The rollout of the VisionOS inspired Glass UI on iOS feels a little reminiscent of the much derided tablet UI in Windows 8 being put on everything.
On a smaller scale of course but these tech companies love unifying everything around a paradigm that hadn’t even proved itself in the market yet.
ryanwhitney 37 minutes ago [-]
I think it comes down to the actual interface design vs visual consistency. Windows 8 UI suffered because of bad information density, constantly changing tiles, and lack of consistency throughout the OS. You’re mostly in windows, but you occasionally get a big low-density tablet UI to try and parse.
I see the Vision-inspired bits coming through as mostly visual design with a bit of fluidity in menu styling. All of the core menus are still basically the same and tailored to their platform.
That said, a lot of that visual design made more sense in VisionOS where transparency helps you see and understand the real world around you.
I haven't used them and I’m not sure I like them—especially transparency on a desktop—but I do think there’s a difference in strategy.
ddoolin 2 hours ago [-]
On the other hand, it seems like commenters on HN love unifying around deriding a paradigm that hasn't been proven to be hated by the vast majority of iOS users (most of which of course are not here and certainly will not care).
rurp 1 hours ago [-]
My experience is exactly the opposite, most non-techie users hate pointless UI changes. They couldn't care less about some new design paradigm but they care a great deal that some action they've been using for years has now been changed out from under them. For most people a computer is a tool and they care far more about what they can do with the tool than seeing the tool make itself the center of attention for a time.
Redesigns are often self-indulgent. Designers like that they get to do something new, employees who stare at the same software every day get to change things up, and managers get a highly visible change they can point to as evidence of their "impact". What's best for the users is often not a top concern.
heipei 1 hours ago [-]
In my experience this affects techie users just as much. Especially when there is a UI that has been crafted and slowly perfected over the years, and where any remaining idiosyncrasy has long been learned by the user, changing that UI has profound negative impact on the productivity of anyone using the platform.
I have rarely seen UI changes where users were genuinely excited to have a new UI with the understanding that they'd have to learn new paradigms. Most web apps should still be Bootstrap apps, but of course then you can't put that on a giant dashboard wall at a conference ;)
nartho 1 hours ago [-]
Most people who are working in tech or who are tech literate want a UI that's readable and easy to use, with minimal fluff because they use it extensively
Most people who don't really care about tech that much don't like UI changes like you said because it means relearning what they know
The ones who love flashy new UIs are the tech enthusiast, the ones who love tech but use them on a surface level only, they are also the ones who will buy new, unproven tech and care little about privacy issues or open source. My guess is it makes a lot of sense for big tech groups to target them instead of the grey beards who won't be convinced anyway, right as they may be.
nemomarx 2 hours ago [-]
I think with a product launch you want a better prognosis than "not been proven to be hated"
like I would hope the users love it, to justify the work of a new design?
andsoitis 2 hours ago [-]
Surely Apple believes users will love it?
1 hours ago [-]
afavour 1 hours ago [-]
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to want large changes like this to have self-evident benefits.
It’s going to be an uphill climb for users to adjust to a new UI. Broadly speaking, that’s fine. If the payoff is worth it. What’s the payoff?
eviks 1 hours ago [-]
Indeed, how dare people form their own opinion and criticize poorly readable text independently of everyone else!
GeekyBear 13 minutes ago [-]
It's not like Windows 11 where everything was rearranged yet again AND looks different.
The UI still works the same way, it just looks different.
jasonthorsness 2 hours ago [-]
There's so much potential with the Vision Pro held back by one of two things:
1) being just as good as multi-monitor setup for real work
2) cost not being insanely high
I would dearly love to try one but the cost to me means investment, not toy.
I am hoping they keep investing in VisionOS and when it meets one of those criteria the software will be _really good_.
postexitus 2 hours ago [-]
3) not having to wear a gargantuan helmet on your head covering your eyes.
as long as this is a giant piece of kit that you need to wear on top of your head, it's not going to be adopted by the masses.
msgodel 48 minutes ago [-]
China already makes VR glasses that do this for 1/20th the cost (and it's almost certainly going to get cheaper) with zero vendor lock in (they're plug and play on Linux devices with USB-C display port.)
Apple instead has you strap an entire Macintosh to your face and then refuses to even give you a shell on it. It's a complete failure of imagination in my opinion.
Onavo 2 minutes ago [-]
Links to some of the Chinese ones?
dnpls 54 minutes ago [-]
I believe the folks at Bigscreen got that one right. Their headset seems to be small and light enough, and good enough image quality. Their Beyond 2 is 107g!
jasonthorsness 1 hours ago [-]
I would wear it for work if it meant I could walk around while working and the screens had resolution good enough for small text. I would learn a new input method to make this work because it would be healthier than sitting and walking is good for thinking.
afavour 1 hours ago [-]
> it would be healthier than sitting and walking is good for thinking.
But what about attention? Your attention is going to be split between two tasks, your work and walking. Your eyes are going to be split too. You’re going to end up walking into walls.
Why not just stand up from your desk and take a walk to clear you head? I find that enormously beneficial. I don’t need to have an omnipresent screen strapped to my face for that.
freeone3000 55 minutes ago [-]
The tech produces a view similar to the hololens. You’re not any more distracted walking than you are… walking. You can read signs, look at streets, see walls. You can have additional HUDs but it’s significantly less distracting than you’re positing.
afavour 49 minutes ago [-]
> I would wear it for work if it meant I could walk around while working
The key point here is "while working". That is the distraction, not the mere presence of things in your eyeline. If I strapped a laptop to my chest and walked down the street while reading through a codebase I'd be distracted. Having that in helmet form instead doesn't seem like it would make a dramatic difference?
nkrisc 51 minutes ago [-]
You’re just going to end up standing still or sitting anyway when something demands your full attention.
Or tripping and falling while wearing your expensive headset.
singularity2001 1 hours ago [-]
4) not wearing a full computer on your head (instead of wearing it in your pocket and connecting it via cable/wifi)
hackeraccount 26 minutes ago [-]
If they could get something lighter that does pass through to a linux desktop at a reasonable cost but still has the screen quality.
Not quite there yet but I'm intrigued - I'm enjoying reading about it and appreciate the people taking the hit to help Apple figure out exactly what the real product is.
daft_pink 1 hours ago [-]
I think most people would really love this device, but cannot justify the price.
jayd16 50 minutes ago [-]
It's still _very_ heavy and quite niche outside of just a screen alternative. A real screen is still better in every category but portability. Software is still not compelling. Despite the raw specs, the Quest 3 is a better headset.
We have an AVP in the office but it's just collecting dust. Just not enough reason to strap it on.
AR has a lot of potential but Apple is still very far away from that. They introduced 3d widgets but then showed....a clock.
anon7000 1 hours ago [-]
It’s true. I think AVP is still a valuable product just because they need to continue R&D. Stuff like this hasn’t broken into the consumer space very much beyond video games, so I think these platforms probably need a lot of experimenting to see what sticks and what doesn’t work. Plus, continued innovation to drive down cost, make it smaller, and make the visual experience seamless. I’m glad Apple is using some of their coffers to experiment with futuristic technology. I think it’s fair to expect it to take some time to stick (and for the price to come down)
paxys 54 minutes ago [-]
I think it's something I would be blown away by for a few days, then keep it away in a drawer and rarely take it out.
paxys 2 hours ago [-]
Maybe get the present right first..
justinrubek 38 minutes ago [-]
They're on version 26 already? Definitely doesn't appear as polished or featured as I'd expect.
pavlov 24 minutes ago [-]
It’s actually version 2. Apple switched to using car maker style year numbers for their entire OS lineup, so everything is “26”.
silverlight 1 hours ago [-]
Anyone using one as your daily driver for coding? Or tried and it didn’t keep?
bryancoxwell 1 hours ago [-]
Tried it. It was okay, felt very futuristic. But ultimately there weren’t really any benefits over just using a multi monitor setup that could justify the cost. I thought it’d be nice to have something I could also use for watching movies, but when I watch movies I almost always watch them with my wife, and much prefer that.
FL410 1 hours ago [-]
Daily driver no, but after the somewhat recent ultrawide monitor update, it is absolutely viable for travel. It's nice not to be constrained by a 14" monitor while on the road, and it's perfectly usable for a couple hours of work (especially if you take the surround seal off and use one of the head strap mounts that take all the pressure off your face).
jlund-molfese 49 minutes ago [-]
I tried it, and it works alright. But it's not very comfortable to keep it on while eating/drinking, and you can't wear the thing in public without looking ridiculous.
Personally I found my existing dual-monitor setup to be more ergonomic.
meindnoch 2 hours ago [-]
Across the globe more than a dozen Vision Pro owners rejoiced!
runjake 2 hours ago [-]
According to the best estimates, a little more than 500,000 Vision Pro units have been sold. Pretty good for what is tantamount to a prototype.
It was mentioned somewhere during WWDC that "hundreds of companies" are using Vision Pro, so that's at least 200 companies, as well.
GeekyBear 20 minutes ago [-]
> According to the best estimates, a little more than 500,000 Vision Pro units have been sold.
It's also worth remembering that Sony was only projected to be able to produce enough micro-OLED displays to make ~500,000 units in the first year.
cptcobalt 44 minutes ago [-]
Prototype is not a charitable interpretation of the product. If you've been part of hardware, firmware, and software development processes, you'd really truly understand what prototypes are.
andsoitis 1 hours ago [-]
> Pretty good for what is tantamount to a prototype.
I think it’s fairly widely understood at this point that the product Apple wants to ship is more like glasses than a helmet. But the tech to achieve this isn’t there yet, and the current product is a necessary iteration to get to that future.
Apple will of course heavily market/sell the current iteration of the product in the short term - but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to view this as a prototype given what we know about their longer term ambitions and the limitations of the current hardware.
runjake 1 hours ago [-]
Tantamount (adjective): Equivalent in meaning or effect.
Apple did the same with Apple Watch when sales were low and returns were high. Because they believed in the product.
Apple believes in Apple Vision Pro, as well.
Hell, I believe in the Apple Vision Pro, too. I think it's a significant part of the future. The price is just far too high for me.
micromacrofoot 2 hours ago [-]
I've been trying to keep an open mind about this stuff for a few years now... but at this point it's wearing on me. I'm at the point of no. Just no. This is not something I want.
I do not want to wear this on my face. I do not want to talk to uncanny personas. This is not something I want to be between me an interacting with another person. I do not want widgets on my walls.
At best for the next 10 years these will be the size of ski goggles (and we're not even there yet).
This isn't the next iPhone, it's not the next iPad, it's not even the next Apple Watch. It's an expensive toy for rich people who are desperately trying to look at anything except what's actually in front of them.
dialup_sounds 13 minutes ago [-]
> I've been trying to keep an open mind about this stuff for a few years now.
This has been on the market for less than a year and a half. That's still very early if you're comparing to the historical trajectory of Apple's other product lines.
runjake 1 hours ago [-]
It might be best to think of it as a publicly-available, very expensive prototype where Apple is throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks.
If that's not for you, don't buy one. It's certainly not for me at this time -- not for a price over ~$1,799 or so, and I'd mostly use it to watch movies and as virtual displays for my Mac.
This is largely how Apple did the Apple Watch when it was first released (except it didn't cost $3,499). It didn't really have a purpose. Return rates were very high. And then they discovered a hook: fitness. Now everyone has an Apple Watch.
It seems clear that, over time, Apple will address stuff like the price and weight while developing a hook to attract more consumers.
micromacrofoot 37 minutes ago [-]
Maybe! but I feel like they're really trying to push this on us by extending the visual language of the Vision Pro across all of their devices... this delusion of AR is leaking into other product areas that I thought were for me, but now I'm going to have to turn on accessibility features so I can read text on buttons (and this isn't hyperbole, I'm updating apps for the developer beta and actually using it).
tropicalfruit 52 minutes ago [-]
apple wants to wrap itself tightly around your skull. clamping itself onto your eyes.
while renting you a whimsical and delightfully DRM filtered reality (with a 30% cut)
jrm4 1 hours ago [-]
I really hope OP posted this to make fun of it.
This is absolute cope. Apple hasn't innovated much in years and there is nothing special in this whole Vision whatever.
GavinMcG 1 hours ago [-]
What makes you think things need to be special in order to be pushing toward the future? A lot of the work of building something better is incremental and not especially innovative.
Rendered at 16:29:31 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
On a smaller scale of course but these tech companies love unifying everything around a paradigm that hadn’t even proved itself in the market yet.
I see the Vision-inspired bits coming through as mostly visual design with a bit of fluidity in menu styling. All of the core menus are still basically the same and tailored to their platform.
That said, a lot of that visual design made more sense in VisionOS where transparency helps you see and understand the real world around you.
I haven't used them and I’m not sure I like them—especially transparency on a desktop—but I do think there’s a difference in strategy.
Redesigns are often self-indulgent. Designers like that they get to do something new, employees who stare at the same software every day get to change things up, and managers get a highly visible change they can point to as evidence of their "impact". What's best for the users is often not a top concern.
I have rarely seen UI changes where users were genuinely excited to have a new UI with the understanding that they'd have to learn new paradigms. Most web apps should still be Bootstrap apps, but of course then you can't put that on a giant dashboard wall at a conference ;)
Most people who don't really care about tech that much don't like UI changes like you said because it means relearning what they know
The ones who love flashy new UIs are the tech enthusiast, the ones who love tech but use them on a surface level only, they are also the ones who will buy new, unproven tech and care little about privacy issues or open source. My guess is it makes a lot of sense for big tech groups to target them instead of the grey beards who won't be convinced anyway, right as they may be.
like I would hope the users love it, to justify the work of a new design?
It’s going to be an uphill climb for users to adjust to a new UI. Broadly speaking, that’s fine. If the payoff is worth it. What’s the payoff?
The UI still works the same way, it just looks different.
1) being just as good as multi-monitor setup for real work
2) cost not being insanely high
I would dearly love to try one but the cost to me means investment, not toy.
I am hoping they keep investing in VisionOS and when it meets one of those criteria the software will be _really good_.
as long as this is a giant piece of kit that you need to wear on top of your head, it's not going to be adopted by the masses.
Apple instead has you strap an entire Macintosh to your face and then refuses to even give you a shell on it. It's a complete failure of imagination in my opinion.
But what about attention? Your attention is going to be split between two tasks, your work and walking. Your eyes are going to be split too. You’re going to end up walking into walls.
Why not just stand up from your desk and take a walk to clear you head? I find that enormously beneficial. I don’t need to have an omnipresent screen strapped to my face for that.
The key point here is "while working". That is the distraction, not the mere presence of things in your eyeline. If I strapped a laptop to my chest and walked down the street while reading through a codebase I'd be distracted. Having that in helmet form instead doesn't seem like it would make a dramatic difference?
Or tripping and falling while wearing your expensive headset.
Not quite there yet but I'm intrigued - I'm enjoying reading about it and appreciate the people taking the hit to help Apple figure out exactly what the real product is.
We have an AVP in the office but it's just collecting dust. Just not enough reason to strap it on.
AR has a lot of potential but Apple is still very far away from that. They introduced 3d widgets but then showed....a clock.
Personally I found my existing dual-monitor setup to be more ergonomic.
It was mentioned somewhere during WWDC that "hundreds of companies" are using Vision Pro, so that's at least 200 companies, as well.
It's also worth remembering that Sony was only projected to be able to produce enough micro-OLED displays to make ~500,000 units in the first year.
Prototype? I do not get that impression from Apple's very prominent product placement: https://www.apple.com/apple-vision-pro/
Apple will of course heavily market/sell the current iteration of the product in the short term - but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to view this as a prototype given what we know about their longer term ambitions and the limitations of the current hardware.
Apple did the same with Apple Watch when sales were low and returns were high. Because they believed in the product.
Apple believes in Apple Vision Pro, as well.
Hell, I believe in the Apple Vision Pro, too. I think it's a significant part of the future. The price is just far too high for me.
I do not want to wear this on my face. I do not want to talk to uncanny personas. This is not something I want to be between me an interacting with another person. I do not want widgets on my walls.
At best for the next 10 years these will be the size of ski goggles (and we're not even there yet).
This isn't the next iPhone, it's not the next iPad, it's not even the next Apple Watch. It's an expensive toy for rich people who are desperately trying to look at anything except what's actually in front of them.
This has been on the market for less than a year and a half. That's still very early if you're comparing to the historical trajectory of Apple's other product lines.
If that's not for you, don't buy one. It's certainly not for me at this time -- not for a price over ~$1,799 or so, and I'd mostly use it to watch movies and as virtual displays for my Mac.
This is largely how Apple did the Apple Watch when it was first released (except it didn't cost $3,499). It didn't really have a purpose. Return rates were very high. And then they discovered a hook: fitness. Now everyone has an Apple Watch.
It seems clear that, over time, Apple will address stuff like the price and weight while developing a hook to attract more consumers.
while renting you a whimsical and delightfully DRM filtered reality (with a 30% cut)
This is absolute cope. Apple hasn't innovated much in years and there is nothing special in this whole Vision whatever.