The idea of having a fully immersive 3D environment around you is cool, but I haven’t had any VR experience that didn’t turn out to be eventually a headache let alone actually productive. Even with gaming I can only name a few titles that actually benefit, but for the ones that do the effect is quite something, I’ll admit that.
But the form factor is a problem.
If it had all of the capabilities announced but combined with the Google Glass form factor of ultra thin & light - then it would be a device more revolutionary than the iPhone.
But the form factor makes it much more niche.
And the tech just doesn't exist in the year 2023 to make a device with that sweet-spot combination of high capability and tiny form factor.
(My two cents, which I am hoping ages better than the infamous HN Dropbox comment.)
But I (perhaps naïvely) think this is being approached from the wrong direction.
To me, if Apple had launched a new highly limited device but with the Google Glass form factor - then I could see the path to incrementally improve (keep the form factor, and add features over time as hardware progresses).
It's much harder for me to see the opposite - of starting out with the clunky form factor, even if it is 100x more capable.
EDIT: Or I may be thinking from the wrong direction. I could see this device as overtaking existing VR devices like the Rift by far.
It depends on whether "success" here is defined as surpassing the previous best-selling VR headset (very plausible), or as matching the iPhone (much less plausible).
Sure the experience was terrible, but that's the same play here. Apple generally takes a technology space which is a little early and poorly done by others, and ships a great experience across hardware, software, and ecosystem to capture a market.
But pretty much nobody has a VR headset right now (or at least IRL people that I know), so not sure if a normal person will see a benefit of owning this kind of device.
It was totally clear that a device for 3.4k can have the values apples headset has.
I’m not aware of any remotely comparable product.
2D content in 3D is a gimmick; it's nice to have, but it's not going to sell consoles. And even beyond that it's not a "head start"; almost all of that content is already available on other platforms, even other VR platforms. Just owning the content doesn't get Apple much if anything here.
>apps, games
...I don't know how you can possibly spin it as them having a head start here. Meta has a multi-year lead on them, and PC is even further, in games. Apps will need a lot of work as well - just throwing a 2D app in 3D space doesn't provide a compelling use case. You may as well just use a tablet.
Despite spending a lot of time pushing for AR apps on iPhone, Apple is still way behind on the VR/AR race. They need to get developers working on novel applications that utilize the full possibilities of a headset like this, and they need it yesterday if they don't want Meta to own the space.
Which brings us to the real reason that they released this $3.5k device: it's not actually for consumers, it's ultimately just a fancy, overly-polished dev kit.
Those are a few reasons that people will find this device compelling.
Also, keep in mind, Meta's headsets have full access to all of Windows' apps and games through link or Virtual Desktop, which absolutely dwarfs Apple's lineup.
The success of the iPhone has been all about the 'incremental progress'.
Also small FOV is a critical issue for transparent screen AR. No one has managed to improve this significantly after hololens v1.
HLv2 was an all around improvement, if you only tried v1, you cannot make conclusions
I haven't seen anything the apple device does better than the hololens 2, other than the field of view, which is only possible because they are mock AR, not real AR