What do you see with it? I see a better in some ways (display, cameras, maybe finger tracking) VR headset than an alternative like the Quest 3 but also with some serious downsides, no controllers, insanely high price and potential weight issues because of all the metal/glass.

What's interesting to me is that it seems to fully get rid of the screen door effect, and could actually be useable for work with virtual huge screens. I didn't really get into VR games, and maybe I should take another crack at them with something cheaper from meta before investing in the Vision Pro.

Anyway, there's no way my work will buy me one, and I'm not buying one with my own dollars just to lock it to my corp account, so not sure I could even use it for my dream use case.

Yeah, the high density displays are a big thing for me too. Also, the possibility of polished software that’s properly designed for the form factor (most AR/VR software that isn’t a game has felt kinda duct-tapey up until now).

I also think that compared to say the Quest Pro/3 it has more potential to be host to the first few apps that kick off the “iPhone moment” for AR. The capable hardware is certainly a factor here, but the bigger one is that it has a massive, enthusiastic dev base who can write apps for it on day one. Furthermore, those with iOS apps already can dip their toes in the platform by getting an AR-optimized app by doing little more than checking a tickbox in Xcode.

There is no iPhone moment possible. The iPhone replaced at least 2 existing devices at a digestible price. Indeed, if you bought an iPad Nano plus a good feature phone or one of the early smartphones you would be close to the iPhone price.

In France, it was launched at 600€ (8GB version) with a contract; but just the year prior I had bought a Windows mobile smartphone that completely sucked for 250€ (LG, under contract as well), plus a 210€ iPhone Nano. All in all, you are not that far from the price for a device that was truly something else and had all the functionality of the previous combo and much more.

The iPhone worked because it was priced pretty cheap considering everything it brought to the table. In fact, I am absolutely certain that people started buying iPhones because they intuitively understood that they would save money by staying ahead of the curve while bringing a lot of usefulness into their lives. It is extremely doubtful that something like that will happen with the Vision Pro, firstly because it doesn't really replace any existing device and its pricing is completely disconnected from ordinary people's reality.

The iPhone was 5 years ahead of anything on the market, yet it did not cost 3 to 7 times the equivalent technology. Actually, as I said I'm pretty sure it worked because people figured out that while it lacked some features or had "not as good" specs on paper for certain things, it was a far more usable and useful device. If you looked at its competitors at that time a Nokia N95 8GB would go for 300€ under contract (700€ naked) and the most popular Samsung/LG big feature phones/smartphone were around that price.

The iPhone was not expensive. This is a mythology created by Apple fanboys under Tim Cook that gaslighted everyone with "clever" diversification and an insane pricing ladder where he keeps selling old technology for twice the price of its competitors just because he benefits from the Apple brand halo. When you look at it the first iPhone was what is now called a "Pro" iPhone; it was the best Apple could sell, but it was also the best in the market overall, there wasn't any alternative with a better integrated package. Even if we make a charitable comparison and take for example the most expensive iPhone 3G at 700€ (16Go version) and ignore the Pro Max iPhone (which is an extreme outlier) and go for the "base" Pro iPhone at 1230€ ; you go from 68% of monthly minimum salary to 90%; a rather substantial 22% increase. For what is essentially the same thing relative to the overall market. If you were to just consider inflation, 700€ in 2009 would be around 890€ today. This is already 80€ more money than the "base" iPhone 15. This base iPhone is technologically underwhelming, its only redeeming quality is the fast silicon but it is largely unnecessary and as to make up for the lower amount of RAM (that nowadays is way more relevant to what you can do with your phones that pure benchmark speed). It is basically the same thing as a Samsung S23, expect sold at a 300€ premium.

This is the reality that the Vision Pro is launching with, and as a "new" technology it was already bound to be expensive, but under the Tim Cook "leadership" it is bound to be a meme device considering the pricing placement. It is better technology than the competition, but not 3 times better and its potential use cases are not 3 times better than what exists. In fact, we already know from very similar existing devices that such things are uncomfortable enough that they could not be considered as a primary device. So even if someone finds a use for them, it's going to be very niche and time bound. Nothing that could warrant its asking price.

But I find it very fitting to the Tim Cook era, it represents exactly what Apple has become with him: overpriced, overengineered, luxury show-off technology. Lots of posturing, enormous potential to display wealth; very little substance.

> What's interesting to me is that it seems to fully get rid of the screen door effect,

I heard that the Quest 3 already solved this too?

People use "screen door effect" and "overly low resolution" interchangeably even though they aren't the same thing. The screen door effect--visible gaps between pixels--in the Quest 3 is minimal, but the resolution is still low enough individual pixels are obvious. It's not usable for a lot of the work-related cases Meta promotes.

I don’t understand the huge screens thing. The Vision Pro has 4k resolution (if I remember correctly). Most decent monitors have the same. Isn’t this basically the same as moving your existing monitor closer to your head to make it a huge monitor?

With a real monitor, a 4K screen on your desk covers maybe 45 degrees of your horizontal field of view. And it's pixel perfect.

In VR, that 4K needs to cover over 100 degrees FOV. And any 'virtual monitor' content is being resampled and filtered, inevitably blurring/softening things.

I suspect that we're going to need a lot more than 4K resolution before you can comfortably work with small text (e.g. coding, web browsing) in VR.

> Apple Vision Pro features ultra-high-resolution displays that deliver more pixels than a 4K TV for each eye.

That is likely some clever wording, but according to the announcement, a non-pessimistic interpretation does seem like each eye is getting more than 4K.

If we'd be getting 5K, they'd say 5K. So it's between 4 and 5. Not that great.

If "all" this thing does is replace a 4K monitor for existing MacOS stuff, I would consider saving up to buy one.

It would be nice to work in various locations with the equivalent of a big 4K screen.

I am unfortunately one of those people who really cannot work on a laptop screen, I need lots of real estate. (And laptops are ergonomically bad even if you don't mind the small screen)

I actually currently have 3 4K monitor + keyboard workstations in various rooms in my house. (Office, living room, garage) because I like to work in various places depending on the weather, who else is home, etc.

Same. I use 4x 4k monitors and I’m not really interested in learning new ways to work on less real estate.

If the Apple Vision Pro could replace my 4 monitors, I’d be delighted

Curious what is your go to 4k monitor?

Maybe a little. If the existing monitor could also use your entire visual field for workspace and easily be used anywhere.

I travel often and I’m looking forward to always having the ability to have a large high resolution display to work on. Also seems cool for entertainment. It’s returnable like anything else.

Yeah, like maybe instead of a desk with huge screens, you could just strap on the vision pro and work on that.

Maybe the biggest difference is that you can place virtual screens and windows arbitrarily as needed, rather than being restricted to parts of your desk where a stand or VESA mount can fit.

So one could for example have the benefits of multiple screens while lounging or in the middle of a flight. Even at a desk, window/screen placement would be more flexible than otherwise possible.

Because a monitor only displays what's on it. A vision headset can show you different content depending on where you're looking.

It's kind of like comparing a monitor that's locked to a single app with a monitor that has multiple spaces you can switch between. They both have the same resolution, but one of them can display much more stuff.

Any chance you could share a snap of your setup ideally with windows distributed around as you prefer? I’m always interested in other peoples’ approach in this area.

I’m a laptop only person. I never understood how a single monitor would be better. But quantity has a quality all its own and 4 monitors seems like it could enable novel approaches.

I think it may have something to do with less strain on your eyes when focusing on distant screen than one up close. I have Quest 2, I really enjoy watching flat 2d videos on it. Even with screen-door effect, sometimes, I prefer to watch shows on it.

I'm largely an ignoramus about how eyeballs function. But this sounds... suspicious. When a screen is inches away from your eyeball, isn't your eye focusing on that? I'd expect a VR headset to cause more eye strain than almost any alternative. Am I misunderstanding something?

My understanding of it is that the eye-strain that people tend to get isn't from your eyes focusing on the glass, but rather due to the Vergence-Accommodation Conflict (VAC)[0]. Essentially, there's a mismatch between the vergence (a movement of both eyes in opposite directions simultaneously for a binocular-style effect), and the accommodation of the eye (the way your eyes change focus based on distance).

When those two things aren't in alignment, you can get a feeling of eye-strain. The way the lenses bend the light make it so the focal length that you're focusing on is further than the screen in front of you, so that isn't what is causing the eye strain.

Mind you, this is just my layman's understanding of the subject, so definitely take it with a grain of salt.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vergence-accommodation_conflic...

Focal depth is fixed to ~1.3m (for quest 3, don’t think we know the value for AVP yet).[1]

So you’re not focusing on the glass, but on the image at that virtual depth.

The strain comes from looking at things rendered further or closer than 1.3m.

1 - https://x.com/id_aa_carmack/status/1371485209603022853

This occurred to me. I think I might actually just shell out for a nice monitor instead. The reviews are going to have to be pretty unbelievably positive for me to actually get a vision pro.

Screen door effect hasn't been a problem in VR for years.

You are right, but wrong.

For 99% of the price point people will pay for VR, it is still there.

...and will be for Apple Vision (non-pro) and Apple VisionSE.

The Quest 2 does not have screen door, which came out two years ago and was/is the majority of the VR market, so I am not sure what you mean.

Uhh, Quest 2 has very obvious screen door effect. My vision is good, but it’s not even fantastic.

quest2 have it, AND it is not what 99% of the market will pay. You live in a bubble where $1200 for a phone is "normal".

How do you know that it doesn't have the screen door effect?

>Those displays enable the Vision Pro to eliminate something called the "screen-door effect."

https://www.businessinsider.com/less-expensive-apple-vision-...

Have you checked BigScreen?

https://www.bigscreenvr.com/

Personally, I'm excited for the productivity aspects of it. I think my main use case will probably be relaxing in my comfy chair with a macbook on my lap projected into a much larger screen with some other floating windows like documentation, youtube tutorials, etc. off to the sides. I currently don't have any extra screens for the macbook, so being able to utilize some native apps for stuff like that seems quite helpful!

That aside, I'd imagine I'll use it for watching movies and tv since I live alone currently and could enjoy the immersion without blocking other people out. I already have a PSVR 2 for gaming so I'm not too worried about the potential or lack thereof for games. One thing I'm going to try out though is game streaming services like Geforce Now. If I can play really high fidelity flat games using a M+KB / Controller on the headset that would be awesome!

For what it's worth I currently play flat games on Quest 3 via Xbox Cloud Gaming (i.e. streaming) [1], in passthrough mode (i.e. mixed reality with the virtual screen floating in the air) using a PS4 controller paired with the Quest 3, and it's definitely very playable, if much lower visual quality than just playing it on a 4K TV (30hrs into Starfield at the moment). But I like it because I can take my giant floating screen in any room of the house or in bed and don't have to stop when my partner wants to use the TV.

I'm pretty sure this will work on day 1 on Vision Pro since Xbox Cloud Gaming already works on Safari with PS/XBox controllers paired to Macs/iPads/iPhones, and with the supposed higher quality display, passthrough, and user interface (the Quest hand tracking is insufferable) I expect it will be even better.

[1]: https://news.xbox.com/en-us/2023/12/13/play-xbox-game-pass-w...

While I understand what you mean, you gotta be extremely strapped for space for that to be a true argument. For the 500 bucks a Meta Quest will cost, you could get a pretty decent 4K TV or display. Definitely not the best thing around but its potential uses case and potential future usefulness infinitely better ?!

Personally, I still think VR is mostly something like 3D TV/movies where you end up paying a lot more for nothing of real value, just a novelty factor.

Porn. Your going to use it for porn.

Edit: geez, just don’t have a sense of humor here? Or is it the truth Then you’re downloading this because you’re embarrassed?

It's a valid argument. We got VHS over Betamax because of porn. The VR headset that best supports it is going to win. Since this is Apple, probably not this.

When I was a computer technician for a very large company in the mid 90s, you would not believe how much porn I saw on peoples work computers and they were always complaining about needing a bigger hard drive.

Last thing I listened to was Technology Connections, doing their long-format series on the format wars. According to him, porn haven't played a major role. He highlighted that the beta tapes of the time were shorter and the players a bit more expensive, than the VHS system. Because of this, VHS players sold more, so the market was bigger, so the catalogue, including porn, was bigger as well.

I feel like these tongue in cheek responses mentioning porn being the main use case are pretty cringy. It’s not that hard to accept that other people have different things in mind. Sheesh.

It was tongue in cheek, but it’s true. Just because you can do different things on It doesn’t mean that this is not gonna be a large component of it.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Percentages-of-Internet-...

Humor tends to be downvoted on HN in order to maintain a relatively high signal:noise ratio.

One person‘s noise is another person signal.

I guess „downloading“ was a Freudian slip here… ;)

Honestly, I can't imagine a better use case for this thing.

It's not like users will be allowed to play real games or install a real OS.

I'd like to know how it handles itself when you throw 8K120fps HEVC or AV1 at it. If it can't do that, then how could it ever compete with a $2500 PC and a Valve Index?

I get the entertainment aspect, but come on, don't fool yourself. You won't be more productive with this thing than with your MacBook or any other Laptop.

Sure, but I'm pretty productive with my MacBook too, so I can certainly see myself utilizing the features I described to help out with some struggles of using a single display laptop.

The entertainment aspect is a massive draw too—I don't want to downplay it by any means, but people were asking for some of the reasons that I want one, so I was genuinely answering with some of the features I envision using and how.

For me, it's visionOS that I find interesting. I don't know if it's going to be any good, but I'm intrigued by the idea of a full-on general-purpose OS on a headset.

I see no indication that it's even usable as a PCVR device, like the Quest series.

I'm picking up a Pimax Crystal for that purpose. I'll probably get an AVP, but don't expect to be able to use it for gaming. That's not its purpose. It's a MacBook Pro built into a headset.

But it can't do all the same stuff as a MacBook Pro. It has all the same limitations as an iOS device.

I'm excited about using it in the office as a replacement/enhancement to external monitors. Maybe it will suck for that - I don't know. But I never really cared about any of the use cases for VR or AR.

I won’t buy it because I don’t have any use it for it. But $3500 for a gadget is not crazy.

I look back at what some of my computer set ups cost over the years in non inflation adjusted terms

- An Apple //e with a duo disk drive, a green screen monitor, and a dot matrix printer in 1986 was $3000

- A Mac LC II with 10 MB RAM, an 80MB hard drive, a laser printer a little 12 inch monitor, and a //e card with a separate drive - $4000 with an education discount.

- A PowerMac 6100/60 with 24 MB RAM, 250MB hard drive and a 486 DOS Compatibility Card and a $500 13 inch monitor - $3300 in 1996.

I won’t buy one because just like the 1st gen iPhone, iPad and Apple Watch, it usually doesn’t last as long as the second generation and Apple usually makes rapid advances between the two.

But if Apple addresses all of your other (very valid) concerns, price wouldn’t hold me back from it if I could find a use for it.

$3500 for a headset isn't crazy. $3500 for a headset that isn't allowed to do the overwhelming majority of VR things is.

Even if it could, it's not even remotely a competitive price. 90s hardware cost what it cost because that's what was available. Today, there is plenty of competition for VR, and Apple is explicitly ignoring it.

Go look for other headsets with similar features and especially optical quality. You won’t find anything much cheaper. The quest (even considering the pro) and pico devices are toys in comparison

Right. If this was actually a general purpose VR headset, then it would be competitive.

Instead, it's a toy. It's not allowed to be anything more.

What do you mean by general purpose VR? Toy? Without defining how it falls short of your expectations, you just come across like you’re ranting.

This thing is literally not able to run arbitrary software. It is only allowed to run Apple's OS, and only allowed to install software from Apple's app store, written with Apple's app toolchain, and compiled with Apple's app libraries.

There is a whole world of software that this device will never touch, simply because it's not allowed.

Oh ffs. So really for you the quality of the hardware, the price, the whole experience—these things are irrelevant because you can’t sideload. It’s an Apple product what did you expect? “This is the year of Linux on desktop” people are not the intended customers.

It's not irrelevant! Quite the opposite, the overall experience is precisely what is relevant.

It's exactly what I expected from an Apple product. That's why I was never enthusiastic about this hardware to begin with: I knew anything I would want to do with it would be arbitrarily impossible. That's Apple's business model. Just because I'm not the target audience doesn't mean I don't exist!

The target audience is anyone who is willing to pay $3500 for a walled garden. For fucks sake, I'm allowed to be critical of that business model.

You’re allowed to be anything you want, it’s just a predictable, well-trod take.

It’s no different than the people who show up in new iPhone announcement threads complaining about iOS and the App Store. We’ve heard all this before literally all the time — Google sells Pixels go buy one of those and be happy. Some of us like what Apple does with their ecosystem.

What isn't it allowed to do?

Anything outside the App Store.

What normal VR things can’t you do? Gaming is the obvious one but I think as soon as people start developing games for the vision App Store, that problem is going to resolve itself.

Like it love it or hate it, but this is what Apple does.

They sell premium hardware with a walled garden of software that meets the full expectations of 80% of people in general and 90-95% of people who can afford these devices.

For their target audience, $3000-3500 is probably the perfect the price point for the “first” generation of a new (to them) tech platform. Insofar as it allows them to turn a profit, ship best in class mass-manufacturable hardware, and not price out their core demographic of new adopters.

Pretty much. Under Tim Cook, Apple has become the greediest corporation ever, for products that are just about competitive with the overall technology market. But since they have fanboys that created some sort of cult they can get away with absurdity.

I have been an Apple customer since the first iPod but nowadays their pricing makes absolutely no sense considering their products' positioning compared to the rest of the market.

But somehow you cannot say that and you will be gaslighted about Apple pricing that always have been this way (even though it is demonstrably and factually not true).

At least for the iPhone there was a good excuse: network operators were not very keen on letting a completely open device run on their network, and still today there are limitations on what you can do with a fully rooted Android device. It somewhat makes sense; the nefarious potential is pretty big.

But for a headset? No reason at all to have it locked down from the get go.

You can buy 7 Quest 3s for the price. Or 14 Quest 2s.

How many people did what you did though? Were those all Apple branded monitors + printers? There were much cheaper alternatives in the same time frame.

I paid full price for a 3DS on day one, doesn't mean it was the right price for it to be a success.

I'm not telling you it's worth it.

I do not own Apple stock, I don't work for them, and I'm not buying one (although I'll be watching with great interest)

However.... whether or not you think any of these products are worth it, the Apple Vision Pro is objectively pretty far ahead of the Quest 2/3 in terms of capability.

I could also buy 10 Android BLU F92 5G phones for the price of 1 iPhone 15 Pro Max. I won’t be doing that either.

All indications is that Apple will only be able to manufacturer 2 million of them. Is there any doubt those will sell out.

As far as how many people did it. Back in 1992, Apple was the number one seller of computers when they started selling “low cost” Macs. Apple didn’t start struggling until Windows 95.

Apple was more valuable than Microsoft until the mid 90s if I recall correctly

While Apple sold a lot less Apple //e’s than low cost Commodores and Atari computers, they were much more profitable.

Yes, there is doubt they will sell out. How many $3500 things does Apple sell? Most of what they sell doesn't come close. There's no obvious business need for a Vision Pro unlike a $3500 MacBook Pro config either.

And a Quest 3 is a much closer competitor to the Vision Pro than a Blu F92 5G is to a iPhone 15 Pro Max...

Does it have less space than the Quest and no wireless and therefore will be lame?

(Deep cut)

Do you think the iPod would have been the same sales success if it cost 700% more than a Nomad instead of being basically the same price? $399 for 5GB iPod, $500 for 6GB Nomad?

The iPhone Pro Max I referenced above is 10x as expensive as the cheaper good enough Android phone.

Even the high end iPads are about 10x as expensive as a Fire Tablet.

The original iPhone was unsubsidized at $700 compared to “free” phones and was laughed at by Balmer for that very reason.

How many months did it take for Apple to lower the price of the iPhone to $400 and drop the 4GB model again? Or did they do that out of the goodness of their hearts?

$400 was still more than the “free” phones that carriers were giving away and it’s my understanding that in the rest of the world, most people still have to drop the cash for the total cost of the phone

You don't slash the price of something selling within your expectations after a few months. And you know that crummy $0 free on contract phones weren't the competitor to the iPhone. It was $400 on contract smartphones like the Palm Treo 750 or Cingular 8525, actually comparable devices.

And you still ignored the rest of my point. Today in 2024, most of the world is paying full price for their phones up front. Apple is competing in a market where you can buy an Android for tenth of the price . Yet, Apple is selling enough iPhones to make it one of the most valuable companies in the world

The current crop of Apple fanboys apologist has left all logics and facts out of the door, so I don't expect telling them something true will have any effect.

In fact, they are the sole reason Apple has been able to charge those ludicrous price lately. It seems they exist only to validate and rationalise any stupidly greedy decision Apple is making. At this point it really has become very close to a cult...

I don't think people bought those just for playing around with it.

They upgraded or started using those generic machines for generic things.

You can't just buy this and use it as a replacement.

I couldn't care less about the product itself, because I'm only interested in VR, but I'm hopeful it will drive engagement towards AR/VR. Then, hopefully, other companies will throw more significant amount of money towards R&D in VR and the technology will improve.

Don't forget Rule n°1 : no pre-orders!

I raise my cup to Apple for raising the bar in new HCI, even if I don't find the product particularly compelling.

Look, if i would have 3k to throw around, i would also try it out.

I don't and don't think its reasonable at all.

I do own a htc vice pro + wireless extention from intel + valve controllers, i like that, i do not use it often enough to even justifiy that setup but its 2k and i bought the wireless and the valve controllers one after the other.

Would be interested in long term use replacing a laptop - headaches - eyestrain etc ....

I’m going to say with the electromagnetic radiation blasting you in the forehead There’s going to be other problems.

What type of 'electromagnetic radiation' is now specially new to this device?

And what health risks are you aware of, i'm not?

You do know, that light is the same thing right? And you do know that even without a headset you do have radio waves and wifi around you constantly?

Light is not the same thing as anthropomorphically generated electromagnetic radiation. We evolved with sunlight we did not live with these anthropomorphic created electromagnetic polarized frequencies until very recently.

And yes, I’m aware of the radio waves around me constantly and that’s a problem as well. So I was adding any more of it going to do anything to help us?

http://pe.org.pl/articles/2020/9/35.pdf

There have been plenty of studies for a long time regarding this and a practical 'study' going on for now a long time across the globe with billions of people.

What is your specific worry? getting cancer?

The paper you reference states the same: "Hence, VR headsets and mobile phones are safe."

And yes light is the same thing as anthropomorphically generated electromagnetic radiation, depending on what radiation you talk about. like the light coming from the display. If you mean the specific wireless connection, than no.

At least pls tell me that you don't have quarz cyrstals around you for protection. But if you would take this serious, you do not use wifi? You do life in a metal mesh?

Why do people have to constantly degrade the legitimate science going on between the question of man-made electromagnetic radiation and human health?

One of the biggest differences between light and electromagnetic waves created by humans is that they are polarized. Light waves are not polarized they are scattered. Light waves are also not pulsed.

Cancer? Maybe. What about cataracts? What about tinnitus? What about mood disturbances? What about Parkinson’s?

EMFs affect our neurology and it’s been published and papers over and over. There are non-thermal effects in biological beings that are underplayed by the industry.

Is this going to affect everyone the same way? No. Because genetics matter. The fact that electromagnetic radiation seems to stimulate voltage gated ion channels will mean that people with, different genetics in these ion channels will have different effects to electromagnetic radiation.

And in fact, I am one of these people who are sensitive to it. Both low frequency and radio frequency, EMF cause mood, disturbances, insomnia, and tinnitus. And when, using laptops with high levels of low frequency electromagnetic radiation i have nosebleeds. Other people have seen this happened to me in real time.

I’m sure that’s all in my head though right?

>I’m sure that’s all in my head though right?

I don’t know, but it doesn’t seem too difficult to create a blind (better, double-blind) test so you can know for sure.

Is that something you are interested in doing?

I’ve done it, which is why I’m so certain it affects me.

I’ve had people help me do it.

Can you elaborate how your experiment was setup?

After all, while you do post studies which clarify details of your theory, you do not counter the 48 studies linked in the wikipedia article.

Let’s just look at one of the studies. What was the conclusion?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00139...

“If such individuals exist, they represent a small minority and have not been identified yet. The available observational studies do not allow differentiating between biophysical from EMF and nocebo effects.”

Even the Wikipedia article does not say it does not exist!

The studies don’t only include people who are genetically susceptible to EMFs. so if only one and 10 people have the sensitivity, the probability they will be in the studies are reduced.

Then you have the problem in the studies of people claiming they have the sensitivity when it is an anxiety or psychological issue. These are widely known issues with the studies that say there’s no effect.

As for myself, the last five years I have consistently noted how I slept, and how I felt and then only afterward measuring the frequency, magnetic and electric fields, and the radio frequency electronic radiation.

If I do not know if they magnetic field or electric field is strong, then there is no way placebo effect could occur, correct?

This is the same with the laptops that I measure high magnetic fields, giving me bloody nose. Apple computers have very low EMF emissions, while most other laptops are very high. I discovered accidentally because I work a lot with computers. It was only after measuring the fields that I noticed what was going on.

My last experiment was my tinnitus. I had someone put a cell phone on the table behind my head streaming videos. One was a video off-line and the other one was a video from YouTube. They were the same video. But the one that was streaming from YouTube after 5 to 10 minutes my tent is increased. This did not occurr with the other Video playing when the phone was on airplane mode.

Regarding my sleep, I live in a minivan and I can sleep 10 hours when I am in low or absent EMF area. If I am in a high area, especially with bid man 5G, my sleep is interrupted and it must I get 4 to 5 hours of sleep.

I can guarantee you as I’ve worked as a network engineer for one of the largest networking companies that I was way more skeptical of this than you will ever be.

"If such individuals exist, they represent a small minority and have not been identified yet." -> You should talk to them then.

A good blind study would be a EMF isolated room (shielded mesh, etc), a assistant you don't see (no visual or accustic cue at all) and a procedure you can repeat.

You go out, the assitant sets up the experiment (which is recorded, somehow EMF free), either activates an active EMF (perhaps constant file transfer, radio antenna etc.), the person leaves the room (the source is hidden), you enter, you wait x minutes (probably more than one), you either say yes or no and leave.

If you are clearly above random and you can show this result, you would be a good candidate for proper research.

Your assumption that you proof your EMF sensibility by recording the messurement after is way to unprecise. You might hold your EMF device wrong, ignore values, might have some visual or accustic cues etc.

What device do you use to messure EMF? What range? 5G has a broad spectrum, your sector antennas might send while you messure because someone is doing something close by etc.

I have an acoustimeter am-11 which measures RF radiation up to 8 GHz and a 50Hz meter which measures both electric and magnetic field separately.

The area I measure is close to my body, not near the source cause that would be stupid.

I measure at several angles and positions.

My house has background rf EMFs below 5 mircrowatts per meter with no cellphone on in the house.

You are making it more complicated than it needs to be.

The issue is, that we talk about a potential placebo/nocebo effect, which means you need to make sure to get rid of all ambigiousities.

And tbh buying / using a device made by a Anti EMF Page/Company who sells EMF protection is everything but trustworthy.

You know bias, fake shops, gold audio cables, crystals etc.

Now: Have you done a proper blind test? What was your experiment setup? How often did you repeat it? And what does it mean

I already told you what I purchased. Now you’re just trolling me and it’s useless to continue with you. I was a freaking network engineer I think I know how science works.

> I was a freaking network engineer I think I know how science works.

The fact you think having been a network engineer has much to do with the scientific method, does not bode well.

I've got a published paper with my name on it. It's about forecasting octopus reproduction using satellite data. Even despite that, I don't go around calling myself a proper scientist, because I appreciate the difficulties of proper experimental design and eliminating confounding variables and know that even "proper scientists" don't get it all correct on their first attempt any more than I as a software developer get bug-free code on my first attempt.

I’m noticing you created this account six hours ago and I’m the only one you’ve had any interaction with.

Is that you Apple?

Sun light is polarized.

I literaly have a polarizing filter for my camera.

And bluntly saying: yes you do fully read as someone with a head problem. You would not survive a blind study regarding EMF and your nose bleeding and would be a very famous person if you could proof that.

All EMF fields we have and face daily are not strong enough at all for any 'ion channels'. Are you even aware how many fields you walk through every single day? Public transport, power lines, wifi etc. your own electric cable has a magnetic field.

Weird that you actually connect ion channels/EMF with blood vessal issues at all.

Feel free to read the wikipedia article about it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_hypersensitivi...

"Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is a claimed sensitivity to electromagnetic fields, to which negative symptoms are attributed. EHS has no scientific basis and is not a recognized medical diagnosis, although it is generally accepted that the experience of EHS symptoms is of psychosomatic origin."

This is the second time I’ve read this Mr. interpretation of sunlight being polarized on hacker news.

Sunlight is not polarized. When you use a polarizing filter, you are polarizing the light. That’s why they call them polarizing filters.

Sunlight, reflecting off of a lake is partially polarized which is what creates the intensity.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3049010/#:~:tex....

Light arriving on Earth from natural sources, either directly from the Sun or reflected from the Moon, is unpolarized or, at most, weakly polarized.

There is some amount of polarization once it strikes the Earth, but all EMF radiation from telecommunications is polarized, like a laserbeam.

https://www.edmundoptics.com/c/laser-polarization/760/

Since you don’t know enough about the polarization of light, it’s not fair to me to comment on your ignorance about man-made electromagnetic fields in the rest of what you said.

And please post something deeper than a Wikipedia article, or actually just look up anything that is opposite of your current bias.

Wikipedia has all of its sources at the bottom of the article itself.

If you could actually proof your claim, people would write an article about you.

No one wants to work with me to prove it. Of there is anyone here that wants to help me I am open to it. I am homeless and on disability.

If you can't prove it, why do you yourself believe it? You said you "know how science works" but you've been arguing that 0.1 watts of non ionizing radiation that can't penetrate the skin causes cancer and in a previous thread you were arguing that humans aren't smarter than mosquitos.

I can’t prove it to other people. I proved it to myself, but when other people want proof, they don’t sit down with me to investigate it.

I’m not arguing that not ionizing radiation causes cancer. I’m arguing that it causes neurological problems. And because it can’t penetrate the skin deeply does not mean it cannot affect ion channels.

And also I wasn’t saying that we’re not smarter than mosquitoes I’m saying that they have different intelligence.

You’re not even listening to me, so how can you learn anything?

Polarization: A Key Difference between Man-made and Natural Electromagnetic Fields, in regard to Biological Activity

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14914

I don't mean to discount what you're experiencing.

The article you linked to would set off alarm bells with anyone familiar with scientific publications, or even an undergraduate level of physics education. It's more like a blog post purporting mysticism.

The cited author, Dr. George L. Carlo, is a "a world recognized medical scientist, best-selling author and attorney", as indicated here [0]--a pseudo-science website that earns money by exploiting EMF fears (and sells "WiFi blockers").

"At Tech Wellness, our goal is to be your trusted source for information about EMF and all things wireless energy. That’s no small feat, because when you start looking around you’ll see a lot of pretty crazy claims and contradicting information out there—and some of it is downright scary."

The source you linked to isn't associated with Nature, despite the URL.

[0] https://techwellness.com/blogs/news/george-carlo-wireless-em...

If you look closely at what Tech wellness sells, you’ll find that all of it is scientifically proven. It’s not like they’re selling crystals or pendants. Go ahead and show me one thing there that you think does not block electromagnetic radiation.

And this is the main research scientist who wrote the paper.

You do not know enough about electromagnetic radiation to keep commenting like you are.

Dimitris J. Panagopoulos

https://books.google.com/books/about/Electromagnetic_Fields_...

Dimitris J. Panagopoulos, Electromagnetic Fields - Biophysicist, was born in Athens, Greece, where he lives and works. He has a Degree in Physics and a PhD in Biophysics both from the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (NKUA). He completed his PhD on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) in 2001, and two post-doctoral studies on the biological effects of microwaves (2004), and on cell death induction by Wireless Communication (WC) EMFs (2006). He worked as a post-doctoral researcher and lecturer at the Department of Cell Biology and Biophysics, NKUA, (2002-2014), where he gave undergraduate and graduate lectures on Radiation- and EMF-Biophysics, and performed research on the effects of various types of EMFs in experimental animals. During 2014-2018 he worked as a research associate at the National Centre for Scientific Research "Demokritos", Laboratory of Health Physics, Radiobiology and Cytogenetics, researching effects of ionizing and non-ionizing radiation on human cells. Since 2018 he has been working as a researcher at the Choremeion Research Laboratory, Medical School, NKUA. His experiments were among the first that showed damaging effects of man-made EMFs on DNA and reproduction. He has also shown beneficial effects on reproduction of EMFs mimicking natural ones. His theory on the biophysical mechanism of action of EMFs on cells is considered the most valid amongst all proposed theories and is cited by nearly 700 scientific publications. This theory has explained the sensing of upcoming earthquakes by animals and the sensing of upcoming thunderstorms by sensitive individuals through the action of the natural EMFs associated with these phenomena. The same theory has recently explained the induction of oxidative stress in cells by EMF-exposure. Dr. Panagopoulos has shown why the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) is not a proper metric for non-thermal effects, why man-made (totally polarized) EMFs are damaging while natural EMFs are vital, and why highly varying real-life exposures from mobile phones and other WC devices are significantly more damaging than simulated exposures with invariable parameters. He has also shown that genetic damage caused by WC EMFs occurs similarly in human and animal cells. Dr. Panagopoulos has also argued that photons are strictly wave-packets, not particles of light, and that man-made electromagnetic radiation does not consist of photons but of continuous "classical" polarized waves, in contrast to what has been postulated by quantum physicists in the past 100 years. He is the first or sole author in more than 40 peer-reviewed highly influential scientific publications, which are referenced more than 1600 times by other scientific publications and has been included in the Top 10 cited authors by the Mutation Research journals.

Why is it weird that I connect ion channels? They’ve been shown to be affected by EMFs.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33945157/

Here, we systematically clarify how neuronal ion channels are particularly affected and differentially modulated by EMFs at multiple levels, such as gating dynamics, ion conductance, concentration in the membrane, and gene and protein expression. Ion channels represent a major transducer for EMF-related effects on the CNS.

Among other issues, that paper is about VR headsets that use 60GHz antennas, which are much higher energy than normal radios. The Vision Pro doesn't have one and the technology has been more or less phased out.

Yes, See my problem? I can’t seem to find any testing on Apple VR headset regarding to SAR or any other type of radiation. That’s emitted from it.

All I can find is, you’ll have an extremely strong Wi-Fi signal right next to your head probably for long period and you would use a cell phone that close to your head. I’ve had to find an SAR rating for it anywhere.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/apple-vision-pro-has-already-...

Pretty sure the radios are down in the puck. Not by your head

That's only a battery pack. All the electronics are in the headset.

> anthropomorphically generated electromagnetic radiation

what?

you realize all living beings have been exposed to huge amounts of EM radiation since the inception of life in the universe, right? The fact that it's now human made doesn't give it magical properties that cause it to be more damaging. your body itself, right now, emits EM radiation. The piece of fruit next to you emits it. there is zero science showing that the energy received or sent by your every day electronic devices has any amount of harm to living beings. go stand outside for 5 minutes, you'll get getting a dose of EM radiation significantly higher than your phone pressed against your head for a year.

This comment is totally ignorant on the science behind electromagnetic fields that are used for telecommunications. If light or like anthropomorphic EMF, it would be a laser. If telecommunication radio frequency waves were not polarized they could not transmit any information.

I'm not sure I understand the metaphor. What is wrong with lasers? If they are pointed at your eye they could be harmful, but we don't have an 'eye' for the waves that are pointed at us, and a laser powerful enough to do damage to us for other reasons like heat would show likewise the same damage in non viewable wavelengths.

No one is contending that EMF waves can't harm people, since it is know that they can if they are of specific type and power. People are asking how it is possible the ones that exist that are of low power used for communication could harm some incredibly small number of people and not everyone, since it is a physical effect. If you flipped it and someone said they were immune to bullets, would you believe them?

Do you just say things without even verifying them with a quick search?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3799025/

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abs...

And do you google for studies you don't read and use them to prove a point that the studies don't address?

I have a google scholar alert for it and I read every study no matter the result. Why wouldnt I?

Your linked studies said nothing relevant. Are you going to address my comment or not?

What in the world is anthropomorphically generated electromagnetic radiation? This isn't a phrase that's coming up in any search results and my colleague with a PhD in particle physics has never heard of this phrase.

This device uses a puck. It’s going to be down on your belt right about where your cell phone with the same radios already is. This feels silly. Put on your tinfoil hat I guess? Even if you don’t own a cell phone, how often are you surrounded within several feet by up to dozens over people with one? If you live out in the woods then why do you care anyways?

In other words it’s a drop in the bucket.

You make it sound like the puck being down near your groin is any better.

But there are still electronics in the headset and I can’t wait to get a hold of one to measure the EMFs that are coming out of it.

And the jokes about the tinfoil hat I don’t get it. There is so much research around this, and so many questions. Still, you think the evidence is all in. And we have an industry who is trying to downplay the non-thermal effects of electro biotic radiation because it would damage the industry if anything harmful came out.

I just read from someone else that the puck is only the battery that the Wi-Fi is in the headset. So just imagine strapping a Wi-Fi router to your head!

Consider also neckstrain.

People have gotten neck fractures from VR headset use.

Such as?

You will pre-order a 3.5k device without even looking at what it is first? That's just inconceivable to me, maybe I'm just not rich enough?

Even when you pre-order, you try it on at the store to get fitted for the appropriate mask, and on top of that you have 2 weeks to return it for a full refund (if it's the same as other apple products—no reason to believe it won't be).

Additionally, I've spent the months since the announcement reading reviews and stuff from people who __have__ gotten their hands on the headset and they all seem to address any concerns I personally have.

Certainly not pushing anybody else to be impulsive for FOMO, but as an enthusiast, I'm pretty excited and am very fortunate to be able to afford something like this.

In the view of a “hobby” it’s not that excessive- especially for the class of people likely to appear on HN.

It’s the cost of a high end MacBook Pro, or a vacation to Paris, or about twelve days in an apartment in San Francisco :)

A high-end MBP is costly, but is generally seen as a workhorse that will serve you well for at least 3 years. Spending a similar amount of money for a gadget with a questionable purpose and quick obsolescence is certainly out of reach for the majority of people not living in the SF tech bubble.

It's out of reach for the vast majority of the human race, sure, and perhaps it's a "bad idea" for even a majority of HN, but there are quite a few people who can and will drop the coin on it, for one reason or another.

As mentioned elsewhere, the people who went to the Vision Labs are buying them on release day, so there must be something there.

Vacation to paris lol? Are you spending just a weekend there? No way it's 3500 for any decent period of time, at least not if you're flying from NA.

It’s 1.5 times more than I live on in a month.

>In the view of a “hobby” it’s not that excessive

It is however, a fairly expensive paperweight. And I have a bunch of gadgets I hardly ever use.

Who else is going to make the 10,000 unboxing/reaction videos on YouTube?

Concerned? No, I just don't see any use for it. At least not at that price. Too expensive for a gimmick.

<Looks at his PlayStation Move gathering dust in a corner>

At least I didn't buy a PSVR :)

Also, as someone who wears glasses:

1. I trust my regular optometrist a lot more than Apple-made lenses.

2. Do I remember right that you can't swap prescription lenses, so you'd have to get one for each family member? Holy 2500 * N!

Vision correction is provided by Zeiss branded magnetic inserts.

1. Your optometrist will be providing the prescription. Zeiss will be providing the optics. You can trust them both.

2. They're expensive, but they pop in and out.

https://www.zeiss.com/vision-care/en/highlights/home.html

I share your concern over it's usefulness. I should take my Index back out sometime.

Unfortunately the lenses are not expensive, which likely means that they are mass produced. If you have an uncommon prescription, you probably can't get the right lenses.

Great point.

> Apple says that "not all prescriptions are supported."

This could mean anything from a limit on physical thickness to not supporting something like prism correction. It'd be nice if they were more specific. There are already some good VR headset prescription lens makers I'm sure are gearing up for the Vision Pro--I wonder if Apple is going to go after third parties making inserts.

Yay. I have enough astigmatism that the docs told me contacts is a no go and can't use off the shelf lenses. But those are Zeiss!

You can swap the lenses, which are made by Zeiss, not apple

I trust Apple-made lenses a lot more than any strip-mall optician.

Apple lenses will be worse than the best but far better than the average.

Zeiss is making them, not Apple

Precisely. Zeiss (almost always) makes very good lenses, which is why Apple selected them.

But I've had opticians do a poor job of getting me the prescription I need, and so the Zeiss lenses were way off.

I bet Apple will have this dialed in from the get-go.

> I trust Apple-made lenses a lot more than any strip-mall optician.

Who said anything about strip mall opticians?

At least they let you swap the lenses. Will they do the unthinkable and let the iPad be multiuser as well?

There are lot more strip mall opticians than there are expert craftspeople of lenses. Apple's lenses will be fine... probably much better than fine.

You make it sound like opticians hand-hew lenses from blocks of glass with various levels of craftsmanship. AFAICT, they take measurements and send the prescriptions off to be made by specialist manufacturer. Glasses are regulated medical devices with real oversight, not some rinky-dink industry that Apple can waltz in and be the best manufacturer by default.

Recently my optician kept getting me the wrong (Zeiss) lenses, i.e. I could see much worse with the new lenses than I could with my 3-year-old lenses.

I got excuses like: "oh, these are better for computer work but worse for distance". Great... why are my old lenses more clear for both computer work and distance?

I went home with the new lenses and tried them for a night and a day. Unusable.

I went back and the optician's second attempt failed too. Now for computer work they were better and for distance they were still worse.

Attempt #3 was a match for my old lenses. Neither better nor worse. Mission accomplished? $500 well spent.

I'm sure in all 3 cases Zeiss made impeccable lenses. But it comes down to the optician's interpretation of the prescription I brought in (from a laser eye center's 8-machine exam I got the previous week) and their clinical examination of my eyes.

I expect that whatever Apple's Standard Operating Procedure will be for supplying the right lenses to people, it'll be mostly superior to your average optician.

> I expect that whatever Apple's Standard Operating Procedure will be for supplying the right lenses to people, it'll be mostly superior to your average optician.

I love that your anecdote has determined that most opticians will be worse at their job than an Apple Genius who might get two-three hours training on fitting the headset.

Apple is a 2.8 trillion dollar company because they're good at process. They don't expect or rely on the Apple Genius to get the fitting right. That would be their biggest ever blunder.

Getting the fitting right is built into their products from years earlier in the design process.

The Apple Genius is perhaps the last or second-last step in an SOP that results in their customers not angrily returning hundreds of thousands of headsets and swearing off the entire ecosystem.

Now sometimes Apple get things woefully wrong (e.g. butterfly keyboards, antenna gate) and refuse to admit defeat for years.

But on average, across years and dozens of product variations, they have a good hit/miss ratio.

But yet a poor experience at an optician for you leads you to the claim that "strip mall opticians" are generally poor at fitting glasses. But somehow we don't have mass revolt and complaints about optical care.

My story was illustrative, not exhaustive.

This doesn't make sense.

Most strip mall opticians don't grind the glass themselves. Measurements are taken and sent to a specialist facility.

On the other hand, how much training does the Apple Genius fitting your headset receive?

Do we even know this is multi-user? I remember that being a big question hit don’t know if it was ever answered.

This reminds me of Om's gushing review of these that he thinks will put movie theaters out of business because now the whole family "will sit on the couch together, each watching the same movie on their Vision Pros".

Oh good, one more step towards Gargoyles (a subculture of people choosing to remain continuously connected to the Metaverse by wearing portable terminals, goggles and other equipment; they are nicknamed "gargoyles" due to their grotesque appearance - from Snow Crash).

Yeah, PSVR was kind of a waste. Was kind of fun for a few hours I guess.

I got one cheap from a co-worker, the only game that i liked was TES5, played hundreds hours, but its been boxed for around two years now.