Eye tracking is very impressive technology, and foveated rendering is an excellent application, but eye control is poor UX. Yes, I'm saying the emperor has no clothes.
Imagine having a jittery cursor in the center of your vision at all times? If I had a mouse/trackpad working like that it would immediately be replaced but that's Apple's eye control. Imagine scrolling a page and every where you glance there's a spotlighted/popup control or ad? That's Apple eye control utilizing dwell and snap to item.
It's telling that the 'best window' apps/use cases for Vision Pro are video watching and Mac virtual display which has low reliance on eye control during usage. Trying to browse the web with Apple's eye control is a clear regression compared to touch/keyboard/mouse/trackpad only useful as an accessibility feature
> eye control is poor UX... a jittery cursor in the center of your vision
For a lot of folks with tremors or other mobility issues, their eyes may be much more stable than their fingers. It might be helpful to weigh the tradeoffs you're presenting with alternatives including a jittery inaccurate finger in the center of their vision, or even just not being able to use the UI at all.
> only useful as an accessibility feature
For the above reasons, that's exactly how they're marketing it
> For a lot of folks with tremors or other mobility issues, their eyes may be much more stable than their fingers. It might be helpful to weigh the tradeoffs you're presenting with alternatives including a jittery inaccurate finger in the center of their vision, or even just not being able to use the UI at all.
I did not suggest otherwise
> For the above reasons, that's exactly how they're marketing it
That's not how it's being received (see other HN users in this very topic) nor how Apple is marketing it for Vision Pro
If you don't need the feature, and don't like the feature, and you have to dig through accessibility settings to enable it, then it's a strong indication that the feature probably wasn't built for you
If you're curious about who this was built for, look up iPhone Switch Control [1] and you'll see how people with mobility issues otherwise use a touchscreen
Again, I understand the accessibility benefits of the feature and I'm not critiquing that. I responding to a hacker news audience mostly who want to hack this feature and I'm telling them not to bother
Vision Pro is different. It has a finger gesture to "tap".
The iPhone eye tracking mode relies on dwelling with your eyes, making it much slower than tapping, therefore not a good option for people without disabilities. Unsurprisingly, the setting to enable it is under Accessibility.
It’s not the quality of the the tracking I’m referring to. The eye tracking on Vision Pro is great for foveated rending for example. But as UI control it really doesn’t matter how good the tracking is; eye tracking is just a poor UX
You’re literally just arguing your personal opinion by continually restating your personal opinion. Some people love this UX. By definition that makes it an excellent UX for some people.
It’s not a poor UX, it’s just a poor UX for the type of user you are.
> Imagine having a jittery cursor in the center of your vision at all times? If I had a mouse/trackpad working like that it would immediately be replaced but that's Apple's eye control. Imagine scrolling a page and every where you glance there's a spotlighted/popup control or ad? That's Apple eye control utilizing dwell and snap to item.
Nobody has responded to those but instead keep saying I'm attacking accessibility.
Not for my use case. Even as someone who's been active in the AR/VR industry for 10 years plus, it's more comfortable for me to look at a screen than it is to wear glasses. I've tried working in xreals, quest 3, with virtual desktop, etc. They're pretty good - just not as good as a monitor or in this case TV. I'm confident over time things will improve and eventually might be on par but there's plenty of use cases where you might want a screen and that will likely persist. Thanks for the question!
>> Steam Deck is the only portable computer that's versatile...
Would you clarify your categorization?
I personally consider 'portable computer' to be any computer with an internal battery (including laptops etc). I don't find the Steam Deck especially versatile in that category.
A separate/sub-category for me would be 'pocketable computers' (like this Hackberry-Pi_Zero, the GPD Win mini etc) for which the Steam Deck would be unusually versatile—albeit the Steam Deck does NOT fit in any of my pants or jacket pockets.
tbh if you're interested in the 'bleeding edge' or 'future of computing' (which I've seen many people use to justify their Vision Pro purchase) then you should be buying both Vision Pro and Quest 3.
The gaming content is besides the point; the fitness apps are where Quest 3, with its controllers, are far and away ahead. A table tennis or boxing app in Quest is just as mindblowing imo as watching a spatial video app on Vision Pro.
Fitness and health is supposed to be a core focus for Apple yet the Vision Pro is not unsuited for that.
> and all their other "new paradigm" platforms also initially shipped with no software (Mac, iPhone, iPad). The mainstream usage of these devices is really based on what developers built for them in the first couple years after release... Unless AVP is an exception to the rule...
what about Apple Watch, AppleTV and HomePod? Those don't have the app success story of the Mac, iPhone and iPad.
There's two paths that lead to a passionate developer base popularizing your platform via their apps:
1) build a platform that developers love to use i.e. Mac and iPhone to a certain extent
2) offer access to a product with a lot of users i.e. iPhone and iPad
The AVP is more like the first HomePod (quite expensive compared to its 'competition' and irrelevant long before the mini arrived) than the iPhone and iPad which launched at competitive/accessible prices so we're not expecting a product with lots of users.
Could the AVP be a platform that developers love to use? The mostly likely use case from a developer perspective appears to be as a portable big screen monitor for your Mac albeit with limitations*. Would that be compelling enough? Craig Hockenberry https://furbo.org/2024/01/29/the-next-40/ :
"Apple Vision Pro is a technical marvel, but ultimately falls short in ways that satisfy the natural curiosity of developers."
*p.s. there are other headsets with similar display specs to AVP rumored for later this year. It might be worth waiting if you primarily want virtual monitors for your Mac
There's still no confirmation if the battery is hot swappable or not. Also Apple removed the text about passthrough charging. I'm surprised there's no option to purchase a bigger battery (the connection is proprietary; it'll have to be in partnership with Apple)
> Perhaps the only one (potentially, and not trying to derail this) might be Donald Trump (but I also have a hard time seeing him accepting a plea deal on the current raft of bullshit around him).
(Not sure what “current raft of bullshit around him implies” but derail ahead)
Trump is no stranger to settling cases and making deals with prosecutors(1)(2) but all cases he’s facing now having such face-losing punishments even on plea that he can’t afford to take any.
Imagine having a jittery cursor in the center of your vision at all times? If I had a mouse/trackpad working like that it would immediately be replaced but that's Apple's eye control. Imagine scrolling a page and every where you glance there's a spotlighted/popup control or ad? That's Apple eye control utilizing dwell and snap to item.
It's telling that the 'best window' apps/use cases for Vision Pro are video watching and Mac virtual display which has low reliance on eye control during usage. Trying to browse the web with Apple's eye control is a clear regression compared to touch/keyboard/mouse/trackpad only useful as an accessibility feature