←back to thread

Traveling with Apple Vision Pro

(azadux.blog)
471 points tosh | 1 comments | 16 Oct 24 13:48 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
latexr ◴[16 Oct 24 14:11 UTC] No.41859221[source]▶
> Be it by train or by plane, it offers an unparalleled opportunity to selectively tune out your environment and sink into an engaging activity like watching a movie or just working on your laptop.

The more time passes, the less I can shake the feeling that the world would be better if we tuned out our environment less.

> But damn, based on how well it all works now, you can just tell by the 4th or 5th generation, Apple Vision Pro will be on the face of every frequent flyer.

If it even gets that far. I’d almost be willing to take that bet, but 5 generations for this device could mean more than a decade so I don’t think any of us can say for sure.

All that said, I haven’t read the full review yet and I doubt it’ll do anything to convince me, but still I appreciate you writing it up and putting it out there. From what I’ve read so far it looks well thought out and it clearly took some effort, so kudos.

replies(14): >>41859237 #>>41859261 #>>41859329 #>>41859363 #>>41859578 #>>41859804 #>>41859958 #>>41859979 #>>41859997 #>>41860273 #>>41860288 #>>41860728 #>>41860895 #>>41861126 #
nordsieck ◴[16 Oct 24 14:23 UTC] No.41859363[source]▶
> The more time passes, the less I can shake the feeling that the world would be better if we tuned out our environment less.

That may or may not be true in general, but air travel is one of the most oppressive environments people regularly find themselves in. Being in an extremely crowded environment with very little personal space is psychologically uncomfortable for a lot of people. And it's basically not possible to escape that environment until the plane lands, which is typically hours of time. If it's OK to tune the world out anywhere, it's got to be in an airplane.

replies(12): >>41859396 #>>41859404 #>>41859409 #>>41859423 #>>41859577 #>>41859591 #>>41859623 #>>41859632 #>>41859684 #>>41859761 #>>41860265 #>>41862580 #
dkdbejwi383 ◴[16 Oct 24 14:26 UTC] No.41859404[source]▶
> That may or may not be true in general, but air travel is one of the most oppressive environments people regularly find themselves in.

Most people don't regularly travel by plane. This is a very "1%" (as shorthand for a privileged minority of people globally, not literally exactly 1% of the population) problem.

replies(5): >>41859449 #>>41859455 #>>41859489 #>>41859544 #>>41859642 #
aaomidi ◴[16 Oct 24 14:29 UTC] No.41859449[source]▶
> Most people don't regularly travel by plane. This is a very "1%" problem.

Except, they do in a country like the US that has massive distances between cities.

replies(2): >>41859558 #>>41859569 #
diggan ◴[16 Oct 24 14:38 UTC] No.41859569{3}[source]▶
I think that's supposed to be

> Except, they do in a country like the US that don't have any other suitable alternatives

replies(1): >>41863832 #
1. rootusrootus ◴[16 Oct 24 21:02 UTC] No.41863832{4}[source]▶
A little bit of both, and they are related. Trains are a tough sell because they aren't competitive for most travel. Even at 300kph, they're only good for local-ish travel (by that, I mean up to perhaps as much as 1000km). Would be great for Portland to Seattle, or Portland to LA, but if you're going out of region (which is extremely common), an airplane will be way faster and almost certainly cheaper too.

I'd love a moderately fast train, say 200kph, between cities like Portland and Seattle. That's a great use case.

But as a nationwide network, there won't ever be a suitable rail alternative, unless it gets subsidized. Amtrak is already stupidly expensive for what you get.