Apple’s Vision Pro Is a $3,500 Ticket to Nowhere
vice.com
vice.com
1. Meta makes VR headsets and failed.
2. Vision has a lot of fancy tech, but I don't understand how that helps Apple.
3. People who are excited about Vision also liked Google Glass, a failed product.
4. Big televisions are cheaper.
5. Apple didn't mention motion sickness, so maybe that's a problem.
I'm not a VR enthusiast—I don't own any headsets, and will probably not be buying this one—but this is a profoundly lazy article, and not one I'd take seriously as far as judging the merits of Vision.
Apple made 9 billion in revenue in Q1 2023 from iPad.
I think that is a lot of market.
I can mostly get my head around the iPad. My guess is that it's people who don't want (to get out / have) a laptop. In fact, this is the device the average person should probably have instead of a laptop.
The Apple Watch though? I can't fathom where these sales are coming from. It's been years, so it's no longer novelty of a new Apple product.
- MacBook is my workhorse for work. When it retire this device will be the first to go. - IPad Pro used for all manner of media and content consumption, mainly personal use and because it’s cellular enabled and portable enough it tends to go with me when I need to do work in a “device light” manner. This device of all would be my favorite piece of tech I have used in a near 40 year career in tech. - IPhone is my phone, main audio player, occasionally used for browsing content consumption in a pinch. - Apple Watch is probably the one I could live without the easiest, but it’s handy for health tracking, paying, and this may sound ridiculous…but the biggest value I get from it is walking up to my MacBook and not having to log in or type in a password.
so the target audience who might consider this 4k headset, will be the exact same that Meta is targetting at a fraction of the cost.
If they can find a million people to watch movies on flights and/or use it as a monitor replacement, and if it works well for those use cases, then Apple will net $3.5B of revenue and have a solid foundation to build on. I don't think the first generation needs to do a whole lot more than that.
I had to ban the publisher from one of my news readers because every single day was a new Vice article with a low quality article on AI being the end of the world. I'm fine with that opinion but not a daily new article with no substance.
It's expensive.
This is a bullshit device nobody will use because nobody wants VR/AR.
It's technically extremely impressive.
It's expensive.
Nobody will use this except super rich bored people and tech bros.
It's expensive.
Funny how we are so used to groundbreaking tech being so "cheap" now. Remember when the Apple II launched at about $6,200 for the base model after inflation? Heck, the Atari 2600 cost almost $1,000 today after inflation.
Also, if you want to know how scary the inflation is, here's why your Nintendo Switch still costs $299 new: $299 in 2017 is about $369 today. You had a $70 price cut you didn't even notice.
https://www.marketingdive.com/ex/mobilemarketer/cms/news/res... (2007 prices)
She might have to plug into the USB port for power or bring a second battery pack for longer viewing.
Very dump design in my opinion. They finally learned the lesson with macbook chargers that those cables used to break after a while and started producing this days detachable usbc cable with braided coating.
This vision pro battery looks like has similar low quality white cable that is not braided and cannot be removed from battery or even rolled for storage like in old macbook chargers
Hope they will change it and allow to use any power bank or charge from power outlet or macbook.
Would be nice also their power bank has Magsafe port for charging iphone as emergency
At least MKBHD said in his video that this is possible.
And I'm like 99% sure that they'll come up with a Vision -> USB-C cable later on, so you can either plug it in to your computer, a bigger power bank or directly to a charger.
2. I take a lot of 4 hour flights. I see people use steam decks on them all the time, even though their batteries don't hold for the whole flight.
3. I don't know the answer, but I wonder what the largest battery you could bring onto a flight is, and how long that would extend the Vision Pro's battery life.
Otherwise, yeah probably a multiple battery solution.
I don't really see myself caring about the movies during a flight use case.
For working during a flight, I'd greatly prefer the Vision Pro, as I am easily distracted by my surroundings and would value the improved ergonomics over being hunched over a laptop (I'm flying in coach). And for reading PDFs and web browsing, ergonomics again seem superior to a smartphone or tablet.
The first iPhone wasn't the first touchscreen smart phone, but it was the first one that was truly appealing to the masses. We've seen the impressive sales numbers for the quest, now we just have to see if Apple can beat them. My money is on Apple beating Meta for multiple reasons.
For what it’s worth, I once brought my Quest on a flight. But when it came time to put it on, I couldn’t bring myself to to do it. The idea of becoming a spectacle while simultaneously shutting myself off from everyone around me felt embarrassing.
And what is the issue with shutting other people off on a plane? Do you want to actively engage with strangers on a plane?
Now I think about it, I have no problem wearing an eye mask and headphones, so maybe the shutting-myself-off point isn't accurate after all. Maybe it was more about being different to everyone else.
Have you worn a headset on a plane before? Did you feel any aversion to putting it on? Maybe we're just wired differently.
Quite typical for vice to be fair. What I find most interesting are the reviews from people who have actually tried it and are really impressed, especially those who would normally be skeptical of VR&AR.
Nobody has said this is a 'game changer' just that they seem to be giving the attention to detail that Apple are known for and for those who HAVE actually tried it, it seems it might actually pay off.
An aside : As for the pricing, it's almost redundant these days to comment on Apple's pricing.
I really don't think people need to try the device to form the opinion that a future with people walking around with expensive goggles on their face (recording 3D videos of their kids during birthday parties) isn't really a good one.
For people who are blind the whole device is a killer app, can help reading book or newspaper, help with navigation on the street and warn about danger. Easier for them to find just this goggle computer than phone or computer, eye tracking as mouse probsbly easier to use than mouse.
Even Steven Hawking wouldnt mind using such a device.
That said, I think that if I can wear this for 8-10 hours, it would be an amazing monitor. That's the killer app. I sit by myself at home so the weird social interaction stuff isn't a part of the mix there. (I don't want to pay $3500 for it, but I'm not exactly an early adopter in general.)
A million people who are willing to pay ~12 times more than a Quest 2 and 7 times more than a Quest 3 when those devices also can let you watch movies or use them as a monitor replacement.
My iPhone can let me watch movies and can be a monitor replacement, but it's bad at those things, so I don't do it.
I snooped around a bit online for something along the lines of "VR headset as a monitor replacement" - I'm not seeing any kind of consensus that these devices are up to the job.
If Apple's product is, then it's a game changer. It seems like they've put serious effort into some of the core problems: headset weight, refresh rates, AR concerns, pixelation. If that all sums up to be something that can be worn all day, then maybe people will see it as 7 times more valuable than a Quest 3.
A little under two-thirds of Americans have one Apple product, how good is the Quest at integrating into that ecosystem?
It doesn't have to be the same it just has to be good enough that the increased price of the Vision Pro isn't worth it.
>I'm not seeing any kind of consensus that these devices are up to the job.
You are not going to get a consensus even with the Vision Pro. There will be people who find wearing a headset to be inconvenient. I have used Immersed to use a Quest Pro as a screen replacement and I found it fine. Most people who work in VR use either Immersed or Horizon Workrooms from what I've seen and you will be able to find testimonials from proper who successfully use them as screen replacements.
>A little under two-thirds of Americans have one Apple product, how good is the Quest at integrating into that ecosystem?
It depends on what you mean. There is a Quest app that you can use to control your headset, cast your headset to, and sync notifications from your phone to your headset.
>headset weight
The headset weight doesn't sound special.
>refresh rates
90/96 Hz. The Quest Pro is at 90 Hz and the Quest 2 supports up to 120 Hz
>AR concerns
The Quest 3 will be improving the MR capabilities on the Quest side.
>pixelation
Pixelation isn't really a problem in VR. There is SDE which means your optics are too sharp and there is blur which means your optics are too blurry or the displays are too low resolution.
Apple Vision can do things optical AR cannot, such as blocking out objects in the real world. My first take is that you won't get perfect visual acuity for the real world, but optical AR systems definitely waste a lot of light and introduce distortion in the optics. Sufficiently developed, computational AR might improve on your vision, particularly if you are older and presbyopic.
Apple Vision has many of the challenges other AR/VR platforms have had but it is sufficiently different that Hololens and Magic Leap don't imply an automatic death sentence.
I think it's critical that "metaverse" adjacent experiences are available cross-platform, I make these cards
https://mastodon.social/@UP8/110499039556572469
that have QR codes to point to the web. I'd admit that the "web side" is the weakest link in my 3-sided cards right now but really that code should take AR headset users to a "land" or bring some object into the space but there still has to be an experience for phone users which could very much be of an AR nature as you can overlay images from the camera. As dreary as it is Decentraland has a workable experience with a web browser and something like Horizon Worlds would need one to make it worth the effort for individuals and brands to invest in the platform.
I'm sure there will be lots of similar applications but for the civilian space, where the price of a Vision Pro is just peanuts.
Previously such applications would have to create their own custom kit or modify existing. Now they have a trusted partner which can (hopefully) be trusted to iterate over and improve their product.
Yes.
Then it will will turn into moderately priced novelty bullshit for normal people in a few years.
At lower price, I'll be buying it just for the immersive FaceTime and Photos browsing experience.
This will be the new fancy iPad and Apple will make a lot of money off of it.
All started with a high priced offering and introduced lower priced options over time, at least accounting for inflation.
Individual Apple product lines trend upwards, seemingly faster than inflation although I'm not actually sure that's the case. However they regularly introduce cheaper product lines to open up to new markets.
I think only Macintosh is the case but it's too old days. It was quite expensive but price declined. Newton is another case for expensive but it was dead end.
How close to prime time is AR?
It's hard to judge that without hands on experience.
Close or not, unlike the mid-90s, Apple can likely afford to burn money for a while on a big gamble. Trying to open up a new product category that plays to Apple's strengths is probably the correct strategy, so long as there isn't a better viable product.
I doubt this will storm the world the same way the iPhone did, so it'll likely be a while before it can be judged as a success or failure.
For general productivity, I feel that the laptop and external monitor is the sweet spot for the peak of computing. All other optimizations have given diminishing returns.
For consumption, the mobile phone is the sweet spot.
I put up with a lot of jank and discomfort with my VR headset, because the feeling of Presence is so transformative in gaming, exercise, and entertainment for me. I don't think the majority of people will choose that trade-off on a regular basis, especially in social environments.
And it introduced a number of killer features that were immediately apparent: -GPS for navigation (almost immediately made Tom Toms in cars obsolete) with Google Maps -Pinch to zoom for the pre-responsive mobile web, with full HTML websites on device -Glass touch haptics with gestures: pinch, double tap, swipe up/down/right/left, etc -Unlimited data back when it was unheard of -Unlimited text messaging back when it was rare -Solid camera experience with both front and back facing camera -Complete iPod replacement with built-in iTunes, a killer app at the time with no peer -Visual voicemail -A usable touch screen keyboard, with intuitive multi-touch controls -HTML email -YouTube app built-in -Accelerometer for orientation-based controls -Proximity and ambient light sensors -Apps, apps, apps. Although App Store wasn't immediately ready for 1st gen iPhone, it was apparent that apps were coming and that they would be amazing, with plenty of built-in 1st and 3rd party apps at launch. Every other mobile phone that implemented apps up to that point did so with a ton of red tape and licensing fees
When the iPhone was announced by Jobs in 2007, it was 5 years ahead of any other phone on the market.
The Vision Pro, on the other hand, pitches itself as a $3500 monitor replacement, I guess? It doesn't even have one killer app. You could feel the hype and excitement for the original iPhone on day one.
Maybe Vision Pro will evolve into something killer in the 2nd or 3rd generation offering. But as it stands, I'm not seeing the vision.
The Vision Pro is a direct competitor to the Varjo. Early reports are that it is better. It comes in at half the price and no subscription fees.
The Vario is what some Apple employees used as devkits during the software development phase.
Apple is masterful at bringing the public along slowly with an easy to digest narrative. They don't tell the whole story right up front, because people need the breadcrumbs and onboarding.
> smart phones / camera phones were a valid market
feels revisionist. Something like 70% of Americans had a feature phone in 2007 but smartphone market share was probably in the single digits before the iPhone launched. I had a Palm m100 back in the day; PDAs and early smartphones weren't all that great, and it wasn't obvious to laymen that the hardware and software would scale down enough and be combined with a compelling enough interaction model to create something useful for the masses.
You're right that the iPhone demo had some killer features apparent. Jobs had three tentpoles: better iPod, a phone, a good internet machine. Cook mimicked this for the Watch keynote: a timepiece, a new way to communicate, a health and fitness device. But for the latter, it wasn't apparent just how much the health and fitness stuff would become a part of the story, nor was it apparent that people ended up liking the Watch for keeping their phone out of their hands or being able to accessorize.
I don't think the Vision Pro reveal was as effective, but the tentpoles seem to be immersive media consumption (with movies and photos as a 1a and 1b), monitor replacement, and better FaceTime meetings. The last one seems particularly suspect, but the first two are pretty strong.
> feels revisionist.
Not revisionist. I worked in mobile phone retail from 2002-2007. There were popular, successful camera phones and smart phones even then. However, in the early 2000s, the U.S. wireless market was much slower to deploy 3G than Japan and many European markets.
There were a number of powerful handsets that couldn't even be practically offered in the U.S. as a result of the splintered TDMA/CDMA/GSM protocols and the dizzying array of licensing deals between regional carriers who owned significant amounts of spectrum at the time, making data and roaming plans very expensive and impractical for most retail users. Smart phone adoption was much broader in markets that had full 3G support earlier on.
In 2004, NBC covered the Japanese mobile market, mentioning: "The Japanese use cell phones to surf the net, watch TV, navigate city streets with built-in GPS, download music, take and transmit home movies, get e-coupons, pay bills, play games, and even program karaoke machines." By 2004, 70 million Japanese had internet access on their phones, a threefold increase from 2000 [3].
[1] https://gizmodo.com/i-miss-my-japanese-flip-phone-1843733494 [2] http://wirelesswatch.jp/2006/12/29/japans-mobile-year-in-rev... [3] "In Japan, a wireless vision of future for U.S" (2004) https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna4306834
My interest in this vein of discussion is to make sure people realize just how game-changing the iPhone was; so much of what it accomplished looks obvious and inevitable in hindsight but really was new and magical in that keynote.
Anyways, I think that if the Vision succeeds it'll take a path more like the Watch:
- Expectations were sky high. People talked about how the iPhone cannibalized the iPod and were speculating how a watch might do the same, while noting that the iPhone was one of the most successful products of all time (in terms of revenue) and it was going to be a tough act to follow, particularly as the first big Tim Cook launch.
- There wasn't a super obvious smartwatch market either. Everyone knew that health and fitness was a reason to get a Fitbit or Garmin but they were either specialized for limited use or cheap-looking.
Apple shipped, figured out how people were using it, and iterated. The biggest difference is that their first-gen price was pretty reasonable, so it was easier to buy one impulsively. That won't be the case with Vision.
Also only 2g and wifi g
Not to mention app store was launched 1 year later. Based on that first generation wasn't that much useful. Mass appeal was maybe starting with 3rd generation.
This is just first generation
Selfie camera was out by the following year. Flashlight was implemented as an app very early on after app store came out. The original version most definitely had gyroscope and compass.
Mass appeal was very much already there when iPhone launched. But it was hamstrung a bit by 2.5G and the exclusive deal with AT&T. Remember, mobile phones used to come with 2 year contracts with heavy cancellation penalties, and 3G took a while to roll out to the U.S. market. Still, it was a smashing success in its first year with 10 million units sold. Remember, back then the mobile market was very fragmented. Devices not only varied dramatically by manufacturer, but some devices could only be found with certain carriers (ie T-Mobile Sidekick). Any model that sold more than 1 million units in a year was considered to be a smashing success.
It was already very obvious what the killer features were or would be on the iPhone at launch.
My point is many people could see that iphone is gonna be game changer in next year or two but I wasn't that much useful with first generation. In similar way some people also see vision pro will be a game changer in next few years.
Edit: link to wiki iphone spec https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_(1st_generation)
The original iPhone had accelerometer for orientation based UI, you're correct that it didn't have gyroscope (or I guess GPS, although it looks like from Jobs's presentation that it was planned). Another great feature. Still doesn't change the fact that the original iPhone had a dozen or so killer features. Everyone of course wanted the iPhone to keep getting better, and from 2.5G to 3G to 3GS to iPhone 4, there was a rapid succession of progress.
You're criticizing the 2007 iPhone for features that virtually no phone had in 2007 (and certainly none did all the things that iPhone did well). I can't name one that had a gyroscope or selfie cam. The top models back then were things like the Motorola Razr and the LG Chocolate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Razr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Chocolate_Spin_(VX8550)
People often forget how quickly the 3G version of the iPhone was launched after the 2.5G. It took them less than one year to come out with the 3G version.
The iPhone was jaw dropping when it first came out. A lot of sales were held back in first year merely due to the lack of 3G support and high pricepoint (along with AT&T exclusivity).
Accelerometers were pretty common, and quite a few phones had GPS and selfie cams back then. Nokia N95 from early 2007 had all those things, for example - it even supported 3.5G already. Not sure about gyroscopes though, I believe they only started getting popular in phones later, but even then I doubt iPhone was the first.
iPhone did not get popular because of its features. It rode the iPod's fame and did some interesting (from 2007 perspective) UI choices, that's pretty much it. It didn't even start gaining significant traction outside of the US (where iPods weren't that popular either) until much later.
I'm not going to buy gen 1 or even gen 2 of this headset due to cost. But by gen 3 I could see it being a strong device for working from home. I picture having multiple windows of safari open around me full of documentation as I code in VScode via the connection to my mac.
The price is going to be too much for most people right now. Apple knows that. Comparing this to a quest is like comparing an iPhone to an Android. But in this case the specs far exceed the other headsets out there. There's a freaking wrap-around display on the outside of the device!
The vision pro version 1 is big, heavy, and kinda clunky. But imagining what Vision Pro 5 will be gets me really excited.
Only thing that’s in anyway correct is the bit about the type of people excited by these devices - I feel seen. But is that so bad?
Also, there really are markets for these devices - they’re just often not that visible for the average consumer. I work in medical simulation training for instance.
Well, including me - I'v never wanted to try one as I associated them with games or some meta world I'm not interested. But I haven't been a target for their ads, so I may not know feature set for those.
Seeing Apple device, I want to try it out as I immediately see the value in having a nice workspace :)
I think everything will depend on execution. If we compare 1 feature between pre-iPhone and iPhone era: touch. The touch was based on resistive technology and you had to physically push the screen for it to feel. It was unreliable. It was disgusting to work with. Saying that some pre-iPhone touch phone and iPhone touch phone has same feature set or even iPhone was lacking... sure. But the ease of use.
If this actually works reliably - no lags, no artifacts, no pixels, controls (eyes/fingers/voice) works as advertised - I think it will be ticket to somewhere, even if it was only extension to your pc/tablet. But this has the potential to be more than an extension.
I think all the optimism is confidence that Apple will be developing this product on the way to achieving high volume sales. Then they own yet another new major platform.
10 years may not be too long a slog if you OWN another major platform on the other side.
My view is that this Vision Pro is aimed at exactly that - pros who are going to find and develop creative uses for it. Those people will spend the money just to experience next-gen technology. I know I will. If that produces a big ecosystem of new apps and products then Apple can continue developing the cheaper Vision Air or whatever and sell that to consumers.
It seems to me Apple has made a nice step forwards in making this technology something I'd want to use. That might put me in the minority, but I don't think a lot of people got the Mac right away either.
But this article is at the "Old Man Yelling at Clouds" level of analysis.
Many new platforms, form-factors, gadgets, categories of devices , etc. start as "expensive novelty bullshit for rich people". Yet some move past that (and some don't). The author might want to think, for a few seconds at least, about why some do and some don't and whether this one could.
The comparison to Google Glass is particularly lazy. The approach and tech is so different I don't think there's really anything to learn.
Any why even write something like this: "no matter how much they boost it, no normal human being wants to wear goofy-ass goggles so they can attend work meetings in Minecraft."
Hur dur! I think this refers to Meta's clunky/crappy VR meeting software. Apple's approach is obviously different, right? And perhaps Apple will figure out how to make it less clunky and crappy? (Meta may too eventually, but doesn't have that track record). BTW, nobody wants to attend work meetings. Neither VR goggles nor other tech are really the reason.
I guess this is just a long way to say this is a thoughtless throwaway article.
But Vision Pro probably won't give you an open mind or a good imagination.
Innovation always need’s early adopters before technology is fully baked.
Remember the original iphone had no app store, and ran on the slower (at the time) Edge network.
Is that what happened all previous times Apple released a new product category in the past decade, and such articles about it came out?
For how much inevitable near-future death people forecasted on Apple's new product categories, they all seemed to have avoided the "useless crap that will become obsolete in a month" trap (iphone, ipad, airpods, apple watch come to mind). Am I missing something?
The "become obsolete within months" part is especially inane, given iPhone 5s received a security update earlier this January, and it is a phone from 2013.
The other way to look at it is the series of 3d vision devices (both tv and goggles) and view how successful those have been.
So, is this the time an Apple product fails big, or is this the time that immersive 3d takes off? It seems a lot easier to say that VR has largely been rejected and it will continue to be rejected, even if Apple is doing it.
I think this could be considered the first major post-Jobs product launch. We are coming up on 13 years since Jobs' death, and what truly major things have Apple released in that time? Mostly we have seen new phones, tablets, computers, and some smaller things like Airpods. The Apple Watch is maybe the best example of an all-new product, but in a category (watches and wearables) that was already kind of a "thing".
As of right now, I'm on the side of VR/AR glasses being more like 3D TVs than smart watches. I think it doesn't solve enough problems (and creates new ones in terms of an uncomfortable wearable thing people aren't generally used to).
Time will certainly tell, but this thing is going to need a TON of ecosystem support to break through into a major product line for Apple IMO.
Emphasis on core because someone will send me a list of ancillary stuff that got cut as part of the course corrections.
Imho this doesn’t have to be an Apple only thing, but other companies tend to throw in the towel much quicker. That’s why people remember Apple products as successful and defunct competitors as not. The competitors often got out at the low instead of iterating another few generations.
I’m actually really impressed at Meta sticking through with their devices for so long despite the heavy losses they’re incurring YoY.
Edit: by the way, it’s maybe not a product per se, but the switch to Arm with Apple Silicon is a feat no other company has ever achieved with this degree of complexity and with this degree of success. If I had to pick a move defining the legacy of post-Jobs Apple, the transition is certainly up there.
The Harvard guy who ran Grace Hopper's lab in 1941 famously said, "Only six electronic digital computers would be required to satisfy the computing needs of the entire United States." Had Vice been published then, they would have praised his perspicacity. I imagine few people today would agree.
Vision is a new platform. I can think of plenty of uses for it. Helping physically limited people and replacing my painfully small video screen are only the most obvious. Add travel and you have a market. Add industrial use and, well, the world is a pretty succulent oyster.
I don't know if it will win but I do know that declaring it DOA is stupid.
I felt bad giving this dope a click. The article a waste of time and the whole Apple Vision is bullshit crowd are idiots.
Apple has the integration and hardware expertise to have a good shot at this. But only time can tell if people want it if it is good enough, or whether it turns out to be silly. Which depends not only on technological factors, but also social (eg. will it get the same 'glasshole' perception that killed the Google Glasses), do people actually want to sit with goggles at home/work, etc.
If it does succeed, it also has large implications. Like, can open alternatives get a good chunk out of the market this time, or will we have another duopoly like smartphones.
Not that Vice can’t be right here, they might be. But the writing of the article isn’t very substantive of any real argument, let alone from anyone who’s tried the product.
The fact that it’s not being demoed like that tells me they still can’t do “everywhere” AR (IR sensors and Sun aren’t friendly) and don’t want to open that can of worms.
I would be happy to hear opinion of any developer here on HN that is blind if they might find this tech appealing and useful.
Personally I think he's right, but then I also thought the iPad was a stupid product with no market.
The killer app for this seems to be: block out the real world entirely, even from your peripheral vision.
I certainly do!
But yeah, this article feels lazy. Its uncharacteristic of the Vice Motherboard I know (knew?)
in 5 years this thing will be the same price as a mid-range laptop