I disagree, because it answers a pretty simple question: How to be present in a video call when you're using the headset.

To me it would be a shortcoming of the device if I couldn't show me and the thing I'm working on at the same time.

▲

dangus a day ago | parent [-]

You have to back up from that question. “How to be present in a video call” is already an answered question.

The “when you’re using the headset” part is the issue. Why are we using the headset? What are the benefits? Why am I making these tradeoffs like messing up my hair, putting a heavy device on my head, messing up my makeup, etc.

This is like saying “The Segway had advanced self-leveling to solve the problem of how to balance when you’re on an upright two wheel device”.

But why are you on an upright two wheel device? Why not just add a third wheel? Why not ride a bicycle? Why not ride a scooter?

The solution is really cool and technologically advanced but it doesn’t actually solve anything besides an artificially introduced problem.

▲

quitit 20 hours ago | parent [-]

Not really, because this misses the premise of why the device itself is useful.

VR/AR headsets are useful for working on and demonstrating many things that we've had to compromise to fit into a 2D paradigm. Being able to be present with that 3D model has clear advantages over using, for example, a mouse with a 2D equivalent or a 3D projection.

Having to justify how the 3rd dimension is useful is probably a conversation where one party is not engaging in good faith.

The segway analogue is also pretty poor considering how useful self-balancing mobility devices have proven to be - including those which only possess a single wheel.

▲

dangus 17 hours ago | parent [-]

These are nice words that don’t reflect reality.

By most accounts the Vision Pro hasn’t even cracked a million sales. And that’s the best productivity-focused headset on the market.

You can say that this is a really amazing paradigm shift but if it was people would be lining up to buy it.

▲

quitit 14 hours ago | parent [-]

You posit:

> Why would I be paying all this money for this realistic telepresence when my shitbox HP laptop from Walmart has a perfectly serviceable webcam?

I gave a pretty straightforward answer for why this feature would exist in this product. People sometimes on this forums ask legitimate questions.

It's pretty clear you weren't, rather you're seeking an opportunity to merely push some tired agenda, likely tied to some personal vendetta, and you're doing a pretty piss-poor job of it.

	▲	dangus 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You say that me making you justify the third dimension is bad faith arguing, but you never even attempted to justify it. You actually do have to justify it because so many 3D technologies have been market duds. VR gaming sputtered into decline, 3D televisions died off, glasses-free 3D is nowhere to be found anymore after the 3DS and that crazy Red smartphone…you actually very much do have to justify that there’s demand for this new paradigm. > VR/AR headsets are useful for working on and demonstrating many things What things? > that we've had to compromise to fit into a 2D paradigm. What compromises? > Being able to be present with that 3D model has clear advantages over using, for example, a mouse with a 2D equivalent or a 3D projection. What advantages? I think if this was even a niche representation of the future we’d see specialized companies with 3D-oriented software like Autodesk jumping all over the the Vision Pro specifically, but they seem to be nowhere to be found. All the key players in the industry besides Meta have basically bailed, including Microsoft and Google shutting down commercial/industrial solutions that had previously been touted as successful. I have no vendetta here, I just think that full immersion VR was the wrong play for productivity and general computing. I think that the full immersion VR market is dying and that solutions like Meta Ray-Bans and VITURE glasses are way more palatable because they are way more “normal,” including the way they eschew these moonshot paradigm-shifting technologies that might actually work very well, but nobody asked for. Nobody wants to be a 3D avatar and work inside a headset where your view of the outside world is desaturated by cameras because it’s cringe and weird. As a side note I will also point out that if you use a Vision Pro with a MacBook to use the secondary screen functionality (required for writing code or running apps outside the App Store) you’re basically doing the exact same thing as VITURE glasses except you paid 10x more and your battery life sucks. And you can just join a standard conference call on your glasses and essentially look normal.