All things can be described as “some percent better”

For what it’s worth, the fitness use case is 0 to 1 because a million people are saying “I didn’t exercise; now I do; Oculus is why”

No fitness > fitness is 0 to 1

In what way was the iPhone “fundamentally different,” by your definition? Its functionality all existed in a blackberry / mp3 player. It was just “some percent better” at everything - especially interaction - that unlocked all the apps we have today, no?

There's a difference between "infinite percent better" (because it was non-existent before) and "some percent better."

The fitness use case is a red herring and a software problem. Instilling motivation in people to do things they know are good but don't want to isn't traditionally a money-maker. You're building a better shame-er: how's Peloton doing these days? https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/PTON/financials?p=PTON (and that is "fundamentally different"!)

The iPhone as initially released isn't the iPhone brand success we see today, looking back: that's the iPhone + iTunes + App Store.

Which explains why similarly featured hardware didn't experience iPhone success.

That combination was fundamentally different, because it allowed you to easily do the 3 things most people wanted to on their phones (browse the web, listen to music, get a specific app).

At the time, 2008, there was no competition for that.

It would be until ~2010 that Android even launched rough (very rough) parity: HTC Nexus One/Samsung Galaxy S + Google Music + Android Marketplace

Two. Years.

I’m gonna be honest, I just sincerely have no idea what you mean by “fundamentally different.”

Like, Peloton is an exercise bike. A cool one! A great brand and experience! But it’s an exercise bike.

And it’s somehow more “fundamentally different” than this device that is trying to materialize sci fi?

I guess I just don’t get it

I'd say Peloton is as fundamentally different... as you can get within the fitness category. Absolutely agreed: its an exercise bike with adjustable resistance and integrated, network-connected stats. In objective terms, not fundamentally different.

But if even it's having trouble financially, fitness isn't a great category to win with technology. Branding and advertising, absolutely! (Nike?) But not tech.

Beat saber is not fundamentally different from DDR. I love both.

But that "some percent better" has a tipping point. MP3 players and Camera's in a mobile phone only matter to most when the capacity, quality, and battery life were good enough. Once they were, they were everywhere, and that was revolutionary. (The iPhone as such was just a better version)

The Apple Vision Pro is an impressive improvement. But I'm skeptical its at that tipping point. Making the tech work in a pair of regularly sized glasses, that don't need plugged in or a heavy battery, yet has similar functionality, would push it much closer to reality. No regular person is strapping one of these on to interact with the world as is. IMHO its current stage is: a very impressive toy. Which is totally fine -- with what's at stake and Apple's market position and cash, it makes total sense to try and be the leader here, until it materializes into the next thing or fizzles out. Either position is likely acceptable to Apple.

I strongly disagree that only 100% novel uses are meaningful, and I disagree even more that “phone calls anywhere” or “web anywhere” are meaningful — nobody care about phone calls or the web. They care about what those enable: talking to people or doing research or shopping or whatever.

But, sure, fundamentally different: being able to surround yourself with any environment you want. Being able to navigate that environment with physical movement. Seeing a movie that exists in a sphere around you.

You may not want those things, just like my mom could not understand why anyone would want a smartphone, but that does not mean other people get no value.

That's the catch though: existing, screen-based solutions let your surround yourself with any environment you want. ("Some percent worse")

What's fundamentally different about AR/VR is that it lets you do that... while being anywhere.

But! The cost of doing it (putting on the goggles) is a direct and serious degradation of your physical experience of wherever you physically are.

So we have a device that's key value proposition is -- it lets you have your nice home media experience, out in the world, at the cost of losing the sensation of the world.

... but then why do I want to do that out in the world, instead of at home, on the couch, like Apple's demos are?

... and if I'm doing it on the couch, it has to compete directly with high fidelity existing solutions.

The mobile component is effectively worthless, until the hardware is capable of augmenting physical reality instead of muffling it. (Read: magic AR eyeglasses)

There does exists one very particular type of user for whom the above is valuable: the business traveler.

But that's not enough volume (especially now) to meaningfully contribute to Apple's revenue.

If I were Apple, I would have taken a page out of Blackberry/Bloomberg's success book and made a flagship launch app a very polished "Vision Pro iMessage, with 3d presence" and worked the social network angle. Call any important person during business hours, with presence, instantly, would be fundamentally different. (Especially with an AI agent if they're unavailable)

Do photons have a soul? On the surface level I kind of get the argument that headsets with camera passthrough are "artificial". The light that you see isn't the light that you're supposed to see, it's been captured by a photosensor, processed into data, projected and output on a display. Scary music cue, what a total dystopia. But if it gets to the point where you can't actually tell, does it matter?

Maybe it does to you, maybe a lot of people, but calling it degradation is still a subjective call.

> But, sure, fundamentally different: being able to surround yourself with any environment you want. Being able to navigate that environment with physical movement. Seeing a movie that exists in a sphere around you.

I agree there are some people that want it (I am one of those people, Beatsaber changed my life). The issue is the number of those people isn’t that large yet. I know this because pretty much all of my friends and family that tried my Index have said “wow that’s really cool!” and later none of them go buy a headset. It’s just not compelling enough to buy for most normal people yet.

It's the same fundamental reason that Forza and Grand Turismo is more popular than VR iRacing: For the vast majority of people, the goal is FUN, not authenticity or """immersion"""/fidelity and accuracy of simulation. A game that is "simulatorish" and easy to use with a controller, and has lots of average cars that normal people can connect with.

VR has proven itself pretty much only in VR racing and VR flying, where it provides an impossible to compete with improvement in experience, but at a huge cost and COMMITMENT. It takes effort to put on a headset, set aside some space, and commit to being "away from reality" for a bit

You can't get an IMAX screen for cheap, nor can you easily extend rooms to fit bigger TVs. Often the view from a couch isn't particularly optimal because so many living rooms have been built to accommodate dinky 20" sets of 30 years ago. It's also not easy to take a big screen TV from your living room and mount it to your bedroom ceiling, or watch something out on the balcony.

Laptops screens are small not because people want small screens, but that the form factor requires it. What if you could take the 30" display or multimonitor setup you have set up at your home office anywhere in your home? Anywhere in the world? Why bother with an iPad to watch movies on a flight when you can have a full cinema experience?

Because the HMD is heavy, the battery sucks and you look like an idiot when using it. All true, but the one stupid bet to make on computing technology is that it won't get smaller, faster and more efficient over time.

> You can't get an IMAX screen for cheap

> What if you could take the 30" display or multimonitor setup

The issue is VR doesn’t provide this either. Yes, it can provide screens the same size or larger, but IMAX currently provides 8K or higher resolution, my three monitors are each 4K, and even the screens in the Vision Pro can’t match that level of detail or fidelity regardless of how big the virtual screens are.

It’s the same reason people didn’t buy gigantic TVs back when the resolution was 480p or lower, bigger alone is not better, especially when combined with the problems you documented.

I say this as someone who uses VR regularly and has bought two headsets so far. I do agree that in the future the tech will probably reach a point it’s able to provide image quality that’s good enough and solve all of its negative factors. It’s also possible the Vision Pro reaches the necessary bar, no one has really tried it yet. But for the normies VR just hasn’t reached a compelling level yet.

Vision Pro might not be able to match 8K (yet) but based on the specifications it should be able to hit a level of pixel fidelity close to 4K with an IMAX sized screen. The vast majority of movies exist with only 2K digital masters available, with quite a lot of "4K" content being upscaled. This is the case even with new releases. My local cinema, a rather big chain, still has 2K projectors in the vast majority of their theaters. For film and TV content I don't see the resolution of the Vision Pro to be problem. For desktop use where screens are usually smaller I guess we'll see how close it gets, but even if it doesn't hit full 4K fidelity, ~1440p at ~32" inches is still plenty usable, particularly if desktop real estate is unlimited.

There were plenty of large format standard definition sets, they were just either way too big (CRTs) or rear projection (worse picture quality, which is saying something for 480i). DVD is SD and was a dominant format for a significant amount of time after the rapid rise of HD flatscreens. TVs got big because the technology allowed for it without requiring TVs to be installed via forklift or crane, not because people didn't want a big picture.

I've used a bunch of headsets too and it baffles me when people with plenty of time wearing these bricks can't extrapolate those experiences out, it doesn't require a whole lot of imagination. The Quest 2/Pro aren't cutting edge and their UI is jank, but even with the shitty passthrough it's pretty clear (to me at least) how virtual screens can be useful based on my experience with them.

> ...anywhere in your home... Anywhere in the world... on a flight...

See my comment down below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36257804

if they can make me feel like I'm having a face to face conversation with someone who lives hours away then that would be fundamentally different

> those are all things you can already do!

Yes, think about being able to do it remotely AND still have presence ie imagine being able to still hangout with your college buddies or extended family for game night who live hundreds or thousands of miles away