Hacker News Reader

Comment by cubefox | Hacker News Reader

The irony here is that the unusual weight of the headset was completely avoidable. The headset has a heavy aluminium frame, which is a terrible idea that serves no practical purpose except of an aesthetic one. No other headset does this. For comparison, the Quest 3 is significantly lighter despite including a battery.

View on HN

Aluminium is a better thermal conductor than plastic? Might help move some of the heat away from the face and take some of the thermal load off the fans?

A lot of Apples decision seems to make more sense when considering how incredibly powerful (and thus hot) it is. The external battery pack (which is a 3 cell 13V pack btw) is definitely a consequence of that, they supposedly have some of the power electronics in there which helps move a bit of the heat generating stuff away from the face.

Imagine if you wanted to make a powerful headset without a fan. How would you even do that in plastic? You’d definitely want to transport the heat out to the perimeter or front, and plastic would just not be the most suitable for that.

So maybe that’s the path they’re looking towards? They might eventually be able to get rid of the fan with better chip technology, without compromising on compute, but then they need some metal to shed the heat from.

Perhaps the development they’re doing with titanium on iPhone is also a step in that direction. Letting them use metal without as much of a weight penalty.

The iPad Pro, a normal tablet, has an M2 without even having a fan, unlike the AVP, so the chip gets certainly not "incredibly" hot. The idea that a metal frame would contribute significantly to heat dissipation is implausible. It's just a frame. Apple uses metal all the time in other products for aesthetic reason where it isn't at all necessary. The Quest 3 doesn't use metal without requiring a large fan. Let alone a metal frame.

They use a ton of exotic materials in it to lighten it up. The obvious lightener for me is the front screen. the whole "eyesight" thing is extremely gimmicky and could have gone without on the 1.0.

Isn't aluminium better for longevity/reliability?

Only if resistance to significant mechanical stress is required. Which isn't at all necessary for VR headsets, as others use plastic and have no mechanical issues with it.

My father has some plastic camping dinnerware that has been heavily used since the 60's. It's been wildly abused around the world, up mountains, on beaches, by generations of family, kids and bitey babies.

It's not even scratched. I have no idea what it's made out of but it's super impressive. I try not to think about because of whatever the biosafety standards were back then... but the lack of visible damage gives me hope not much of it has been ingested at least.

Seems a poor compromise for a 1.0 product that will certainly be obsolete in the next 5 years

Maybe... for the stuff that is actually made of aluminum.

But I have a plastic VR headset and I'm pretty sure an impact bad enough to damage the plastic care is also bad enough to damage the electronics, which are going to be way more costly to repair.

I'd take a plastic headset personally assuming it was lighter. Anything to save weight in this product category.

aluminum is not an especially heavy material

It is, compared to plastic that is usually used in headsets.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com