this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2025
217 points (95.8% liked)

Technology

61632 readers
3425 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Apple: You don't need a pen for the iPad.

Artists: We need a pen.

Apple: You don't need a pen for the iPad.

Artists: We need a pen.

Apple: OK here's a pen.

Apple: You don't need a controller for VR.

Gamers: We need a controller.

<---- We are here.

Apple: You don't need a controller for VR.

Gamers: We need a controller.

Apple: OK here's a controller.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago

It's unlikely to find one in this incarnation. It has too many limitations in its current form. Apple knew this when it was releasing it but they had sunk so much resource into it they had to get it out there, at least just to see what people might do. And imagine that, devs didn't want to make apps for it because it's yet another device with a new interface that would need specific attention to make a good app for and with a very small user-base, the return is not there. Chicken or the egg problem which has been very common in the VR/AR realm.

I'm sure Apple will take another crack at the form factor, but it might be another few years down the road. I might've even been interested in this model if it had any momentum at all, but it was mostly dead a month after launch.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago

USMC kamikaze drone team pilot app, but apple be sleeping on that.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

It's the same story as with all of VR. People don't like to strap shit to their faces, or anywhere else in their bodies. We barely tolerate watches. Every single person who wears glasses would drop them in a second if any other viable and sustainable alternative shows up. People who use and love VR put up with the fact they have to strap stuff to their faces. 3D cinema failed financially because people didn't want to have to use simple basic glasses. Not everyone can tolerate a third of a kilo on their heads for too long.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Every single person who wears glasses would drop them in a second if any other viable and sustainable alternative shows up.

Not really, glasses have long since become a fashion statement and many people wear some without needing them.

I need glasses to correct my heterotropia and even if there was some magic cure for that I'm not sure if I'd stop wearing my glasses to be honest; I kinda like them and how they make me look.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

I know some people who don't like their glasses, but dislike how contacts feel more. As for me - I don't wear contacts that much because they're a recurring expense.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago

I could get laser surgery, but I choose glasses. I prefer how I look with them than without them, and sometimes they double as eye protection.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 weeks ago

3D cinema failed financially because people didn't want to have to use simple basic glasses.

I have not heard anyone complain about the glasses, but tons of ppl complaining about the movies and tech quality.

Also btw currently there's currently a 127g VR glasses available for PC, and Pimax is coming out with a set that's some 180 I think (Dream Air) but also has eyetracking and whatnot.

But yeah mostly I do agree. I had the original vive and the annoyance of what were basically ski goggles that weighed a ton without any proper straps even was a bit much. It was cool though, especially once Ingot got the pro strap which had the more helmet config with the wheel at the back.

I'm thinking of perhaps seeing if I'll get a set later this year to see how far it's come in 8 years.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It failed, no need to dance around the subject. It was a very expensive demo product, and nobody wants it.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I don’t see how this is a failure, because I don’t see this as a legitimate push for adoption.

This was a device that cost as much as a used car, with no real pre release applications, and virtually no preemptive dev kits. The only thing I can see that as is an attempt to mass test a new device type with early adopters.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

There are ways of testing for these things that doesn't involve millions of dollars in marketing events (they did flew a bunch of tech influencers to Cupertino) and millions more in manufacturing (factories are expensive as hell). Apple admitted themselves that the number of sales was even lower than their already limited expectations.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

apple is worth trillions of dollars, a few million is nothing to them

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

A failure is a failure, no matter how small or big. Just because its Apple why brush it off as a happy little experiment?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

Did they make money? obviously not.

Will it help them make money in the future? nobody knows. Probably not as much as it could have, we'll have to wait and see.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Every single review I saw said the same thing. Its amazing tech, with a big price tag and nobody knew who is it for. The magic wore off pretty quickly and nobody wanted to use it long term.

Would a mass test have this kind of marketing though?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago

It’s Apple dude… who the fuck knows, lol.

Also, I didn’t really see much marketing. But that may just be my pervasive Adblocking.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago

That F1 prototype app and the PGA app look pretty neat but are definitely a niche.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

Fundamentally the only unique attribute for these goggles is 3D and that comes at a significant expense in terms of user experience. It's the same story as it has been over the last two centuries.

Stereographic photos in the 19th century worked perfectly well but required a special headset and only one person could look at them at a time. Didn't take off. People prefer to be able to look at two-dimensional photos perhaps casually and to be able to point the things to other people looking at the same photo or to compare it with other things at the same time.

3d movies in the 1950s required special red, blue or red green glasses. Didn't take off beyond a gimmick. 3d movies could not be watched without the goggles.

3d movies in the theatre in the early 2000s. Didn't really get beyond the gimmick level. Lots of people complain about headaches.

3d TVs in the early 2000s required special glasses and the 3D could not be used if other people were trying to watch without the glasses.

The conclusion I draw from this is that people don't like having to wear special glasses or a device strapped to their face, even if it is relatively cheap to produce. Although 3D is nice, it simply doesn't seem to be sufficient incentive to put up with the isolation from other people and the surrounding environment that the viewing equipment invariably requires.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

there is a big difference between those 3d effects and actual vr, where with one you only get the primitive depth idea your brain produces versus actually being able to inspect something from any angle

it also enables very different inputs, like with beat saber or rumble for example, or recently I was imagining a game where you can point at something to grapple on to it while using the other controller to shoot at enemies at the same time which wouldn't really work without vr

unfortunately for me i'm someone who is interested in computer graphics and the difference in immersion from vr is largely offset by the graphics being worse, the screens looking worse and blurrier, the lack of an actual focus depth (I forget what the technical term for this is but most headsets have everything set so your eyes always focus at what would normally by 1-2 meters away), and the new perspective exposing all of the little graphics tricks that don't really work when you can see them in this level of detail

(i'd say an ideal headset would probably have 6x more pixels than my reverb g2 (/3.5 px because it would also have foveated rendering) and be able to render visuals similar to cyberpunk at 'rt ultra', with apparently already gets 90 fps on a 4090 at 1080p, so that would be 7.5x more pixels, you would need a card 7.5x faster than a 4090, so assuming Moore's Law stays accurate that should be around 12 years from now)

so why hasn't vr taken off? I would say (in no particular order) it's because it hurts your eyes, makes you dizzy, is uncomfortable, its expensive, it doesn't have many apps, the controls feel janky for actual ui stuff where a mouse and keyboard is just easier, people are lazy and it requires some physical activity, people don't have all that much free time

don't take this the wrong way, I generally love VR and have probably 150-200 hrs in it over two years (a lot less than a some people, if you look at the reviews for vr chat for example its not uncommon for people to have >5k hours)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

The conclusion I draw from this is that people don't like having to wear special glasses or a device strapped to their face, even if it is relatively cheap to produce.

Bingo. I often used the 3D on the 3DS, but that's because I didn't have to do anything other than not move the device around too much. So it worked for gaming at home, not on/in a vehicle.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago

Although 3D is nice, it simply doesn’t seem to be sufficient incentive to put up with the isolation from other people and the surrounding environment that the viewing equipment invariably requires.

This is spot on IMO, the technologies are now good enough at producing realistic 3D experiences even interactive, that if there were no inconveniences I'd bet it would be about as popular as color was when that became reality.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Fundamentally the only unique attribute for these goggles is 3D

VR is way more than just "being 3D." The way you interact with things is a bigger influence on what makes it than the visuals. You're not just having things pop out at you off a 2D plane; you're in the thing with them, and you can "touch" them or do pretty much anything you can do with your actual body.

You're right people don't necessarily want to wear a heavy thing on their face for this, though. Especially when there isn't a lot in the way of experiences that actually offer everything the space is capable of and your hardware is almost four-fucking-thousand dollars.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

3D is in principle probably about as big a change as color once was. Difference is that color was an instant hit for those who could afford it, because there was no downside other than price. 3D is still not very popular, no matter if you use it for entertainment like movies, VR or augmented reality either for entertainment or productivity.

3D simply isn't very popular even within one of those segmants, and I'd argue @SquiffSquiff is 100% right in his conclusion that it's just too inconvenient.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago

Op is right though. It's still a cost/benefit situation, and the benefit is not enough to justify the cost.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 weeks ago

Porn, Porn was the answer... 🤦

[–] [email protected] 32 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Porn would be it, but apple scared

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Wait... Does the Vision actively block porn sites or does it not have a web browser?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

No, but the app store doesn't allow it so you kinda just have to use a normal website afaik

Which is less than optimal

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago

theoretically with webxr and webgpu you should be able to do just about anything on the web that you can do in an app, although I guess its more effort since you basically have to make the game engine yourself

load more comments
view more: next ›