News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right by gpm on Friday March 15, 2024 @10:43AM (#39716318)
The cynic in you is overly cynical.

Ten years ago was pre oculus rift. We weren't saying anything about VR headsets.

Five years ago was pre valve index. We didn't have CPUs in a headset. Nor a battery. Cameras were only used for tracking. The things we were saying would improve is "screen door effect" and "tracking", both of which have.

Re:Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right by Jasper_ on Friday March 15, 2024 @10:57AM (#39716481)
The optical pathway is pretty much locked in. LEEP was invented in the 80s, and that's still the optical system used today. Compare the size to NASA's VR system from the early 90s. https://images.nasa.gov/details/ARC-1992-AC89-0437-6

It's been 30 years of massive improvements to all of the rest of computers, and VR has only shrunk a couple inches. There's not much else we can do to make it smaller.

Re:Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right by outworlder on Friday March 15, 2024 @12:39PM (#39717669)
I am looking at that picture and to me it definitely looks like way more than a couple of inches.
Re:Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right by veidr on Friday March 15, 2024 @01:22PM (#39718251)
lol, indeed, that is the full monty
Re:Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right by serf on Friday March 15, 2024 @05:30PM (#39720926)
it's not much different in size than a vision pro or quest 3, it's just kinda un-wieldly.

the photo of it sitting in a display case gives a decent sense of scale, I think.

http://briteliteimmersive.com/blog/remembering-nasas-view-vr

Re:Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right by ok_dad on Friday March 15, 2024 @01:20PM (#39718232)
Look at the bigscreen vr headset!
Re:Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right by rightbyte on Friday March 15, 2024 @03:18PM (#39719644)
Maybe it doesn't feel like you are staring at your nose as much in NASA's 92 head set?
Re:Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right by sheepscreek on Friday March 15, 2024 @07:10PM (#39721635)
Yes and no.

There’s an insane amount of tech in the Vision Pro. Eyesight probably occupies a big chunk. Then there are more sensors than they need. Also the CPU and 100% processing is happening literally strapped to your face.

This is like having two 5k displays powered by a mobile device*.

* 2 x 5k = 28 million pixels, compared to Vision Pro’s 23 million pixels.

Re:Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right by bsdpufferfish on Saturday March 16, 2024 @09:56AM (#39725957)
This is like comparing an oscilloscope to the iPhone 15 because they both have a screen.
Re:Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right by _heimdall on Friday March 15, 2024 @12:29PM (#39717540)
Didn't Microsoft's hololens first launch around 10 years ago? It was AR rather than VR, but it was absolutely pitched as an early product meant for very specific use cases to act as a proof of concept before consumer versions.
Re:Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right by zitterbewegung on Friday March 15, 2024 @12:39PM (#39717659)
I personally used a HoloLens for a few minutes and it had severe problems with field of view and brightness of the display. AR works for enterprise or the military to train people or present information at least the US military for the HoloLens [1]. Google finally axed the Glass Enterprise project in 2023 which was much longer than the original version.

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/13/23871859/us-army-microsof... [2] https://support.google.com/glass-enterprise/customer/answer/...

Re:Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right by _heimdall on Friday March 15, 2024 @02:13PM (#39718907)
Google Glass was pretty slick honestly, ahead of its time.

I had a friend that worked on the team for a couple years when it first started. The use case of a headsup display for directions while driving was a great experience.

Re:Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right by al_borland on Friday March 15, 2024 @04:30PM (#39720390)
I had a friend get Google Glass. I tried in on for a few minutes and was pretty disappointed. It was a tiny Android window stuck in the upper right of my FOV. Looking at the hardware, I guess it makes sense, but it’s not what the marketing seemed to be selling, and I expected a more custom UI that would get out of the way, rather than what looked like a tiny phone screen.

It wasn’t mine, so maybe there was more to it that I didn’t get from my brief interaction, but it didn’t leave me wanting more.

Re:Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right by _heimdall on Friday March 15, 2024 @06:15PM (#39721263)
Yeah the UX definitely wasn't immersive. I liked the idea of a heads up display and have never really wanted a full display experience, Glass would have fit really well for me.

These days I don't even want that, but that's almost certainly of a combination of getting older and over reacting to how pervasive tech and displays have become.

Re:Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right by elwell on Friday March 15, 2024 @04:38PM (#39720466)
I like your username.
Re:Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right by bookofjoe on Friday March 15, 2024 @06:05PM (#39721195)
I loved my Google Glass.

See, for example:

https://youtu.be/gAkfPhlvSn8?si=fSObULo52MAvcBoR

Re:Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right by wordpad25 on Sunday March 17, 2024 @04:39PM (#39737855)
it's impressive that this was shot 10 years ago but now meta Raybands do that
Re:Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right by dmix on Friday March 15, 2024 @11:42AM (#39716989)
I’m still amazed Quest 2 was affordable as it was vs the entertainment I got out of it. Heavily with the novelty of being my first VR device.
Re:Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right by j0hnyl on Friday March 15, 2024 @01:41PM (#39718485)
Imo headsets will be long obsolete before they are viable and will be replaced with something else entirely.
Re:Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right by jjulius on Friday March 15, 2024 @02:00PM (#39718725)
>Ten years ago was pre oculus rift.

The Rift DK1 is almost exactly 11 years old, released 3/29/13.

Re:Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right by gpm on Friday March 15, 2024 @02:03PM (#39718769)
Oops, you're right.

The list on wikipedia [1] doesn't include it, I guess because it was a "development kit", and I just naively assumed the "Oculus Rift" was the DK1 not the CV1.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_virtual_reality_headse...

Edit: Went ahead and edited the wikipedia page so the next person won't make the same mistake.

Re:Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right by giobox on Friday March 15, 2024 @02:23PM (#39719022)
> Ten years ago was pre oculus rift. We weren't saying anything about VR headsets.

Rift DK1 was released in ~2013, and lots of gamers bought it throughout 2014. We got the first "consumer release" for the original Rift in 2016. I think its more than fair to say 10 years - we were absolutely talking a lot about Rift DK1 in 2014.

> Five years ago was pre valve index

Valve's first consumer VR headset was the HTC vive, released in 2016:

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

"The first-generation Vive was announced in 2015, as part of a collaboration with video game studio and distributor Valve Corporation, and implementing its VR software and hardware platform SteamVR; the first-generation consumer model was released in April 2016."

Re:Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right by eclipxe on Friday March 15, 2024 @02:39PM (#39719193)
I don't get your second bullet. The Vive is not the Index.
Re:Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right by giobox on Friday March 15, 2024 @02:45PM (#39719251)
It demonstrates Valve have been at this longer than the ~5 years of the Index, and closer to a decade again (the point OP disputes and uses Index as evidence of).
Re:Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right by andthenwhat on Friday March 15, 2024 @04:45PM (#39720533)
not OP but it does seem like you're nitpicking details instead of engaging with what seems to be the intent of the response: AR/VR has come an incredible distance since DK1, the last 10 years have seen it go from a barely-discussed completely unavailable/fringe dev-kit-only technology to being an clearly viable spectrum of mass-market products.

edited: grammar. still feel like I've failed to produce readable english, but I'm giving up

Re:Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right by AndrewKemendo on Friday March 15, 2024 @02:44PM (#39719240)
This is wrong. VR =/= AR

I’ve been in AR since 2010

The AVP is leaps and bounds ahead of where we were collectively technically back then

But I don’t see us appreciably closer to the goal of ubiquitous persistent headworn see through visual computing

It’s a social expectations and data problem it’s not a “technical” problem

It’s probably gonna be decades before we see any regularized mainstream adoption, because the form factor is such a different thing that we’re not even close to make it a simple transition for the least savvy consumer

Re:Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right by goatlover on Friday March 15, 2024 @02:53PM (#39719354)
There's been talk about VR and some kind of headset since the late 90s, even if it was cardboard, or some computer science professor wearing large goggles and backpack around campus. Google Glass came out in 2013.
Re:Vision Pro: What we got wrong at Oculus that Apple got right by cheschire on Friday March 15, 2024 @04:04PM (#39720098)
Heck, nintendo even tried marketing a stereoscopic gameboy headset as virtual reality in '95.

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