I'm sure it won't be perfect or anything, but I'm mostly just stoked about the possibilities I see with this thing.
Anyway, there's no way my work will buy me one, and I'm not buying one with my own dollars just to lock it to my corp account, so not sure I could even use it for my dream use case.
I also think that compared to say the Quest Pro/3 it has more potential to be host to the first few apps that kick off the “iPhone moment” for AR. The capable hardware is certainly a factor here, but the bigger one is that it has a massive, enthusiastic dev base who can write apps for it on day one. Furthermore, those with iOS apps already can dip their toes in the platform by getting an AR-optimized app by doing little more than checking a tickbox in Xcode.
In France, it was launched at 600€ (8GB version) with a contract; but just the year prior I had bought a Windows mobile smartphone that completely sucked for 250€ (LG, under contract as well), plus a 210€ iPhone Nano. All in all, you are not that far from the price for a device that was truly something else and had all the functionality of the previous combo and much more.
The iPhone worked because it was priced pretty cheap considering everything it brought to the table. In fact, I am absolutely certain that people started buying iPhones because they intuitively understood that they would save money by staying ahead of the curve while bringing a lot of usefulness into their lives. It is extremely doubtful that something like that will happen with the Vision Pro, firstly because it doesn't really replace any existing device and its pricing is completely disconnected from ordinary people's reality.
The iPhone was 5 years ahead of anything on the market, yet it did not cost 3 to 7 times the equivalent technology. Actually, as I said I'm pretty sure it worked because people figured out that while it lacked some features or had "not as good" specs on paper for certain things, it was a far more usable and useful device. If you looked at its competitors at that time a Nokia N95 8GB would go for 300€ under contract (700€ naked) and the most popular Samsung/LG big feature phones/smartphone were around that price.
The iPhone was not expensive. This is a mythology created by Apple fanboys under Tim Cook that gaslighted everyone with "clever" diversification and an insane pricing ladder where he keeps selling old technology for twice the price of its competitors just because he benefits from the Apple brand halo. When you look at it the first iPhone was what is now called a "Pro" iPhone; it was the best Apple could sell, but it was also the best in the market overall, there wasn't any alternative with a better integrated package. Even if we make a charitable comparison and take for example the most expensive iPhone 3G at 700€ (16Go version) and ignore the Pro Max iPhone (which is an extreme outlier) and go for the "base" Pro iPhone at 1230€ ; you go from 68% of monthly minimum salary to 90%; a rather substantial 22% increase. For what is essentially the same thing relative to the overall market. If you were to just consider inflation, 700€ in 2009 would be around 890€ today. This is already 80€ more money than the "base" iPhone 15. This base iPhone is technologically underwhelming, its only redeeming quality is the fast silicon but it is largely unnecessary and as to make up for the lower amount of RAM (that nowadays is way more relevant to what you can do with your phones that pure benchmark speed). It is basically the same thing as a Samsung S23, expect sold at a 300€ premium.
This is the reality that the Vision Pro is launching with, and as a "new" technology it was already bound to be expensive, but under the Tim Cook "leadership" it is bound to be a meme device considering the pricing placement. It is better technology than the competition, but not 3 times better and its potential use cases are not 3 times better than what exists. In fact, we already know from very similar existing devices that such things are uncomfortable enough that they could not be considered as a primary device. So even if someone finds a use for them, it's going to be very niche and time bound. Nothing that could warrant its asking price.
But I find it very fitting to the Tim Cook era, it represents exactly what Apple has become with him: overpriced, overengineered, luxury show-off technology. Lots of posturing, enormous potential to display wealth; very little substance.
In VR, that 4K needs to cover over 100 degrees FOV. And any 'virtual monitor' content is being resampled and filtered, inevitably blurring/softening things.
I suspect that we're going to need a lot more than 4K resolution before you can comfortably work with small text (e.g. coding, web browsing) in VR.
That is likely some clever wording, but according to the announcement, a non-pessimistic interpretation does seem like each eye is getting more than 4K.
I travel often and I’m looking forward to always having the ability to have a large high resolution display to work on. Also seems cool for entertainment. It’s returnable like anything else.
So one could for example have the benefits of multiple screens while lounging or in the middle of a flight. Even at a desk, window/screen placement would be more flexible than otherwise possible.
It would be nice to work in various locations with the equivalent of a big 4K screen.
I am unfortunately one of those people who really cannot work on a laptop screen, I need lots of real estate. (And laptops are ergonomically bad even if you don't mind the small screen)
I actually currently have 3 4K monitor + keyboard workstations in various rooms in my house. (Office, living room, garage) because I like to work in various places depending on the weather, who else is home, etc.
If the Apple Vision Pro could replace my 4 monitors, I’d be delighted
It's kind of like comparing a monitor that's locked to a single app with a monitor that has multiple spaces you can switch between. They both have the same resolution, but one of them can display much more stuff.
I’m a laptop only person. I never understood how a single monitor would be better. But quantity has a quality all its own and 4 monitors seems like it could enable novel approaches.
When those two things aren't in alignment, you can get a feeling of eye-strain. The way the lenses bend the light make it so the focal length that you're focusing on is further than the screen in front of you, so that isn't what is causing the eye strain.
Mind you, this is just my layman's understanding of the subject, so definitely take it with a grain of salt.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vergence-accommodation_conflic...
So you’re not focusing on the glass, but on the image at that virtual depth.
The strain comes from looking at things rendered further or closer than 1.3m.
I heard that the Quest 3 already solved this too?
https://www.businessinsider.com/less-expensive-apple-vision-...
For 99% of the price point people will pay for VR, it is still there.
...and will be for Apple Vision (non-pro) and Apple VisionSE.
I look back at what some of my computer set ups cost over the years in non inflation adjusted terms
- An Apple //e with a duo disk drive, a green screen monitor, and a dot matrix printer in 1986 was $3000
- A Mac LC II with 10 MB RAM, an 80MB hard drive, a laser printer a little 12 inch monitor, and a //e card with a separate drive - $4000 with an education discount.
- A PowerMac 6100/60 with 24 MB RAM, 250MB hard drive and a 486 DOS Compatibility Card and a $500 13 inch monitor - $3300 in 1996.
I won’t buy one because just like the 1st gen iPhone, iPad and Apple Watch, it usually doesn’t last as long as the second generation and Apple usually makes rapid advances between the two.
But if Apple addresses all of your other (very valid) concerns, price wouldn’t hold me back from it if I could find a use for it.
Even if it could, it's not even remotely a competitive price. 90s hardware cost what it cost because that's what was available. Today, there is plenty of competition for VR, and Apple is explicitly ignoring it.
Instead, it's a toy. It's not allowed to be anything more.
There is a whole world of software that this device will never touch, simply because it's not allowed.
It's exactly what I expected from an Apple product. That's why I was never enthusiastic about this hardware to begin with: I knew anything I would want to do with it would be arbitrarily impossible. That's Apple's business model. Just because I'm not the target audience doesn't mean I don't exist!
The target audience is anyone who is willing to pay $3500 for a walled garden. For fucks sake, I'm allowed to be critical of that business model.
It’s no different than the people who show up in new iPhone announcement threads complaining about iOS and the App Store. We’ve heard all this before literally all the time — Google sells Pixels go buy one of those and be happy. Some of us like what Apple does with their ecosystem.
They sell premium hardware with a walled garden of software that meets the full expectations of 80% of people in general and 90-95% of people who can afford these devices.
For their target audience, $3000-3500 is probably the perfect the price point for the “first” generation of a new (to them) tech platform. Insofar as it allows them to turn a profit, ship best in class mass-manufacturable hardware, and not price out their core demographic of new adopters.
I have been an Apple customer since the first iPod but nowadays their pricing makes absolutely no sense considering their products' positioning compared to the rest of the market.
But somehow you cannot say that and you will be gaslighted about Apple pricing that always have been this way (even though it is demonstrably and factually not true).
At least for the iPhone there was a good excuse: network operators were not very keen on letting a completely open device run on their network, and still today there are limitations on what you can do with a fully rooted Android device. It somewhat makes sense; the nefarious potential is pretty big.
But for a headset? No reason at all to have it locked down from the get go.
How many people did what you did though? Were those all Apple branded monitors + printers? There were much cheaper alternatives in the same time frame.
I paid full price for a 3DS on day one, doesn't mean it was the right price for it to be a success.
I do not own Apple stock, I don't work for them, and I'm not buying one (although I'll be watching with great interest)
However.... whether or not you think any of these products are worth it, the Apple Vision Pro is objectively pretty far ahead of the Quest 2/3 in terms of capability.
All indications is that Apple will only be able to manufacturer 2 million of them. Is there any doubt those will sell out.
As far as how many people did it. Back in 1992, Apple was the number one seller of computers when they started selling “low cost” Macs. Apple didn’t start struggling until Windows 95.
Apple was more valuable than Microsoft until the mid 90s if I recall correctly
While Apple sold a lot less Apple //e’s than low cost Commodores and Atari computers, they were much more profitable.
And a Quest 3 is a much closer competitor to the Vision Pro than a Blu F92 5G is to a iPhone 15 Pro Max...
(Deep cut)
Even the high end iPads are about 10x as expensive as a Fire Tablet.
The original iPhone was unsubsidized at $700 compared to “free” phones and was laughed at by Balmer for that very reason.
In fact, they are the sole reason Apple has been able to charge those ludicrous price lately. It seems they exist only to validate and rationalise any stupidly greedy decision Apple is making. At this point it really has become very close to a cult...
They upgraded or started using those generic machines for generic things.
You can't just buy this and use it as a replacement.
That aside, I'd imagine I'll use it for watching movies and tv since I live alone currently and could enjoy the immersion without blocking other people out. I already have a PSVR 2 for gaming so I'm not too worried about the potential or lack thereof for games. One thing I'm going to try out though is game streaming services like Geforce Now. If I can play really high fidelity flat games using a M+KB / Controller on the headset that would be awesome!
Edit: geez, just don’t have a sense of humor here? Or is it the truth Then you’re downloading this because you’re embarrassed?
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Percentages-of-Internet-...
It's not like users will be allowed to play real games or install a real OS.
I'd like to know how it handles itself when you throw 8K120fps HEVC or AV1 at it. If it can't do that, then how could it ever compete with a $2500 PC and a Valve Index?
I'm pretty sure this will work on day 1 on Vision Pro since Xbox Cloud Gaming already works on Safari with PS/XBox controllers paired to Macs/iPads/iPhones, and with the supposed higher quality display, passthrough, and user interface (the Quest hand tracking is insufferable) I expect it will be even better.
[1]: https://news.xbox.com/en-us/2023/12/13/play-xbox-game-pass-w...
Personally, I still think VR is mostly something like 3D TV/movies where you end up paying a lot more for nothing of real value, just a novelty factor.
The entertainment aspect is a massive draw too—I don't want to downplay it by any means, but people were asking for some of the reasons that I want one, so I was genuinely answering with some of the features I envision using and how.
I'm picking up a Pimax Crystal for that purpose. I'll probably get an AVP, but don't expect to be able to use it for gaming. That's not its purpose. It's a MacBook Pro built into a headset.
I don't and don't think its reasonable at all.
I do own a htc vice pro + wireless extention from intel + valve controllers, i like that, i do not use it often enough to even justifiy that setup but its 2k and i bought the wireless and the valve controllers one after the other.
People have gotten neck fractures from VR headset use.
And what health risks are you aware of, i'm not?
You do know, that light is the same thing right? And you do know that even without a headset you do have radio waves and wifi around you constantly?
And yes, I’m aware of the radio waves around me constantly and that’s a problem as well. So I was adding any more of it going to do anything to help us?
What is your specific worry? getting cancer?
The paper you reference states the same: "Hence, VR headsets and mobile phones are safe."
And yes light is the same thing as anthropomorphically generated electromagnetic radiation, depending on what radiation you talk about. like the light coming from the display. If you mean the specific wireless connection, than no.
At least pls tell me that you don't have quarz cyrstals around you for protection. But if you would take this serious, you do not use wifi? You do life in a metal mesh?
One of the biggest differences between light and electromagnetic waves created by humans is that they are polarized. Light waves are not polarized they are scattered. Light waves are also not pulsed.
Cancer? Maybe. What about cataracts? What about tinnitus? What about mood disturbances? What about Parkinson’s?
EMFs affect our neurology and it’s been published and papers over and over. There are non-thermal effects in biological beings that are underplayed by the industry.
Is this going to affect everyone the same way? No. Because genetics matter. The fact that electromagnetic radiation seems to stimulate voltage gated ion channels will mean that people with, different genetics in these ion channels will have different effects to electromagnetic radiation.
And in fact, I am one of these people who are sensitive to it. Both low frequency and radio frequency, EMF cause mood, disturbances, insomnia, and tinnitus. And when, using laptops with high levels of low frequency electromagnetic radiation i have nosebleeds. Other people have seen this happened to me in real time.
I’m sure that’s all in my head though right?
I don’t know, but it doesn’t seem too difficult to create a blind (better, double-blind) test so you can know for sure.
Is that something you are interested in doing?
I’ve had people help me do it.
After all, while you do post studies which clarify details of your theory, you do not counter the 48 studies linked in the wikipedia article.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00139...
“If such individuals exist, they represent a small minority and have not been identified yet. The available observational studies do not allow differentiating between biophysical from EMF and nocebo effects.”
Even the Wikipedia article does not say it does not exist!
Then you have the problem in the studies of people claiming they have the sensitivity when it is an anxiety or psychological issue. These are widely known issues with the studies that say there’s no effect.
As for myself, the last five years I have consistently noted how I slept, and how I felt and then only afterward measuring the frequency, magnetic and electric fields, and the radio frequency electronic radiation.
If I do not know if they magnetic field or electric field is strong, then there is no way placebo effect could occur, correct?
This is the same with the laptops that I measure high magnetic fields, giving me bloody nose. Apple computers have very low EMF emissions, while most other laptops are very high. I discovered accidentally because I work a lot with computers. It was only after measuring the fields that I noticed what was going on.
My last experiment was my tinnitus. I had someone put a cell phone on the table behind my head streaming videos. One was a video off-line and the other one was a video from YouTube. They were the same video. But the one that was streaming from YouTube after 5 to 10 minutes my tent is increased. This did not occurr with the other Video playing when the phone was on airplane mode.
Regarding my sleep, I live in a minivan and I can sleep 10 hours when I am in low or absent EMF area. If I am in a high area, especially with bid man 5G, my sleep is interrupted and it must I get 4 to 5 hours of sleep.
I can guarantee you as I’ve worked as a network engineer for one of the largest networking companies that I was way more skeptical of this than you will ever be.
A good blind study would be a EMF isolated room (shielded mesh, etc), a assistant you don't see (no visual or accustic cue at all) and a procedure you can repeat.
You go out, the assitant sets up the experiment (which is recorded, somehow EMF free), either activates an active EMF (perhaps constant file transfer, radio antenna etc.), the person leaves the room (the source is hidden), you enter, you wait x minutes (probably more than one), you either say yes or no and leave.
If you are clearly above random and you can show this result, you would be a good candidate for proper research.
Your assumption that you proof your EMF sensibility by recording the messurement after is way to unprecise. You might hold your EMF device wrong, ignore values, might have some visual or accustic cues etc.
What device do you use to messure EMF? What range? 5G has a broad spectrum, your sector antennas might send while you messure because someone is doing something close by etc.
The area I measure is close to my body, not near the source cause that would be stupid.
I measure at several angles and positions.
My house has background rf EMFs below 5 mircrowatts per meter with no cellphone on in the house.
You are making it more complicated than it needs to be.
And tbh buying / using a device made by a Anti EMF Page/Company who sells EMF protection is everything but trustworthy.
You know bias, fake shops, gold audio cables, crystals etc.
Now: Have you done a proper blind test? What was your experiment setup? How often did you repeat it? And what does it mean
The fact you think having been a network engineer has much to do with the scientific method, does not bode well.
I've got a published paper with my name on it. It's about forecasting octopus reproduction using satellite data. Even despite that, I don't go around calling myself a proper scientist, because I appreciate the difficulties of proper experimental design and eliminating confounding variables and know that even "proper scientists" don't get it all correct on their first attempt any more than I as a software developer get bug-free code on my first attempt.
Is that you Apple?
I literaly have a polarizing filter for my camera.
And bluntly saying: yes you do fully read as someone with a head problem. You would not survive a blind study regarding EMF and your nose bleeding and would be a very famous person if you could proof that.
All EMF fields we have and face daily are not strong enough at all for any 'ion channels'. Are you even aware how many fields you walk through every single day? Public transport, power lines, wifi etc. your own electric cable has a magnetic field.
Weird that you actually connect ion channels/EMF with blood vessal issues at all.
Feel free to read the wikipedia article about it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_hypersensitivi...
"Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is a claimed sensitivity to electromagnetic fields, to which negative symptoms are attributed. EHS has no scientific basis and is not a recognized medical diagnosis, although it is generally accepted that the experience of EHS symptoms is of psychosomatic origin."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33945157/
Here, we systematically clarify how neuronal ion channels are particularly affected and differentially modulated by EMFs at multiple levels, such as gating dynamics, ion conductance, concentration in the membrane, and gene and protein expression. Ion channels represent a major transducer for EMF-related effects on the CNS.
Sunlight is not polarized. When you use a polarizing filter, you are polarizing the light. That’s why they call them polarizing filters.
Sunlight, reflecting off of a lake is partially polarized which is what creates the intensity.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3049010/#:~:tex....
Light arriving on Earth from natural sources, either directly from the Sun or reflected from the Moon, is unpolarized or, at most, weakly polarized.
There is some amount of polarization once it strikes the Earth, but all EMF radiation from telecommunications is polarized, like a laserbeam.
https://www.edmundoptics.com/c/laser-polarization/760/
Since you don’t know enough about the polarization of light, it’s not fair to me to comment on your ignorance about man-made electromagnetic fields in the rest of what you said.
And please post something deeper than a Wikipedia article, or actually just look up anything that is opposite of your current bias.
If you could actually proof your claim, people would write an article about you.
I’m not arguing that not ionizing radiation causes cancer. I’m arguing that it causes neurological problems. And because it can’t penetrate the skin deeply does not mean it cannot affect ion channels.
And also I wasn’t saying that we’re not smarter than mosquitoes I’m saying that they have different intelligence.
You’re not even listening to me, so how can you learn anything?
The article you linked to would set off alarm bells with anyone familiar with scientific publications, or even an undergraduate level of physics education. It's more like a blog post purporting mysticism.
The cited author, Dr. George L. Carlo, is a "a world recognized medical scientist, best-selling author and attorney", as indicated here [0]--a pseudo-science website that earns money by exploiting EMF fears (and sells "WiFi blockers").
"At Tech Wellness, our goal is to be your trusted source for information about EMF and all things wireless energy. That’s no small feat, because when you start looking around you’ll see a lot of pretty crazy claims and contradicting information out there—and some of it is downright scary."
The source you linked to isn't associated with Nature, despite the URL.
[0] https://techwellness.com/blogs/news/george-carlo-wireless-em...
And this is the main research scientist who wrote the paper.
You do not know enough about electromagnetic radiation to keep commenting like you are.
Dimitris J. Panagopoulos
https://books.google.com/books/about/Electromagnetic_Fields_...
Dimitris J. Panagopoulos, Electromagnetic Fields - Biophysicist, was born in Athens, Greece, where he lives and works. He has a Degree in Physics and a PhD in Biophysics both from the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (NKUA). He completed his PhD on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) in 2001, and two post-doctoral studies on the biological effects of microwaves (2004), and on cell death induction by Wireless Communication (WC) EMFs (2006). He worked as a post-doctoral researcher and lecturer at the Department of Cell Biology and Biophysics, NKUA, (2002-2014), where he gave undergraduate and graduate lectures on Radiation- and EMF-Biophysics, and performed research on the effects of various types of EMFs in experimental animals. During 2014-2018 he worked as a research associate at the National Centre for Scientific Research "Demokritos", Laboratory of Health Physics, Radiobiology and Cytogenetics, researching effects of ionizing and non-ionizing radiation on human cells. Since 2018 he has been working as a researcher at the Choremeion Research Laboratory, Medical School, NKUA. His experiments were among the first that showed damaging effects of man-made EMFs on DNA and reproduction. He has also shown beneficial effects on reproduction of EMFs mimicking natural ones. His theory on the biophysical mechanism of action of EMFs on cells is considered the most valid amongst all proposed theories and is cited by nearly 700 scientific publications. This theory has explained the sensing of upcoming earthquakes by animals and the sensing of upcoming thunderstorms by sensitive individuals through the action of the natural EMFs associated with these phenomena. The same theory has recently explained the induction of oxidative stress in cells by EMF-exposure. Dr. Panagopoulos has shown why the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) is not a proper metric for non-thermal effects, why man-made (totally polarized) EMFs are damaging while natural EMFs are vital, and why highly varying real-life exposures from mobile phones and other WC devices are significantly more damaging than simulated exposures with invariable parameters. He has also shown that genetic damage caused by WC EMFs occurs similarly in human and animal cells. Dr. Panagopoulos has also argued that photons are strictly wave-packets, not particles of light, and that man-made electromagnetic radiation does not consist of photons but of continuous "classical" polarized waves, in contrast to what has been postulated by quantum physicists in the past 100 years. He is the first or sole author in more than 40 peer-reviewed highly influential scientific publications, which are referenced more than 1600 times by other scientific publications and has been included in the Top 10 cited authors by the Mutation Research journals.
All I can find is, you’ll have an extremely strong Wi-Fi signal right next to your head probably for long period and you would use a cell phone that close to your head. I’ve had to find an SAR rating for it anywhere.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/apple-vision-pro-has-already-...
what?
you realize all living beings have been exposed to huge amounts of EM radiation since the inception of life in the universe, right? The fact that it's now human made doesn't give it magical properties that cause it to be more damaging. your body itself, right now, emits EM radiation. The piece of fruit next to you emits it. there is zero science showing that the energy received or sent by your every day electronic devices has any amount of harm to living beings. go stand outside for 5 minutes, you'll get getting a dose of EM radiation significantly higher than your phone pressed against your head for a year.
No one is contending that EMF waves can't harm people, since it is know that they can if they are of specific type and power. People are asking how it is possible the ones that exist that are of low power used for communication could harm some incredibly small number of people and not everyone, since it is a physical effect. If you flipped it and someone said they were immune to bullets, would you believe them?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3799025/
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abs...
In other words it’s a drop in the bucket.
But there are still electronics in the headset and I can’t wait to get a hold of one to measure the EMFs that are coming out of it.
And the jokes about the tinfoil hat I don’t get it. There is so much research around this, and so many questions. Still, you think the evidence is all in. And we have an industry who is trying to downplay the non-thermal effects of electro biotic radiation because it would damage the industry if anything harmful came out.
Additionally, I've spent the months since the announcement reading reviews and stuff from people who __have__ gotten their hands on the headset and they all seem to address any concerns I personally have.
Certainly not pushing anybody else to be impulsive for FOMO, but as an enthusiast, I'm pretty excited and am very fortunate to be able to afford something like this.
It’s the cost of a high end MacBook Pro, or a vacation to Paris, or about twelve days in an apartment in San Francisco :)
As mentioned elsewhere, the people who went to the Vision Labs are buying them on release day, so there must be something there.
It is however, a fairly expensive paperweight. And I have a bunch of gadgets I hardly ever use.
<Looks at his PlayStation Move gathering dust in a corner>
At least I didn't buy a PSVR :)
Also, as someone who wears glasses:
1. I trust my regular optometrist a lot more than Apple-made lenses.
2. Do I remember right that you can't swap prescription lenses, so you'd have to get one for each family member? Holy 2500 * N!
1. Your optometrist will be providing the prescription. Zeiss will be providing the optics. You can trust them both.
2. They're expensive, but they pop in and out.
https://www.zeiss.com/vision-care/en/highlights/home.html
I share your concern over it's usefulness. I should take my Index back out sometime.
> Apple says that "not all prescriptions are supported."
Apple lenses will be worse than the best but far better than the average.
But I've had opticians do a poor job of getting me the prescription I need, and so the Zeiss lenses were way off.
I bet Apple will have this dialed in from the get-go.
Who said anything about strip mall opticians?
At least they let you swap the lenses. Will they do the unthinkable and let the iPad be multiuser as well?
I got excuses like: "oh, these are better for computer work but worse for distance". Great... why are my old lenses more clear for both computer work and distance?
I went home with the new lenses and tried them for a night and a day. Unusable.
I went back and the optician's second attempt failed too. Now for computer work they were better and for distance they were still worse.
Attempt #3 was a match for my old lenses. Neither better nor worse. Mission accomplished? $500 well spent.
I'm sure in all 3 cases Zeiss made impeccable lenses. But it comes down to the optician's interpretation of the prescription I brought in (from a laser eye center's 8-machine exam I got the previous week) and their clinical examination of my eyes.
I expect that whatever Apple's Standard Operating Procedure will be for supplying the right lenses to people, it'll be mostly superior to your average optician.
I love that your anecdote has determined that most opticians will be worse at their job than an Apple Genius who might get two-three hours training on fitting the headset.
Getting the fitting right is built into their products from years earlier in the design process.
The Apple Genius is perhaps the last or second-last step in an SOP that results in their customers not angrily returning hundreds of thousands of headsets and swearing off the entire ecosystem.
Now sometimes Apple get things woefully wrong (e.g. butterfly keyboards, antenna gate) and refuse to admit defeat for years.
But on average, across years and dozens of product variations, they have a good hit/miss ratio.
Most strip mall opticians don't grind the glass themselves. Measurements are taken and sent to a specialist facility.
On the other hand, how much training does the Apple Genius fitting your headset receive?
Oh good, one more step towards Gargoyles (a subculture of people choosing to remain continuously connected to the Metaverse by wearing portable terminals, goggles and other equipment; they are nicknamed "gargoyles" due to their grotesque appearance - from Snow Crash).