Hacker News Reader

Comment by gantron | Hacker News Reader

I’m biased, I work with Palmer and have always 1) found him to be genuine, 2) reasonably impartial in how he judges these sorts of things, and 3) been blown away by his passion for head-mounted display tech.

Some of the early Apple leaks scared me off from early adoption — external battery/compute, talk of only producing 300k units to satisfy enthusiasts only, etc. I’m excited that Apple is taking the leap but it seems like the headset is unlike the iPad/watch/iPhone in that it’s not intended for mass adoption. I was content to be part of the second wave.

If some credible folks attest to this being excellent, why not? Strong initial reviews would swing me towards buying a first unit.

View on HN

I believe external battery would be a pro.

It’s easy to add power banks to a belt or backpack while generally every added ounce on the head makes it less comfortable. Especially for longer times. The Quest Pro really bombed on that point.

Actually I’d go further and say the compute unit should also be external as it’d allow more compute. It should still be attachable to the person to allow freedom of movement.

The other big thing for me would be opening up SDKs for peripheral developers. The lack of 3rd party peripherals for Oculus has hindered people experimenting on ways to solve the last piece of full immersion. I wanted to make my own treadmill for walking in games, but theirs no real APIs for it on the Oculus. I’m unsure how Apple will do. They love dongles but also love control.

People who insist on an internal battery miss the point entirely.

The device is going to spend 95% of its time connected to a Mac where an internal battery provides no benefit and significant downsides in weight and bulk.

The key initial features will be adding virtual monitors and allowing new UI controls e.g. floating timeline for video editing. It will be a productivity enhancing device not for gaming or entertainment.

> It will be a productivity enhancing device not for gaming or entertainment.

I disagree with this. I suspect the majority of iPad owners aren't using their devices for productivity and the majority of Apple Watch owners also aren't serious athletes. We'll likely get two devices to cater for different needs at some point - apple glass pro and apple glass - but I've got a pair of nreal airs and I'm absolutely convinced that AR is going to be the defining tech hardware of the decade. I use it for productivity purposes but I also use it most nights in bed to watch movies and to read books and pdfs because the ergonomics and experience are so much better. I don't really do mobile gaming but I can absolutely see people using it for that in the future as the steam deck/nreal air combo is proving wildly successful.

Apple are going to want to own this product category the same way they dominate the phone market in the English speaking countries and if they don't have a product that competes on price they'll end up losing out to cheaper competitors and run the risk of people defecting to Android. They can get away with charging a premium because they're Apple but they can't get away with the price differential of say a MacBook Air and a Mac Pro which is what we're looking at if they price this at the rumoured $3000.

I even showed the Nreal Air to my middle aged mother today and she was instantly sold and wants to get a pair. VR was always going to struggle to get mass appeal but AR is a whole other ball game.

Apple Watch was not popular in its first or second iterations. And in fact in the early days its sales were so lack lustre it was borderline 50/50 as to whether the device would even continue to be sold.

It wasn't under years later when the performance improved and the cost came down that it started to gain traction amongst the mass market. I suspect the Apple Reality headset will do the same.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com