who's also continuing pushing the envellope but can't touch Meta in terms of scale and price point.
One company was almost bankrupt and only by sheer luck with some injection of capital managed to avoid closing shop while bringing a former founder, and the other one didn't have to deal with such problems.
> Meta has no real interesting in delivering anything other than a product they can ship to millions of people on day 1 at a low price point
Ahm, are we forgetting the QuestPro? Meta tried to build their "Apple headset", 5x the price of a Quest2 and loaded with all the R&D features they could find. And it was a colossal flop. The whole thing is getting shutdown little over six months after release.
They forgot to include critical features like a depth sensor, they couldn't figure out what to do with the eye tracking in their software, face tracking wasn't a feature anybody wanted and reduced the battery dramatically when actually used, passthough cameras are a blurry mess, resolution is too low to work as actual desktop replacement, etc.
The whole thing, despite 5x the price, was firmly stuck at just being a slightly better Quest2. Meta spend the last seven years building a portable Oculus Rift, and they succeeded at that, but despite billions in R&D they haven't really managed to advanced VR beyond that point.
Ahm, are we forgetting the QuestPro? Meta tried to build their "Apple headset", 5x the price of a Quest2 and loaded with all the R&D features they could find. And it was a colossal flop. The whole thing is getting shutdown little over six months after release.
They forgot to include critical features like a depth sensor, they couldn't figure out what to do with the eye tracking in their software, face tracking wasn't a feature anybody wanted and reduced the battery dramatically when actually used, passthough cameras are a blurry mess, resolution is too low to work as actual desktop replacement, etc.
The whole thing, despite 5x the price, was firmly stuck at just being a slightly better Quest2. Meta spend the last seven years building a portable Oculus Rift, and they succeeded at that, but despite billions in R&D they haven't really managed to advanced VR beyond that point.
well, that's why I said "no real interest"
They delivered a product, but it's clear they simply don't have the commitment required to actually see it through. Quest Pro is actually great for what it is, but they seem completely clueless about how to actually market something to business or professional users. The software on it is 100% identical to the Quest 2, designed entirely for gaming. Just the fact they couldn't be bothered even slightly differentiating the software shows they just don't even understand the distinctions b/w the spaces.
They delivered a product, but it's clear they simply don't have the commitment required to actually see it through. Quest Pro is actually great for what it is, but they seem completely clueless about how to actually market something to business or professional users. The software on it is 100% identical to the Quest 2, designed entirely for gaming. Just the fact they couldn't be bothered even slightly differentiating the software shows they just don't even understand the distinctions b/w the spaces.
Will either of them let me tinker with the firmware as an unrestricted user?
Firmware, no unless you are ultra hard core.
But above that layer there are pretty big distinctions. Meta is fully on the record that they are all in on making Quest completely use OpenXR as the primary API to the point of deprecating the old Oculus proprietary APIs. They also actively pushing forward the latest WebXR spec into the browser on the Quest, and sideloading of apps in general is straightforward (although you do need a developer account to do it which is unfortunate).
Apple doesn't seem interested at all in open standards at the OS layer, so if you need to be happy with the fully walled garden and proprietary APIs to buy into that ecosystem. It's unclear if VisionPro will support WebXR in the browser it ships.
So in terms of freedom, you will get a lot more from Quest, but its definitely sad that this whole area of computing could end up being the first that has literally no true open platform available.
But above that layer there are pretty big distinctions. Meta is fully on the record that they are all in on making Quest completely use OpenXR as the primary API to the point of deprecating the old Oculus proprietary APIs. They also actively pushing forward the latest WebXR spec into the browser on the Quest, and sideloading of apps in general is straightforward (although you do need a developer account to do it which is unfortunate).
Apple doesn't seem interested at all in open standards at the OS layer, so if you need to be happy with the fully walled garden and proprietary APIs to buy into that ecosystem. It's unclear if VisionPro will support WebXR in the browser it ships.
So in terms of freedom, you will get a lot more from Quest, but its definitely sad that this whole area of computing could end up being the first that has literally no true open platform available.
> you do need a developer account
I guess this means "sideloading" is a privilege they can revoke at their whim, is that right? I hope I'm over-interpreting this (and not blaming you as the messenger).
I guess this means "sideloading" is a privilege they can revoke at their whim, is that right? I hope I'm over-interpreting this (and not blaming you as the messenger).
The Lynx R1 is pretty open.
Can you elaborate how they’re open when you need to open yourself up to adware tracking just to use the device?
I just said above they aren't truly open ... so I'm not sure why you're premising your statement on me believing the opposite?
But in terms of how they are are "more" open, you can side load any app you want, and the headset supports open standards at both the app level (OpenXR) and browser level (WebXR).
But in terms of how they are are "more" open, you can side load any app you want, and the headset supports open standards at both the app level (OpenXR) and browser level (WebXR).
I think the biggest difference is Meta is happy to put out an incomplete product and iterate. The standard Quest 2 for example leaves a lot to be desired on the software side, but instead of waiting for years to perfect it they shoved it out there with the expectation that people would understand and accept that its very much an evolving platform.
Apples approach is that they wont release until its ready for use by the average joe. The expectation that you get it and it works out of the box without needing to be too technical is where they thrive.
This isn't to say one approach is better or worse, just different.
Apples approach is that they wont release until its ready for use by the average joe. The expectation that you get it and it works out of the box without needing to be too technical is where they thrive.
This isn't to say one approach is better or worse, just different.
"Meta has no real interesting in delivering anything other than a product they can ship to millions of people on day 1 at a low price point"
Wow, how naive can you be?
Because Meta's forte is ads. The hardware is just the gateway to their ecosystem where they don't have to pay Apple/Google for access to users.
Companies' engineering blogs are just carefully curated marketing pieces with highly distilled technical info. It's still marketing and some people eat it up.
Wow, how naive can you be?
Because Meta's forte is ads. The hardware is just the gateway to their ecosystem where they don't have to pay Apple/Google for access to users.
Companies' engineering blogs are just carefully curated marketing pieces with highly distilled technical info. It's still marketing and some people eat it up.
Meta used exclusivity as a marketing tactic when it was contending with MySpace.
Judging by the current relative market caps of facepalm and MySpace, seems like it worked out ok.
Judging by the current relative market caps of facepalm and MySpace, seems like it worked out ok.
> Meta has no real interesting in delivering anything other than a product they can ship to millions of people on day 1 at a low price point, while Apple is actively cultivating exclusivity of access as a marketing tactic.
Apple literally ships millions of devices on day one (that is, on the exact day they announce they will ship it).
Edit: with very few notable exceptions like the wireless charger
Apple literally ships millions of devices on day one (that is, on the exact day they announce they will ship it).
Edit: with very few notable exceptions like the wireless charger
> It's such a fascinating difference in approach between Meta and Apple. Meta literally invites journalists in to walk around its lab…
And you believe that they are doing this out of the goodness of their heart?
And you believe that they are doing this out of the goodness of their heart?
More than that, Apple is targetting specific usage, for specific professionals - i.e. niche marketing. Literally Pro.
At the same time, they are keeping the door open for mass-market over the long-term.
At the same time, they are keeping the door open for mass-market over the long-term.
Software company VS hardware company. That's it.
Meta needs as many people using their products to show ads and earn money, that's all there is to it.
Meta needs as many people using their products to show ads and earn money, that's all there is to it.
30% cut from app store sales can add up quite quickly.
It’s interesting that you make this point. Because Meta’s video is _all about_ the hardware: here’s new lens design, here’s high density screen.
Apple’s Vision Pro release has been all about the software: the interaction models, how to use SwiftUI to make immersive and windowed apps, the windowing model, accessibility, type readability, and every little detail related to UI
I’d argue Apple is equally software and hardware
Apple’s Vision Pro release has been all about the software: the interaction models, how to use SwiftUI to make immersive and windowed apps, the windowing model, accessibility, type readability, and every little detail related to UI
I’d argue Apple is equally software and hardware
In how they market yes, but not in how they make money.
I used to call this the startup model vs the Apple model
A startup begins a project often by announcing that it has almost succeed. Some open source projects and crowdfunded projects with a lot of pomp also take this approach. It is great(?) for fundraising. It is interesting that Meta chooses this since they are not looking for funding, but maybe they are looking to cultivate the same panache/ethos. A way to market to prospective employees, more than end customers.
Apple denies that its even doing something until after it has succeeded. And even then it will announce it on its own terms. The Putin regime also follows this model (eg 2014 annexation of Crimea). It is great for denying competition time to catch up.
A startup begins a project often by announcing that it has almost succeed. Some open source projects and crowdfunded projects with a lot of pomp also take this approach. It is great(?) for fundraising. It is interesting that Meta chooses this since they are not looking for funding, but maybe they are looking to cultivate the same panache/ethos. A way to market to prospective employees, more than end customers.
Apple denies that its even doing something until after it has succeeded. And even then it will announce it on its own terms. The Putin regime also follows this model (eg 2014 annexation of Crimea). It is great for denying competition time to catch up.
meta is playing catch-up. with the brand.
apple can get away with being less polite. what it delivers is enough to motivate a certain level of tolerance.
apple is ecosystem. it is the front runner at the moment, and will be hard to beat.
ffs this is facebook and mark zuckerberg. how does the joke go? their faces are next to the word unlikable in the dictionary?
both meta and zuck are cultivating a rather incredible comeback story. for all the historical hateables, even with layoffs and rto, there are a lot of recent moves that are brilliant.
second place in a martial arts tournament. threads. llama. this.
both meta and zuck are starting to look downright likeable.
this is no accident, and no small feat.
tl;dr you seemed to have missed meta’s marketing tactic, possibly due to anti-apple bias.
apple can get away with being less polite. what it delivers is enough to motivate a certain level of tolerance.
apple is ecosystem. it is the front runner at the moment, and will be hard to beat.
ffs this is facebook and mark zuckerberg. how does the joke go? their faces are next to the word unlikable in the dictionary?
both meta and zuck are cultivating a rather incredible comeback story. for all the historical hateables, even with layoffs and rto, there are a lot of recent moves that are brilliant.
second place in a martial arts tournament. threads. llama. this.
both meta and zuck are starting to look downright likeable.
this is no accident, and no small feat.
tl;dr you seemed to have missed meta’s marketing tactic, possibly due to anti-apple bias.
Not likeable in my house
how would you judge zuck compared to musk?
if that answer has flipped over the past few years, that isn’t just due to musk.
if that answer has flipped over the past few years, that isn’t just due to musk.
One is the world's biggest voyeur, a creepy, dead-eyed non-human who has broken the concept and functioning of the entire internet too many times to even count, the other makes toy cars and space rockets.
sounds like zuck still hasn’t won you over.
it takes time to rehabilitate an image so tarnished.
he can’t delete the congressional hearing recordings from reality.
it takes time to rehabilitate an image so tarnished.
he can’t delete the congressional hearing recordings from reality.
it's pretty much the approach of every company except apple
Meta has a god-awful reputation and needs to do whatever they can to build goodwill with journalists and the public. If they think showing off half-finished vaporware is the way to do that, good luck to them.
> showing off half-finished vaporware
They have videos of actual people using the actual built devices at the conference. They are letting conference attendees at SIGGRAPH put these on and try them out.
I get the need to downplay anything good that Meta does, but stick to "reality" - this is very different from half finished vapor ware. Or to put it another way, if this is vaporware, so is Apple Vision Pro at this point.
They have videos of actual people using the actual built devices at the conference. They are letting conference attendees at SIGGRAPH put these on and try them out.
I get the need to downplay anything good that Meta does, but stick to "reality" - this is very different from half finished vapor ware. Or to put it another way, if this is vaporware, so is Apple Vision Pro at this point.
Right. The prototypes work. It’s R&D.
We have no idea when, or if, this will end up in a shipping product. If they were to imply it’s a real product (didn’t read that clearly) it’s vaporware.
The Vision Pro was announced. Has a release date (within a quarter), a full public SDK & simulator. They have started the hands on labs for developers around the world this week.
That’s not vaporware. If it is every movie that’s been announced + shot but not released is.
The modern Apple (post Jobs return) had what, one product that was announced but didn’t come out? The AirPower. And that was a real product they were in the final stages of (best I understand) but hit insurmountable safety issues. Not “hey we’re thinking this will be a thing one day”, but a failed product launch that didn’t make it to market after multiple attempts to fix it in the final stages.
Apple doesn’t announce vaporware.
We have no idea when, or if, this will end up in a shipping product. If they were to imply it’s a real product (didn’t read that clearly) it’s vaporware.
The Vision Pro was announced. Has a release date (within a quarter), a full public SDK & simulator. They have started the hands on labs for developers around the world this week.
That’s not vaporware. If it is every movie that’s been announced + shot but not released is.
The modern Apple (post Jobs return) had what, one product that was announced but didn’t come out? The AirPower. And that was a real product they were in the final stages of (best I understand) but hit insurmountable safety issues. Not “hey we’re thinking this will be a thing one day”, but a failed product launch that didn’t make it to market after multiple attempts to fix it in the final stages.
Apple doesn’t announce vaporware.
Funny, because I certainly remember Copland, Taligent, OpenDoc,...
They were famous for it. That’s why Jobs, when he came back, stopped the practice. So people would learn that when Apple announced it it was done.
Which doesn't change the fact that they also did it.
And in regards to modern Apple, the settings panel and SwiftUI are more of a work in progress kind of thing, than actually done.
And in regards to modern Apple, the settings panel and SwiftUI are more of a work in progress kind of thing, than actually done.
Yes they did do it. But I called out post Steve Jobs return in my comment gif that reason.
Have people called SwiftUI and the new settings panels vaporware? I’ve never heard that. I’m neutral on the new settings design, but they do have a lot to fix there.
SwiftUI is pretty great when you can do what you want. Every release that encompasses more. I’m not sure you can reasonably make a fully featured UI toolkit in secret, I think you need external devs to help find issues and gaps. Letting it out early may have been a good idea for that reason, though it was quite rough at the start.
Have people called SwiftUI and the new settings panels vaporware? I’ve never heard that. I’m neutral on the new settings design, but they do have a lot to fix there.
SwiftUI is pretty great when you can do what you want. Every release that encompasses more. I’m not sure you can reasonably make a fully featured UI toolkit in secret, I think you need external devs to help find issues and gaps. Letting it out early may have been a good idea for that reason, though it was quite rough at the start.
I don't think most people care.
Let this sink in; Facebook alone has more MAUs than YouTube in it's entirety. That's frankly bonkers. After YouTube, the 2 next most popular are, yep, Instagram and WhatsApp.
If you went up to the average person on the street and asked them how they felt about the Cambridge Analytica situation, they would probably ignore you and think it was some sports thing. "the public" clearly doesn't care and journalists are probably pretty happy with Facebook's performance given what they have to put up with on Twitter.
I'm not saying anyone is particularly right or wrong here. I just think that this site's obsession with "Facebook bad" doesn't really extend beyond the constituent of hackers with a healthy distrust of organized power.
Let this sink in; Facebook alone has more MAUs than YouTube in it's entirety. That's frankly bonkers. After YouTube, the 2 next most popular are, yep, Instagram and WhatsApp.
If you went up to the average person on the street and asked them how they felt about the Cambridge Analytica situation, they would probably ignore you and think it was some sports thing. "the public" clearly doesn't care and journalists are probably pretty happy with Facebook's performance given what they have to put up with on Twitter.
I'm not saying anyone is particularly right or wrong here. I just think that this site's obsession with "Facebook bad" doesn't really extend beyond the constituent of hackers with a healthy distrust of organized power.
You and GP miss that FB products are used in worldwide. Foreign people don't much care about Trump related chaos. Though I might underrate that how US is big for a VR market, because they tend to spend money and tend to have big rooms.
Cambridge Analytica was an entirely fake issue so in this case the general public is more informed than the average hacker news reader.
I'm not a republican btw, I just know a lot about the nuts and bolts of the digital industry. Anybody who actually knows how political ad targeting works guffaws every time CA comes up.
I'm not a republican btw, I just know a lot about the nuts and bolts of the digital industry. Anybody who actually knows how political ad targeting works guffaws every time CA comes up.
You’re a bit biased if you think Meta is doing anything other than marketing here, just using a different tactic.
Meta has never showed off demo-able advanced R&D hardware publicly, even when they’ve had it, until now.
This is simply a second degree demo to Wall Street investors. Their analysts will either attend, or read reports from reputable experts.
They’ve sunk $40 Billion into this project with nothing to show. Apple has reportedly spent $20 Billion while underpinning it with healthy growth and profits.
Facebook shipped Quest 2 dev kits to partners that were physically disguised as clothing irons. The narrative you’re spinning is nonsense.
EDIT: You’re either Boz or a lieutenant judging by your comment history.
You only comment on topics related to Facebook competition and say things close to “interesting feedback” and occasionally expose yourself with specific phrases like “Thanks for sharing, it's always interesting to hear these kind of anecdotes!” https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36351422
Meta has never showed off demo-able advanced R&D hardware publicly, even when they’ve had it, until now.
This is simply a second degree demo to Wall Street investors. Their analysts will either attend, or read reports from reputable experts.
They’ve sunk $40 Billion into this project with nothing to show. Apple has reportedly spent $20 Billion while underpinning it with healthy growth and profits.
Facebook shipped Quest 2 dev kits to partners that were physically disguised as clothing irons. The narrative you’re spinning is nonsense.
EDIT: You’re either Boz or a lieutenant judging by your comment history.
You only comment on topics related to Facebook competition and say things close to “interesting feedback” and occasionally expose yourself with specific phrases like “Thanks for sharing, it's always interesting to hear these kind of anecdotes!” https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36351422
> Meta has never showed off demo-able advanced R&D hardware publicly, even when they’ve had it, until now.
What are you talking about? They've done this continually:
2018: https://www.meta.com/blog/quest/introducing-the-team-behind-...
2019: https://www.meta.com/blog/quest/half-dome-updates-frl-explor...
2020: https://tech.facebook.com/reality-labs/2020/9/announcing-pro...
2021: https://tech.facebook.com/reality-labs/2021/3/inside-faceboo...
What are you talking about? They've done this continually:
2018: https://www.meta.com/blog/quest/introducing-the-team-behind-...
2019: https://www.meta.com/blog/quest/half-dome-updates-frl-explor...
2020: https://tech.facebook.com/reality-labs/2020/9/announcing-pro...
2021: https://tech.facebook.com/reality-labs/2021/3/inside-faceboo...
I can't find it on meta's site, but Zuck also showed a couple of prototypes in 2022. Here's one of them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLqEBCCV2SQ
Yes they have. Unless I dreamed watching a bunch of YouTube videos of people trying on different prototypes at their office last year and talking about different tradeoffs they're considering.
Meta literally changed their name for this space, and Apple is going to beat them to market with a mass market product. This is clearly reactive "we have to show something" vaporware.
> Apple is going to beat them to market with a mass market product
???
Meta already shipped 20M headsets. Apple won't get more than 400k of these in the field until 2025, and even then they will be so expensive barely anybody can afford it. Quite literally, whatever mass market there is, Meta owns it now and for the foreseeable future.
???
Meta already shipped 20M headsets. Apple won't get more than 400k of these in the field until 2025, and even then they will be so expensive barely anybody can afford it. Quite literally, whatever mass market there is, Meta owns it now and for the foreseeable future.
Oculus is capped at the gamer market size, which is in the 10M units range.
Apple is targeting the wider compute market which is capped at Billions. They won't sell billions in 2025, or at the $3500 price point, but this is the market they are building towards capturing.
Think of Palm Pilot vs iPhone. It's a decade-scale play.
* edit: Let me just add that Apple TV hardware which is largely abandoned and afterthought product line considered unsuccessful, for example is a 13M/year item for Apple. 20M lifetime is not mass market.
Apple is targeting the wider compute market which is capped at Billions. They won't sell billions in 2025, or at the $3500 price point, but this is the market they are building towards capturing.
Think of Palm Pilot vs iPhone. It's a decade-scale play.
* edit: Let me just add that Apple TV hardware which is largely abandoned and afterthought product line considered unsuccessful, for example is a 13M/year item for Apple. 20M lifetime is not mass market.
So why do you think Oculus is capped at gamer market size? What about the AVP is something Meta can't replicate in a generation or two? Considering the install base, I would think Meta will be able to keep their app store stocked as well.
Are you just saying that Meta has the wrong focus or do you think Apple has a moat?
Are you just saying that Meta has the wrong focus or do you think Apple has a moat?
Oculus is not capped at the gamer market size. It's capped by hardware constraints. Until very recently, the hardware wasn't there for high resolution microdisplays and lenses. Most VR equipment has been built using off the shelf parts and modified smart phone hardware. This stuff is still great for gaming but not so great for dealing with text or anything requiring anything super high resolution.
Now that the chip shortage and supply chain issues have calmed down a bit, we're seeing big improvements. But these constraints also apply to Apple which is why their first run of Vision Pro headsets is set to be around 100,000 units. Hardware is the constraint.
That said, the focus for Oculus has always been much larger than gaming. The whole "Metaverse" pitch isn't a pitch for a product. The "Metaverse" is just another jangly marketing term just like "Information Superhighway" was for the Internet back in 90s. It just means using VR/AR for everyday situations like work, entertainment, etc.
Now that the chip shortage and supply chain issues have calmed down a bit, we're seeing big improvements. But these constraints also apply to Apple which is why their first run of Vision Pro headsets is set to be around 100,000 units. Hardware is the constraint.
That said, the focus for Oculus has always been much larger than gaming. The whole "Metaverse" pitch isn't a pitch for a product. The "Metaverse" is just another jangly marketing term just like "Information Superhighway" was for the Internet back in 90s. It just means using VR/AR for everyday situations like work, entertainment, etc.
Meta is targeting one billion people in VR. They have stated that numerous times throughout the years. Meta does not like gaming, they tried numerous times to move away from it and focus on social VR. At their conferences over the last few years gaming gets a quick trailer show and than they go back talking about the Metaverse.
Meta's focus on games right now is not by choice or by vision, but simply because that's the only VR product they have that actually sells. Kids love Quest and VR. Nobody bought the QuestPro for social VR or for work-in-VR. Horizon World doesn't seem to gain traction either, everybody is still doing VRChat. Gaming was also not their idea, the gaming focus came from the original Oculus company they bought, they just have been unable to move past that.
The difference between Apple and Meta is that Apple has a clear vision, they are building a device that works as full desktop replacement. They completely skipped any of the classic VR topics at their presentation. VisionPro is "just" a better monitor, everything else is optional and come later.
Meta on the other side doesn't really know what they want, they have this vague vision of VR being big in the future and they want to secure their place in that future by throwing money at it. But they don't know how to get there. So they have a lot of gaming here, a bit social there and a bit of VR-as-desktop, but none of it is polished, lots of it isn't even functional and nothing is ever used to its full potential. Worse yet, they handicap themselves, their VR must be mobile, since they want to own the VR platform, so their PC support ends up lackluster, despite all the best VR content still being on PC. They want to have ads and collect data, so kids under 13 aren't allowed on their platform, despite being very popular in that age group. It's all a mess.
Meta's focus on games right now is not by choice or by vision, but simply because that's the only VR product they have that actually sells. Kids love Quest and VR. Nobody bought the QuestPro for social VR or for work-in-VR. Horizon World doesn't seem to gain traction either, everybody is still doing VRChat. Gaming was also not their idea, the gaming focus came from the original Oculus company they bought, they just have been unable to move past that.
The difference between Apple and Meta is that Apple has a clear vision, they are building a device that works as full desktop replacement. They completely skipped any of the classic VR topics at their presentation. VisionPro is "just" a better monitor, everything else is optional and come later.
Meta on the other side doesn't really know what they want, they have this vague vision of VR being big in the future and they want to secure their place in that future by throwing money at it. But they don't know how to get there. So they have a lot of gaming here, a bit social there and a bit of VR-as-desktop, but none of it is polished, lots of it isn't even functional and nothing is ever used to its full potential. Worse yet, they handicap themselves, their VR must be mobile, since they want to own the VR platform, so their PC support ends up lackluster, despite all the best VR content still being on PC. They want to have ads and collect data, so kids under 13 aren't allowed on their platform, despite being very popular in that age group. It's all a mess.
> * edit: Let me just add that Apple TV hardware which is largely abandoned and afterthought product line considered unsuccessful, for example is a 13M/year item for Apple. 20M lifetime is not mass market.
Source? https://www.businessofapps.com/data/apple-statistics/#AppleT... says there 31M active Apple TVs in the US. https://9to5mac.com/2020/09/02/apple-tv-market-share-report/ says Apple TV has 2% share of 1.14B global TV platforms. These don't look like 13M/year of sales.
Besides it seems like comparing apples to oranges. Apple TV works with existing TVs which are already billions in numbers. VR devices are completely new devices. Meta has sold 20M headsets SO FAR, not in its lifetime.
Source? https://www.businessofapps.com/data/apple-statistics/#AppleT... says there 31M active Apple TVs in the US. https://9to5mac.com/2020/09/02/apple-tv-market-share-report/ says Apple TV has 2% share of 1.14B global TV platforms. These don't look like 13M/year of sales.
Besides it seems like comparing apples to oranges. Apple TV works with existing TVs which are already billions in numbers. VR devices are completely new devices. Meta has sold 20M headsets SO FAR, not in its lifetime.
AppleTV sales were estimated at 10M units/year a decade ago - https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/apple-tv-longer-h...
Still small numbers for Apple!
Weird semantics on so far vs lifetime.. it's the same thing.
Meta and Apple are targeting different markets and you can tell by Apple's product videos.
To me, Meta is entrenched in the currently gamer centric VR market. I call it this because 100% of the people I know who have been excited by VR over the last 10 years have been young, single, male gamers. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but the marketing & people excited about the product, to me, seem to align there.
Apple doesn't even call it VR because they are trying to target a much wider market.
Weird semantics on so far vs lifetime.. it's the same thing.
Meta and Apple are targeting different markets and you can tell by Apple's product videos.
To me, Meta is entrenched in the currently gamer centric VR market. I call it this because 100% of the people I know who have been excited by VR over the last 10 years have been young, single, male gamers. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but the marketing & people excited about the product, to me, seem to align there.
Apple doesn't even call it VR because they are trying to target a much wider market.
> they are trying to target a much wider market.
I agree with this (though trying is the operative word). It seems a strange moment in time to choose to call the game for Apple though, at a grand total of 0 units shipped and a price point of $3500+tax. It is literally not knowable now in 2023 if they will be able to manage to do what Tesla did, in transitioning from “toy for rich jerks” to “reasonable mass market choice, and we can manufacture them in mass quantities too.” I mean, it’s not even clear yet if the rich jerk set will adopt it.
I agree with this (though trying is the operative word). It seems a strange moment in time to choose to call the game for Apple though, at a grand total of 0 units shipped and a price point of $3500+tax. It is literally not knowable now in 2023 if they will be able to manage to do what Tesla did, in transitioning from “toy for rich jerks” to “reasonable mass market choice, and we can manufacture them in mass quantities too.” I mean, it’s not even clear yet if the rich jerk set will adopt it.
Tesla is not a great analogy for this. Their lowest priced vehicle is only just below the average sales price of all new cars and that vehicle excludes the Tesla brand features that Apple would not strip out of their product. And that is when the average vehicle sales price has increased 10k in the last four years. So for the analogy to work Apple would effectively have to strip down their device to the point that it is just an expensive copy cat Quest and Meta would have to raise prices 50% (to be fair, the price rise might happen).
> 20M lifetime is not mass market
I agree, that's why I said "what mass market there is". Because the whole thing is completely speculative that there can be mass market here ever, and that applies as much to Apple as Meta. None of the so far demonstrated devices are really appropriate for that.
I don't know why you think Meta is "capping" themselves to gaming market or why you think that market tops out at 10M units. That is where they started, but clearly that's not their whole vision (or why did they bother making the Quest Pro?).
I agree, that's why I said "what mass market there is". Because the whole thing is completely speculative that there can be mass market here ever, and that applies as much to Apple as Meta. None of the so far demonstrated devices are really appropriate for that.
I don't know why you think Meta is "capping" themselves to gaming market or why you think that market tops out at 10M units. That is where they started, but clearly that's not their whole vision (or why did they bother making the Quest Pro?).
You might be right, but what makes you think Oculus can't grow beyond the gamer market? I ask because they identified a VR company that was focused on VR productivity as a competitor, so they're clearly thinking beyond gaming.
Bro you’re clearly either Boz or a senior lieutenant judging by your comment history.
You only comment on topics related to Facebook competition and say things close to “interesting feedback” and occasionally expose yourself with specific phrases like “Thanks for sharing, it's always interesting to hear these kind of anecdotes!”
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36351422
You only comment on topics related to Facebook competition and say things close to “interesting feedback” and occasionally expose yourself with specific phrases like “Thanks for sharing, it's always interesting to hear these kind of anecdotes!”
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36351422
Or they just really care about VR, or they're an investor that's bullish about the company. A good number of people on HN have literally millions of dollars in stock in various companies.
Focus on their argument, not "outing" someone, whatever that means.
Focus on their argument, not "outing" someone, whatever that means.
$4k may not be mass market. $0.4k may not be mass market as well, but it’s closer :)
My point is Apple is taking their typical approach which is more Tesla - start at the high price point option to define a space and then work your way down.
I don't think we're going to stumble into good immersive AR/VR by cobbling together OEM parts bin specials to hit a $400 price point day 1.
It seems obvious that the displays & optics need to be as good or better than top of the line phone/computer displays, not worse. So I don't see how a remotely immersive experience can happen even at the $1k price point.
I don't think we're going to stumble into good immersive AR/VR by cobbling together OEM parts bin specials to hit a $400 price point day 1.
It seems obvious that the displays & optics need to be as good or better than top of the line phone/computer displays, not worse. So I don't see how a remotely immersive experience can happen even at the $1k price point.
> So I don't see how a remotely immersive experience can happen even at the $1k price point.
I strongly feel that you need to actually try modern VR for more than a few minutes. Is it perfect? Far from it. There are many problems, specifically that VR’s main form factors are too intimidating for most adults to even try. Is it immersive? Yes, a lot of apps and games are
I’m just glad Tim forced Apple to finally join the market. Otherwise, there would be VR winter for about a decade due to the mass public perception of VR and the fact that the most engaged VR users can’t even drive yet.
I strongly feel that you need to actually try modern VR for more than a few minutes. Is it perfect? Far from it. There are many problems, specifically that VR’s main form factors are too intimidating for most adults to even try. Is it immersive? Yes, a lot of apps and games are
I’m just glad Tim forced Apple to finally join the market. Otherwise, there would be VR winter for about a decade due to the mass public perception of VR and the fact that the most engaged VR users can’t even drive yet.
It's also likely to mirror Apple's approach with all-new product families, where a first generation product is released as soon as they have the core technology working but before it's at an "Apple" level of maturity and/or have a true grip on the product's raison d'être. Subsequent generations reveal the first generation to be the experimental beta/market test product it really was all along.
This was definitely the case with the iPhone, iPad and the Watch. It's arguably also true with the first generation MacBook Air.
(This definitely doesn't apply to the M1 transition as this wasn't a new product family. It was a fork of an extremely mature product, combined into another extremely mature product, resulting in a product revision which was very cool but did absolutely nothing new.)
This was definitely the case with the iPhone, iPad and the Watch. It's arguably also true with the first generation MacBook Air.
(This definitely doesn't apply to the M1 transition as this wasn't a new product family. It was a fork of an extremely mature product, combined into another extremely mature product, resulting in a product revision which was very cool but did absolutely nothing new.)
Apple is in the luxury fashion business. I doubt Apple will beat meta (and vice versa) because Apple tends to stay away from the low end.
Apple does employ some tropes of luxury and fashion in marketing strategy, but they are absolutely not a "luxury fashion business". A large number of their products are utterly mainstream and often price competitive.
What they tend to shy away from are ultra-low margin sectors with little opportunity for differentiation and flooded with amoral competition. Sure, the cheapest iPhone is nowhere near the cost of the cheapest Android phones. But that's because most cheap Android phones are also abandonware, and/or manufactured e-waste, and/or using all of the conflict minerals/abusive labour practices/environmental hazards which Apple has to remain unambiguously distanced from.
What they tend to shy away from are ultra-low margin sectors with little opportunity for differentiation and flooded with amoral competition. Sure, the cheapest iPhone is nowhere near the cost of the cheapest Android phones. But that's because most cheap Android phones are also abandonware, and/or manufactured e-waste, and/or using all of the conflict minerals/abusive labour practices/environmental hazards which Apple has to remain unambiguously distanced from.
> A large number of their products are utterly mainstream and often price competitive.
I agree with everything you wrote but this. Just because Apple products are within reach of a lot of people, it doesn’t mean that they’re not a luxury brand.
I agree with everything you wrote but this. Just because Apple products are within reach of a lot of people, it doesn’t mean that they’re not a luxury brand.
Apple is absolutely a premium brand, but they're not a luxury brand. The key distinction is that a luxury brand revels in real or perceived exclusivity; with prices set for the primary purpose of gatekeeping the brand to a select audience.
While not cheap, Apple products are obtainable and utterly mainstream. In fact in the rare instances where Apple has experimented with luxury it has been a dismal failure — Apple Watch Edition being a noteworthy example.
While not cheap, Apple products are obtainable and utterly mainstream. In fact in the rare instances where Apple has experimented with luxury it has been a dismal failure — Apple Watch Edition being a noteworthy example.
> There are two types of people: Those who think VR will change the world—and those who haven’t tried it yet.
>
> It’s an old saying, sure, maybe even a little cliché. And yes, there are skeptics out there—but we’d argue they just haven’t found the right VR experience to make them a convert []-)
Yep, I'm a skeptic. I tried it, and it was fine! Pretty fun, not that fun. Like going to Disney, I'm perfectly comfortable knowing that it's there, other people love it, and I'll go once every 20 years or so and have a decent time.
Maybe I just haven't had the right experience yet (I went to Epcot, not Star Wars World), but you could argue that about literally anything.
Yep, I'm a skeptic. I tried it, and it was fine! Pretty fun, not that fun. Like going to Disney, I'm perfectly comfortable knowing that it's there, other people love it, and I'll go once every 20 years or so and have a decent time.
Maybe I just haven't had the right experience yet (I went to Epcot, not Star Wars World), but you could argue that about literally anything.
I'm actually someone that believed in VR until I tried it, and then I lost interest because I found it so underwhelming. In my opinion it just kinda sucks and certainly isn't worth the awkward inconvenience of strapping something on to your face. I think it even has limited appeal for niche applications like simulations and personally I'd prefer a multiscreen setup.
To each their own. I was someone that was excited to try VR for years and then said "that's it?" when I finally got a chance.
To each their own. I was someone that was excited to try VR for years and then said "that's it?" when I finally got a chance.
I think this and the parent comment are partially a driver of Apples response.
The current state of the tech is kind of shrug worthy.
Might seem like a neat gimmick, might make some games better, might make you motion sick. Essentially a niche product indefinitely.
I think the current market targeting the $200-500 price point is a large part of the problem. If you think about what's needed to make this well vs say, the phone in your pocket, how is a good VR implementation going to come out cheaper than the phone?
Apple is basically throwing the kitchen sink at the space in terms of compute, optics, sensors, and software.. with a price tag to match. If it's going to work, it's probably going to work at that price point first.
I think the current market targeting the $200-500 price point is a large part of the problem. If you think about what's needed to make this well vs say, the phone in your pocket, how is a good VR implementation going to come out cheaper than the phone?
Apple is basically throwing the kitchen sink at the space in terms of compute, optics, sensors, and software.. with a price tag to match. If it's going to work, it's probably going to work at that price point first.
I agree. Videos and vision are powerful but I think most still underestimate the cost of wearing something on your face for more than a few mins.
I see the opposite phenomena after Apple Vision Pro announcement. Many seem to love VR / AR but never tried it. Retention numbers with current tech indicate that cost of wearing a headset exceeds the value proposition for most people and use cases. Maybe Apple Vision Pro will change that. Excited to see.
edit: typos
I see the opposite phenomena after Apple Vision Pro announcement. Many seem to love VR / AR but never tried it. Retention numbers with current tech indicate that cost of wearing a headset exceeds the value proposition for most people and use cases. Maybe Apple Vision Pro will change that. Excited to see.
edit: typos
I feel I'm very pro-technology and pro-innovation but most of what tech has been creating recently had been total crap, and I'm tired of the disconnect.
That's like taking a $100 Nokia phone in 2002 and saying that mobile phones are nice but will never be important.
If this is suggesting that we should write off VR for now and re-evaluate in 2033, then I can get behind that.
Fine, but you came to a thread on the prototypical future variants of VR hardware. Just don't click if you don't want to read about it.
Just because people are short-sellers doesn't mean they're not interested in the market.
Regardless of the price point (3.5k or some hundreds dollars) it's more like a heavy phone that you have to strap to both your ears. We had ones that had to be strapped to cars and didn't become popular until they were small, light and cheap.
By the way, do people still ride the subway with those large earphones I remember to be fashionable before covid? I moved and I'm not using subways anymore so I'm missing observations.
By the way, do people still ride the subway with those large earphones I remember to be fashionable before covid? I moved and I'm not using subways anymore so I'm missing observations.
Ear muff headphones have always been really niche in mobile environments (they’ve been around since the 70s!). Most people prefer lighter alternatives, like ear buds, I personally prefer bone conductive since I don’t like putting things on or in my years. By subway I guess you mean NYC, it could have been a local fad.
and there is a third kind of people:
those that tried VR some time ago, enjoyed the gimmicky novelty back then, lost interest, increasingly don't bother with further gimmicky PR presenting tech demo videos so underwhelming and cliché ("VR bionic hand twiddling fingers" trope) they skip through them, and get reassured that VR providers still haven't managed to bring any sustainable use-case to the market despite this current VR cycle stretching for almost ten years by now.
Sorry Meta, you educated whole generations to have the attention span of a gold fish, why should anyone care for your latest world-changing prototype if the previous four or so haven't fulfilled their announced revolution either?
those that tried VR some time ago, enjoyed the gimmicky novelty back then, lost interest, increasingly don't bother with further gimmicky PR presenting tech demo videos so underwhelming and cliché ("VR bionic hand twiddling fingers" trope) they skip through them, and get reassured that VR providers still haven't managed to bring any sustainable use-case to the market despite this current VR cycle stretching for almost ten years by now.
Sorry Meta, you educated whole generations to have the attention span of a gold fish, why should anyone care for your latest world-changing prototype if the previous four or so haven't fulfilled their announced revolution either?
> and there is a third kind of people:
> those that tried VR some time ago, enjoyed the gimmicky novelty back then, lost interest, increasingly don't bother with further gimmicky
Additionally there also exists a fourth kind of people: those who planned and would love to do cool experiments (hacks) with the VR devices, but became deeply disappointed by the fact that in particular Meta (but now also Apple) rather decided to turn their devices into golden cages (in the case of Meta with the intention of including surveillance functionality).
> those that tried VR some time ago, enjoyed the gimmicky novelty back then, lost interest, increasingly don't bother with further gimmicky
Additionally there also exists a fourth kind of people: those who planned and would love to do cool experiments (hacks) with the VR devices, but became deeply disappointed by the fact that in particular Meta (but now also Apple) rather decided to turn their devices into golden cages (in the case of Meta with the intention of including surveillance functionality).
Agreed. And nausea is a real problem for many people, which many supporters like to hand-wave away. “Just get your VR legs” is crap.
I think VR will always be niche.
I’m curious if AR is really the thing. The need for bulky stuff like the Vision Pro is a hinderance, but it will get smaller.
The VR/AR difference is kind of a problem as I see so many people arguing past each other on this and the Vision Pro by comparing one company’s position in VR against another’s play in AR as if they weren’t two totally different things.
I think VR will always be niche.
I’m curious if AR is really the thing. The need for bulky stuff like the Vision Pro is a hinderance, but it will get smaller.
The VR/AR difference is kind of a problem as I see so many people arguing past each other on this and the Vision Pro by comparing one company’s position in VR against another’s play in AR as if they weren’t two totally different things.
What does VR let you do that you can’t do with a regular computer or TV? At the moment the answer is “not much” other than entertainment. When that changes and you can convince your grandma who doesn’t use much technology why she needs a VR headset then I think you’ll see mass adoption.
A lot of older people use VR for fitness (or younger kids just to play beat saber) and belong to none of those groups. They got what they wanted, and are excited to get more of it.
Meta’s biggest problem, however, is getting people interested in VR beyond Beat Saber and the fitness apps. Like actual hardcore gamers.
Meta’s biggest problem, however, is getting people interested in VR beyond Beat Saber and the fitness apps. Like actual hardcore gamers.
Not sure why this is getting downvoted, seems pretty spot-on given their track record...
> There are two types of people: Those who think VR will change the world—and those who haven’t tried it yet.
I don't trust any argument that doesn't recognize my personhood.
VR was interesting, but the Meta Quest felt uncomfortable on my head, I felt every so vaguely nauseous, they didn't add anything to any of the games I was playing, they weren't comfortable to wear after a long day of work, they made me feel weirdly disconnected from the outside world.
"Technology can overcome any obstacles" is just what you tell the investors. Most of the time, obstacles stop emerging technologies from going anywhere.
And I suppose VR may become viable some day, but I just don't feel it's that day yet.
I don't trust any argument that doesn't recognize my personhood.
VR was interesting, but the Meta Quest felt uncomfortable on my head, I felt every so vaguely nauseous, they didn't add anything to any of the games I was playing, they weren't comfortable to wear after a long day of work, they made me feel weirdly disconnected from the outside world.
"Technology can overcome any obstacles" is just what you tell the investors. Most of the time, obstacles stop emerging technologies from going anywhere.
And I suppose VR may become viable some day, but I just don't feel it's that day yet.
> I don't trust any argument that doesn't recognize my personhood.
Mostly because it's the worst argument a person can make. You know you exist, so therefore they don't know what they're talking about.
In this case, it's basically saying "You have experienced all VR has to offer after you've tried it a few times. If you weren't impressed, I'm here to inform you that you won't ever be."
Mostly because it's the worst argument a person can make. You know you exist, so therefore they don't know what they're talking about.
In this case, it's basically saying "You have experienced all VR has to offer after you've tried it a few times. If you weren't impressed, I'm here to inform you that you won't ever be."
> There are two types of people: Those who think VR will change the world—and those who haven’t tried it yet
Damn, I feel like they stole that quote from me. I used to (and still do) say that all the time!
I'll still argue that people here who don't believe in VR have either never tried it, or tried an old prototype. Owning a VR headset and being able to use it in your living room is future-like. Definitely an experience that people should try to have, that is if you want to live in the future.
Damn, I feel like they stole that quote from me. I used to (and still do) say that all the time!
I'll still argue that people here who don't believe in VR have either never tried it, or tried an old prototype. Owning a VR headset and being able to use it in your living room is future-like. Definitely an experience that people should try to have, that is if you want to live in the future.
I was very excited about VR, owned rift dk2 and cv1, my roommate has valve index which I've played with. still very strongly meh.
I get sick very easily, even with traditional screens in some FPS games. VR people seem to live in a bubble and plug their ears every time somebody says VR sucks. sorry, it mainly sucks. headsets are heavy, wires tangle, graphics cards are expensive, cameras or projectors are tedious, resolution isn't good enough, rooms are never big enough or clean enough, a guest broke our window by accident, god I could go on with all the drawbacks.
I get sick very easily, even with traditional screens in some FPS games. VR people seem to live in a bubble and plug their ears every time somebody says VR sucks. sorry, it mainly sucks. headsets are heavy, wires tangle, graphics cards are expensive, cameras or projectors are tedious, resolution isn't good enough, rooms are never big enough or clean enough, a guest broke our window by accident, god I could go on with all the drawbacks.
Since you brought up Disney, the newer immersive rides at amusement parks (more Universal Studios, but Disney is following suit) are really cool. Most don’t use headsets yet, but they’ll use a screen maybe with 3D glasses, coupled with some sort of pivoting but stationary car. Sometimes it is rumbling or a bit of environmental feedback, whatever. Even with a 360 imax, the environmental manipulation solidifies the experience as being hyper-real.
I wonder if for consumer VR, we are really missing similar environmental manipulation. Like, maybe a lazy boy seat or something that can move?
I wonder if for consumer VR, we are really missing similar environmental manipulation. Like, maybe a lazy boy seat or something that can move?
[deleted]
I think it's like artificial flavors. Yeah, it's cool we can make something that tastes kinda like reality. But invariable the real thing is better.
Writing custom engines for VR makes too hard, and only custom will have the performance to avoid nausea.
Add to that closed platforms and no diopter adjustable non-fresnel lenses, and it's over.
Valve demonstrated why VR will fail, only a monopolistic company can succeed with it in a zero interest rate environement.
I was hoping Roblox on Quest 2 would be 120 Hz and smooth 3rd person but they failed.
RIP VR!
Add to that closed platforms and no diopter adjustable non-fresnel lenses, and it's over.
Valve demonstrated why VR will fail, only a monopolistic company can succeed with it in a zero interest rate environement.
I was hoping Roblox on Quest 2 would be 120 Hz and smooth 3rd person but they failed.
RIP VR!
> As with Butterscotch Varifocal, the goal of Flamera isn’t to show something that’s viable for a consumer product—at least, not yet.
A bit surprising that these seem so far away from production. I think Apple is playing it properly here: Announce a product people really want, even if its very far into the future and may possibly not actually come onto the market for years. Use the feedback from the public to fine tune the product as it's developed.
Facebook seems now to be something like the company whose former HQ it inhabits: Xerox PARC. Potentially vital R/D happening in such a way as to have almost zero chance of actually becoming a product.
I can't be excited for Butterscotch or Flamera, because they're not products I can buy, and they explicitly never will be. If I managed to get a demo, I'm sure I'd be NDAed to hell and back. I am excited for Vision Pro because it's something I will actually be allowed to purchase in the future.
A bit surprising that these seem so far away from production. I think Apple is playing it properly here: Announce a product people really want, even if its very far into the future and may possibly not actually come onto the market for years. Use the feedback from the public to fine tune the product as it's developed.
Facebook seems now to be something like the company whose former HQ it inhabits: Xerox PARC. Potentially vital R/D happening in such a way as to have almost zero chance of actually becoming a product.
I can't be excited for Butterscotch or Flamera, because they're not products I can buy, and they explicitly never will be. If I managed to get a demo, I'm sure I'd be NDAed to hell and back. I am excited for Vision Pro because it's something I will actually be allowed to purchase in the future.
> I think Apple is playing it properly here: Announce a product people really want, even if its very far into the future and may possibly not actually come onto the market for years. Use the feedback from the public to fine tune the product as it's developed.
Do note that doing it like that is not what Apple commonly does. Usually work happens in silence and secrecy, then the product is available within like 6 months to purchase (in the US, not necessarily all over the world)
Do note that doing it like that is not what Apple commonly does. Usually work happens in silence and secrecy, then the product is available within like 6 months to purchase (in the US, not necessarily all over the world)
In this case I expect it’s because they wanted outside developers to work on software for it before launch so it’s ready day one.
Otherwise I agree it’s very likely they wouldn’t have said anything yet.
Otherwise I agree it’s very likely they wouldn’t have said anything yet.
Isn't that what they are doing with the Vision Pro but more like 12 months to purchase? Then they annually iterate on their products with differing success?
> Potentially vital R/D happening in such a way as to have almost zero chance of actually becoming a product.
My assumption, of this early work, is to scoop up important patents.
Related to important patents, varifocal is almost certainly the future of HMDs.
Having fixed focus, as all HMDs do now, is fatiguing and strange. A really interesting example of this is, in VR, hold something close to your eyes. You'll see that it gets blurry. Now close one eye. You'll see that it's clear. It's not that it's actually blurry, it's that your eyes are refusing to put up with the physical nonsense of a fixed focus 3d world.
My assumption, of this early work, is to scoop up important patents.
Related to important patents, varifocal is almost certainly the future of HMDs.
Having fixed focus, as all HMDs do now, is fatiguing and strange. A really interesting example of this is, in VR, hold something close to your eyes. You'll see that it gets blurry. Now close one eye. You'll see that it's clear. It's not that it's actually blurry, it's that your eyes are refusing to put up with the physical nonsense of a fixed focus 3d world.
> to scoop up important patents
Or perhaps to refine that, to scoop important patents
Apple is aggressively out there patenting obvious things that have been basic public knowledge / in use for years to try and lock up the field (eg: [0]). You can try and get your own patents but if you aren't strategically dependent on the IP for your own needs it is much easier and quicker to just nuke the field by putting as many things in public as possible so it's much harder for Apple (or others) to retro-patent broad classes of obvious features.
[0] https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloa...
Or perhaps to refine that, to scoop important patents
Apple is aggressively out there patenting obvious things that have been basic public knowledge / in use for years to try and lock up the field (eg: [0]). You can try and get your own patents but if you aren't strategically dependent on the IP for your own needs it is much easier and quicker to just nuke the field by putting as many things in public as possible so it's much harder for Apple (or others) to retro-patent broad classes of obvious features.
[0] https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloa...
Wait am I reading this right? Is this saying that 2 days ago, Apple got approved of a patent on all of AR? Like, what Pokemon Go has been doing since 2016?
It is talking about showing nonvisible features as visible.
Like this quest app for visualizing wifi strength in mixed reality.
https://www.oculus.com/experiences/quest/4793438284066128/
Like this quest app for visualizing wifi strength in mixed reality.
https://www.oculus.com/experiences/quest/4793438284066128/
Sure but the Vision Pro uses eye tracking and foveated rendering to simulate planes of view
Looking at a far object relaxes the muscles, while looking close tenses them. Any deviation from this is somewhat uncomfortable. Fixed focus displays mean that, when you look far, your eyes relax, expecting the physics to be correct, but then have iterate to focus at 3m (or whatever the fixed distance is). Same with near objects. The eyes tense, things go wrong, then they drift back to 3m.
Blurring can be applied, but that doesn't change the physics that your eyes expects, which causes the disconnect and discomfort, which varifocal displays solve.
Blurring can be applied, but that doesn't change the physics that your eyes expects, which causes the disconnect and discomfort, which varifocal displays solve.
It doesn't solve the problems.
Apple has actually issued developer guidelines for AVP that Apps should only render UI / static content at a fixed position from the headset in space corresponding to the fixed focal distance for this reason.
Apple has actually issued developer guidelines for AVP that Apps should only render UI / static content at a fixed position from the headset in space corresponding to the fixed focal distance for this reason.
I'm confused on your phrasing of "they explicitly never will be."
Those prototypes, of course, aren't going to themselves be shipping. But they are for R&D and to provide example of a nascent technology that one day should end up in a consumer product.
You absolutely can disagree with the approach of showing this too early or not trying hard enough to incorporate this into an (albeit expensive) consumer product today/soon.
But my read is Meta wants this stuff to one day be in consumer headsets. Just not there yet.
Those prototypes, of course, aren't going to themselves be shipping. But they are for R&D and to provide example of a nascent technology that one day should end up in a consumer product.
You absolutely can disagree with the approach of showing this too early or not trying hard enough to incorporate this into an (albeit expensive) consumer product today/soon.
But my read is Meta wants this stuff to one day be in consumer headsets. Just not there yet.
I don't disagree with them showing this off, just them avoiding making an actual product. Always be embarrassed by v1 and all that. I understand Meta has the cash to bankroll a decade of R/D (like XEROX used to), but iterating actual products actual people use is a far safer bet, and as a result the world actually gets products. "Explicitly never will be" only because of the bit I quoted and that these are two quite different products. One would imagine the final product would combine these two experimental headset's technologies.
It's not like Facebook, as a product, was some hidden away R/D project. It was iterated on in public.
Anyways, I didn't mean to poopoo the awesome work done here. I just want to actually use some of this stuff.
It's not like Facebook, as a product, was some hidden away R/D project. It was iterated on in public.
Anyways, I didn't mean to poopoo the awesome work done here. I just want to actually use some of this stuff.
There is virtually no market for a $3,500 headset made by Meta. These demos don't seem like things that can't do at all, just things they can't do affordably. What can be done in a $500 consumer device will only increase each year. It is probably smart for Meta to keep slow and steady.
The price of that $3500 headset will also drop each year.
Let’s say it takes five years for Apple or Meta to be able to release this kind of hardware at $500.
Would you rather bet on the company with 5 years experience selling that class of hardware and software and finding real use cases? Or the one who is leaving the lab with it for the first time?
Ignoring Apple is a supply chain MONSTER that can get things cheaper and better than Meta can thanks to their volumes so the products might not be comparable at $500.
Let’s say it takes five years for Apple or Meta to be able to release this kind of hardware at $500.
Would you rather bet on the company with 5 years experience selling that class of hardware and software and finding real use cases? Or the one who is leaving the lab with it for the first time?
Ignoring Apple is a supply chain MONSTER that can get things cheaper and better than Meta can thanks to their volumes so the products might not be comparable at $500.
I would not count on immediate price drops. Typically cheaper devices like iBook or iPhone SE were years down the line.
Apple picks a price point and sticks to it (first generation iPhone was a one-off). People with too much money pay for early development on exclusive feature poor devices. As the technology becomes more functional inflation drops prices into affordable ranges.
Given the tolerances needed for head mounted quality and comfort Apple will never have a comparable cheap model. Meta has the edge here and will have Android levels of market share while Apple has Apple shares of profit.
Apple picks a price point and sticks to it (first generation iPhone was a one-off). People with too much money pay for early development on exclusive feature poor devices. As the technology becomes more functional inflation drops prices into affordable ranges.
Given the tolerances needed for head mounted quality and comfort Apple will never have a comparable cheap model. Meta has the edge here and will have Android levels of market share while Apple has Apple shares of profit.
I meant that only as a thought exercise. I agree with you about Apple cutting prices directly. While I think they’ll drop the price eventually on the Pro, maybe to start at $2000-$2500, it will be a few years.
When the more consumer oriented model comes (assuming things are successful) it will slot in at a lower price point, say $1000. But the Pro will still be up there.
I trust they’ll get to $500 or less (again, assuming success), but it’s going to take a long time. However Apple is the company that with their suppliers can design/make ultra high precision stuff and ship it in mass at prices that wouldn’t otherwise be possible.
Meta in market share: that I question. I don’t think these products compete (AR vs VR, not just price). Even if Apple becomes extremely successful I’m not sure VR demand will take off. And if someone tries to make a much cheaper AR I’d be concerned the experience is below the acceptable threshold. $3500 will never be mass market, but I’m not sure $500 can be good enough at current tech levels.
It’ll be a while before we start to see this play out. Could be totally wrong.
When the more consumer oriented model comes (assuming things are successful) it will slot in at a lower price point, say $1000. But the Pro will still be up there.
I trust they’ll get to $500 or less (again, assuming success), but it’s going to take a long time. However Apple is the company that with their suppliers can design/make ultra high precision stuff and ship it in mass at prices that wouldn’t otherwise be possible.
Meta in market share: that I question. I don’t think these products compete (AR vs VR, not just price). Even if Apple becomes extremely successful I’m not sure VR demand will take off. And if someone tries to make a much cheaper AR I’d be concerned the experience is below the acceptable threshold. $3500 will never be mass market, but I’m not sure $500 can be good enough at current tech levels.
It’ll be a while before we start to see this play out. Could be totally wrong.
Right that's also a big problem for Meta - they can't capture the market at this price point. Who is paying that dollar level for hardware from the likes of Meta?
Apple, sure. Sony, Microsoft, could be.
But Meta, Google, Amazon.. lol. No.
Apple, sure. Sony, Microsoft, could be.
But Meta, Google, Amazon.. lol. No.
People buy devices that do what they want, not brands.
People do not buy multi-thousand dollar hardware&software combos from companies with unknown histories of software patches, product line commitment, warranty coverage, etc. That's why there's so few operating at those price ranges.
If Meta continue investing for this, I believe it can be like a Microsoft Gaming.
They’re shipping pancake lenses, color pass through, and depth sensors on the Quest Pro and Quest 3. Those were features on the last batch of prototypes a few years ago. Some features from prototypes haven’t shipped yet like their ultra high brightness display or varifocal lenses but I doubt they’ve canned them. I’m glad they’re being so open about this research, along with the release cadence they’re building up for new headsets it inspires a lot of confidence.
I was actually really curious about the r/d to product pipeline after I posted my comment. I appreciate your reply! If the turnaround is within a year or two, that’s excellent and totally counters my comment!
If you need the public to help you develop something, it's an indicator you don't have the wisdom to build the right thing.
Anyway I don't think that's what Apple is doing. The are just being expensive, exclusive ass clowns, like usual.
Anyway I don't think that's what Apple is doing. The are just being expensive, exclusive ass clowns, like usual.
If you need the public to help you develop something, it's an indicator you don't have the wisdom to build the right thing.
I guess you missed the last 20 years of crowdsourcing fueling half the tech economy.
I guess you missed the last 20 years of crowdsourcing fueling half the tech economy.
> Facebook seems now to be something like the company whose former HQ it inhabits: Xerox PARC.
did you mean sun microsystems?
did you mean sun microsystems?
Wow, I have been waiting for light field technology to make its way into one of these stereoscopic headsets.
But I am surprised and very impressed with how the researchers choose to use it, and that bug eye shaped lens array is pure scifi fun!
The demo in the video, timestamped below, showing why they used such a design to create a single opening behind the array is amazing in its own right.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O15wUC5D7zE&t=85
But I am surprised and very impressed with how the researchers choose to use it, and that bug eye shaped lens array is pure scifi fun!
The demo in the video, timestamped below, showing why they used such a design to create a single opening behind the array is amazing in its own right.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O15wUC5D7zE&t=85
> There are two types of people: Those who think VR will change the world—and those who haven’t tried it yet.
As someone who was hooked to VR the moment I put on an helmet, I seriously doubt VR will substantially change the world. The point of VR is to immerse people in a virtual world, but there is nothing beyond that
As someone who was hooked to VR the moment I put on an helmet, I seriously doubt VR will substantially change the world. The point of VR is to immerse people in a virtual world, but there is nothing beyond that
Varifocal sounds amazing. And if it has true retina quality, that might make it an actual great desktop replacement. I remain wanting to be convinced.
I feel Meta is proud of showing off these prototypes but I think it just shows how amateur they’re at developing hardwares.
Also, I've seen ALL these prototypes already. They didn't just do this. It's a slow drip of old research. If they were making these headsets available for purchase at a price normal people could afford I might give a shit.
Sell ‘em for $3000 to early adopters. It would still be something.
Instead it’s more “don’t forget us!” after years of nothing to show for the Metaverse after throwing away insane amounts of money and then having all the air sucked out of the room by Apple‘s announcement.
Instead it’s more “don’t forget us!” after years of nothing to show for the Metaverse after throwing away insane amounts of money and then having all the air sucked out of the room by Apple‘s announcement.
>I've seen ALL these prototypes already.
No, you haven't.
No, you haven't.
Is it a coincidence that the light field lens resembles the compound eye of an insect? Could a similar process be happening in the insect’s visual cortex to reproject multiple views? Insects can’t move their eyes like humans, but apparently fruit flies can move their retinas. That seems very similar to the single focal point they demonstrated in the video.
It is not a coincidence. An insect's compound eye is really virtual lens-retina system.
A good diagram of the evolution of eyes
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/eye-evolution/
Also of interest is this article on using metasurfaces to achieve the same.
I'm sure that optical frequency meta-materials will play important roles in AR/VR.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-15460-0
A good diagram of the evolution of eyes
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/eye-evolution/
Also of interest is this article on using metasurfaces to achieve the same.
I'm sure that optical frequency meta-materials will play important roles in AR/VR.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-15460-0
Whatever happened to Reality Labs acquisition of CTRL labs? I was really excited with their prototype wrist keyboard but haven't seen much mention of it.
Went as far as researching developing my own but it such a different field. I hope they didn't throw away that work/knowledge
Went as far as researching developing my own but it such a different field. I hope they didn't throw away that work/knowledge
They talked about it at last year's Connect conference:
https://mashable.com/article/meta-connect-wrist-controller-h...
https://mashable.com/article/meta-connect-wrist-controller-h...
(ex-Meta person who came in via the CTRL acquisition, and quit back in Dec 2022)
It’s still going! CTRL labs has received a ton of internal resources, and scaled up significantly the 3.5 years I was there. Almost all of that effort is going towards stamping out edge failure cases on the path to making a reliable consumer product.
Consider: What works well for an onstage demo or a store demo you store needs a lot of “last mile” work so that a naive consumer can take it out of a box at home and have it work flawlessly. This is especially true for a new product category. I doubt it will be in the wild until it’s rock solid. There was incredible improvements while I was there, but keep in mind it’s an entire new product category, and so it’s not worth the risk of shipping early and imperfect.
It’s still going! CTRL labs has received a ton of internal resources, and scaled up significantly the 3.5 years I was there. Almost all of that effort is going towards stamping out edge failure cases on the path to making a reliable consumer product.
Consider: What works well for an onstage demo or a store demo you store needs a lot of “last mile” work so that a naive consumer can take it out of a box at home and have it work flawlessly. This is especially true for a new product category. I doubt it will be in the wild until it’s rock solid. There was incredible improvements while I was there, but keep in mind it’s an entire new product category, and so it’s not worth the risk of shipping early and imperfect.
Ah good to hear! Even if it wasn't consumer ready, I wanted to tinker/hack with it pretty bad!
Of my VR and AR device experiences, ive found I just dont have the bodily endurance for long sessions over multiple days like I do with computer screens. I thought screens + an "anywhere, any position" keyboard would be more suited to what I wanted[1]. The TapStrap got me partially there.
[1] WIP blog post about it, still have a lot of blanks to fill in, https://cobertos.com/blog/post/portable-computing-setup
Of my VR and AR device experiences, ive found I just dont have the bodily endurance for long sessions over multiple days like I do with computer screens. I thought screens + an "anywhere, any position" keyboard would be more suited to what I wanted[1]. The TapStrap got me partially there.
[1] WIP blog post about it, still have a lot of blanks to fill in, https://cobertos.com/blog/post/portable-computing-setup
People dunk on Meta for overhyping the metaverse and spending absurd amounts of money on it, but I don't think they get enough credit for the amount of useful R&D that absurd amount of money has enabled. Sure, from a business perspective it's probably silly, but from a tech-person perspective can't we celebrate truly impressive advancements in AI, optics, and hardware design for the VR space?
As far as I know Quest 2 is STILL the best (and most affordable) option* for untethered VR hardware by far (and IMO it's legitimately very good). Quest 3 is coming out soon and I am super excited to see how it compares.
* except maybe Pico 4, but that's hard to get in the US
As far as I know Quest 2 is STILL the best (and most affordable) option* for untethered VR hardware by far (and IMO it's legitimately very good). Quest 3 is coming out soon and I am super excited to see how it compares.
* except maybe Pico 4, but that's hard to get in the US
Only reason I would wear VR is to watch some really good movies with the experience of watching it just like the Apple commercials or being able to « walk » inside the scenes besides the actors. Not even sure I would appreciate the movie as much as the makers wanted me to watch it.
Make me walk on Pandora with VR, maybe I’ll like it. Anything else too close from reality, what’s the point?
Make me walk on Pandora with VR, maybe I’ll like it. Anything else too close from reality, what’s the point?
Having experimented with a ton of content on VR, I've concluded:
- Being able to "walk inside" theatrical musical performances (musicals, concerts) is incredibly amazing. Like blows-you-away amazing
- Being able to "walk inside" traditional movie/TV doesn't work at all. You can't do framing/cuts/editing so it feels like you're awkwardly sitting next to actors who don't acknowledge you and you never know what to look at and you miss an important facial reaction because you were too busy noticing what a beautiful oriental rug you're standing on
You don't realize how important framing/cuts/editing is to the TV/movie experience until they disappear, so it doesn't work at all -- they turn into weird theater plays in a way, which they're not meant to be.
Whereas theatrical plays/musicals/shows are meant for you to observe action all over the stage, so it translates extremely well to VR -- and because you can be on stage, it's immersive like dinner theater and just amazing.
- Being able to "walk inside" theatrical musical performances (musicals, concerts) is incredibly amazing. Like blows-you-away amazing
- Being able to "walk inside" traditional movie/TV doesn't work at all. You can't do framing/cuts/editing so it feels like you're awkwardly sitting next to actors who don't acknowledge you and you never know what to look at and you miss an important facial reaction because you were too busy noticing what a beautiful oriental rug you're standing on
You don't realize how important framing/cuts/editing is to the TV/movie experience until they disappear, so it doesn't work at all -- they turn into weird theater plays in a way, which they're not meant to be.
Whereas theatrical plays/musicals/shows are meant for you to observe action all over the stage, so it translates extremely well to VR -- and because you can be on stage, it's immersive like dinner theater and just amazing.
What about sitting still (like you would in a cinema) but with a VR headset? Framing would be mostly solved as you wouldn't move around outside of slightly turning your head.
If you're still using the full 180/360° then it doesn't work because you're constantly "teleporting" around the room, and close-ups are extremely jarring if you're just inches from someone's face. "Teleporting" is OK if you're watching something on a screen from a distance, it's totally disorienting if it's constantly happening to your entire surroundings.
On the other hand, if you're watching a movie on a virtual IMAX-sized screen that still has edges, then it's totally fine. I'm just saying that full VR immersion does not work for movies/TV.
On the other hand, if you're watching a movie on a virtual IMAX-sized screen that still has edges, then it's totally fine. I'm just saying that full VR immersion does not work for movies/TV.
big screen vr
There's a million cool things to do with VR, but one thing I see nobody thinking about: attending a concert or sport event front row
Apple bought NextVR (and shuttered or stealthed it), whose sports-broadcast-in-VR platform was fantastic even years ago when I watched NBA games in my original Rift. No one has really stepped into that space since.
Concerts in VR are a real and big thing already.
Examples:
Fatboy Slim: https://youtu.be/u1ulTKJNj7Y?t=145 (watch for at least 30 seconds)
Notorious BIG: https://themusicuniverse.com/meta-announces-exclusive-notori...
Megan Thee Stallion: https://www.livedesignonline.com/news/bring-thee-hottieverse...
Concerts in VR are a real and big thing already.
Examples:
Fatboy Slim: https://youtu.be/u1ulTKJNj7Y?t=145 (watch for at least 30 seconds)
Notorious BIG: https://themusicuniverse.com/meta-announces-exclusive-notori...
Megan Thee Stallion: https://www.livedesignonline.com/news/bring-thee-hottieverse...
Apple had some demos of that for the lucky journalists who got a hands-on. Spatial video footage that was maybe only a few seconds. I’m pretty sure there was a concert and I know they also got to see a little bit of a Denver Nuggets game.
John Gruber and Ben Thompson were both amazed at the basketball footage and one or both of them said they would happily buy a season pass for it.
John Gruber and Ben Thompson were both amazed at the basketball footage and one or both of them said they would happily buy a season pass for it.
They’ll be happy to see https://about.fb.com/news/2023/01/nba-games-in-vr-on-quest/ then!
Felix and Paul Studios have put out some great VR theatre perfomances.
> There are two types of people: Those who think VR will change the world—and those who haven’t tried it yet.
> While there are few things as magical as your first VR “a-ha”moment
That first moment for me was Cardboard. I have since used Vive and Oculus and they are cool, but I’m not left wanting to come back for more. Maybe the Cardboard experience conveyed the wrong thing to me, that this is a fun one-off type experience and not something that fits into my life in a bigger way. I’m sure some of the tools have, or could have, real world practical applications, and I would use them if needed, but I just don’t want to strap on a headset and be forced to tune out the rest of the world for longer than necessary.
> While there are few things as magical as your first VR “a-ha”moment
That first moment for me was Cardboard. I have since used Vive and Oculus and they are cool, but I’m not left wanting to come back for more. Maybe the Cardboard experience conveyed the wrong thing to me, that this is a fun one-off type experience and not something that fits into my life in a bigger way. I’m sure some of the tools have, or could have, real world practical applications, and I would use them if needed, but I just don’t want to strap on a headset and be forced to tune out the rest of the world for longer than necessary.
Cardboard is nothing like a quest2 let alone this next generation.
Yes, it’s a completely different experience. Cardboard isn’t really enough to trick your brain into feeling like you’re in a physical space, it’s more like a proof of concept of the idea of VR
Having used both, it almost seems like it shouldn’t exist. I kind of wonder if Cardboard did VR a disservice by giving people terrible initial impressions.
A gimmick of a sort that backfired on real products.
A gimmick of a sort that backfired on real products.
The only problem with Cardboard was that Google didn't it follow it up quickly with a real standalone VR headset, nor did anybody else for that matter. The Oculus Go only came out four years after Cardboard. And it wasn't until Quest1, a whole five years later, that we got 6DOF tracking in a standalone headset (Google's own Lenovo Mirage Solo can do it too, but that feature never made it out of Beta).
The thing that shouldn't have existed was Google Daydream. It brought no real advantage over Cardboard, yet was a whole new completely incompatible VR platform from Google, incompatible in both direction no less. Why they couldn't just implement the additional features on top of Cardboard I'll never understand.
Ironically, Cardboard is still alive and you can find some apps that still support it (e.g. Youtube). While Daydream is dead and can't even be used on modern phones.
That aside, content was a huge problem for Cardboard and other 3DOF headsets. VR video still looks great on them, but it took years before there ever were any real consumer VR cameras. And a whole lot of time was wasted with VR360-2D content, which looks utterly mediocre in VR, while good looking VR180-3D got very little attention for some reason.
The thing that shouldn't have existed was Google Daydream. It brought no real advantage over Cardboard, yet was a whole new completely incompatible VR platform from Google, incompatible in both direction no less. Why they couldn't just implement the additional features on top of Cardboard I'll never understand.
Ironically, Cardboard is still alive and you can find some apps that still support it (e.g. Youtube). While Daydream is dead and can't even be used on modern phones.
That aside, content was a huge problem for Cardboard and other 3DOF headsets. VR video still looks great on them, but it took years before there ever were any real consumer VR cameras. And a whole lot of time was wasted with VR360-2D content, which looks utterly mediocre in VR, while good looking VR180-3D got very little attention for some reason.
Surely, outside of niche applications, people don't think this is a viable mass product?
It boggles the mind that I would need cookies enabled to see video.
Honestly can't figure out what it wants me to do, I click the button and then cant find anything on the page it sends me to that fixes it.
Happened to me too, and no way to fix it easily without restarting the browser... the whole cookie thing is as bad as HTTPS only.
The commercial web is dead.
The commercial web is dead.
This display is more about trying to justify the massive spend FB is doing in the metaverse. As cool as this tech is I don’t see the justification for what they have invested.
Meta: hey look at us! We are doing cool things! We were doing metaverse VR stuff way before Apple! Lol.
And then, Meta has no real interesting in delivering anything other than a product they can ship to millions of people on day 1 at a low price point, while Apple is actively cultivating exclusivity of access as a marketing tactic.