Hacker News Reader

Comment by FirmwareBurner | Hacker News Reader

Also the FoV is narrower on the AVP than the Quest. Granted, all current headsets suck at this, as in it's less AR/VR and more like looking through a pair of binoculars which absolutely sucks for immersion, but it's crazy the AVP has a worse Fov than a Quest that's 7 times cheaper.

Only Apple can get people to pay 3.5K to be beta testers of a devkit/prototype.

> The AVP image is much worse than a cheap monitor displaying high-resolution, high-contrast content. Effectively, what the AVP supports is multiple low angular resolution monitors.

Waiting for the early adopters and apologists to say again how the AVP is so magic and revolutionary it's gonna replace their 5k monitors for daily work. Maybe that "daily work" they were talking about is reading emails for 15 minutes/day and watching a 30 minute episode on Netflix on the couch after wich the headset gathers dust.

View on HN

Arguably, if they have a limited production rate on this “prototype” - which it seems they do - pricing it so only the ones who are extremely enthusiastic, or ones that will actually develop apps for it and thus consider it an investment, is absolutely the right thing to do.

Meanwhile they also get that halo effect where they establish it as a premium product. If they later drop the price or let inflation slowly reduce the difference, that effect will remain.

But why would you release a "limited production prototype" to the public for purchase as a finished product? It's very non-Apple. The iPod, iPhone, iPad etc were not released as limited edition prototypes.

I don't think Steve Jobs, had he still be alive and in charge, would have released the AVP yet in this state.

Same how Appel hasn't yet released a folding phone even though Android OEMs have been doing it for 5 years already. The tech is just not yet mature for a flawless implementation that Apple is know to deliver even if it arrives later to the market than the competition.

It is actually very Apple, and perhaps even more so at post-Jobs Apple.

The iPod wasn’t as good on paper as the Rio or Rune. Cost a LOT more too.

The original iPhone wasn’t great, but it was good enough to capture the imagination. It certainly wasn’t cheap.

The Series 0 Watch was also pretty ordinary, especially when compared to other smart watches. Expensive too.

Same with Siri, the HomePod and Apple TV, but these haven’t quite hit the mark. Probably not failures (except maybe Siri), but not in the best of Apple category.

All of these early products were for the bleeding edge. They provide the feedback and insight into how the product is going to be used.

Apple’s special ability is to find the essence of what a good product needs to have, quickly. Sometimes they don’t nail it first time, but they excel at finding out and then iterating until it does.

> I don't think Steve Jobs, had he still be alive and in charge, would have released the AVP yet in this state.

Even assuming that, what does it matter? He’s not around and times change.

>Even assuming that, what does it matter? He’s not around and times change.

Because they can also change for the worst. This product is less Apple iPad and more Apple Newton. Both were great innovative technical achievements of tablet computers in their eras, but only one was a smash hit with the mainstream public.

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

The following products were all created under Jobs' direction and failed commercially:

- Apple III (1981)

- Lisa (1983)

- Puck Mouse (1998)

- The Cube (2000)

- iTunes phone (2005)

- Apple TV (2007)

I’d argue that the Motorola iTunes phone was a success. I don’t think its goal was to be a great phone, I think it was to bring in some much needed cash.

The original Apple TV, like the iPod hifi, always felt like a hobby project that really needed some decent investment. I think they couldn’t really figure out what they needed it to be, but someone important wanted to have an Apple something in their home.

Much needed cash? Apple was making lots of money off the iPod in 2005. If it was a “success” it was in the sense that it proved they needed to make their own phone

That’s fair, but they weren’t out of the woods yet. But probably less important than I previously stated/thought.

I'd argue that the iPhone without the app store was unfinished / a prototype.

Once again revisionist history in effect.

The Vision Pro is on par with the level of quality as the original iPhone or Apple Watch. And has sold better than both.

Arguably the original iPod fits in alongside the original iPhone and Watch. It was significantly less of a finished, polished product than the commercially successful 3/4th gen models onward that people tend to think of when iPods are mentioned.

Only because the connected market is many times larger did it sell better. It's not fit for purpose and the audience will take a decade or more to reach numbers that make it worth it for app developers and even then it'll be a dorkbox for your face and not used much at all by the "productivity" half of the office that care about hair and makeup.

I strongly suspect the narrow FOV is an intentional trade off for increased pixel density, probably to enable practically readable text. If the FOV was much wider with the same pixel count I don’t think text would be really usable.

I don't have either, as I expect after the novelty wears off I won't want to bother putting on a headset for most things.

That said, if I had to buy a headset today, I'd go with the Vision Pro. All the technical stuff aside... I simply don't trust Meta enough to buy a piece of hardware from them. I will pay 7x to buy from a company where I'm less worried about their intentions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com