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.
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 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'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.
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.
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.
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
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.
I heard that the Quest 3 already solved this too?
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.
They upgraded or started using those generic machines for generic things.
You can't just buy this and use it as a replacement.
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.
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...
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.
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?
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?
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Percentages-of-Internet-...
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 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.
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.