Apple Vision Pro review: magic, until it's not
theverge.com
theverge.com
Related ongoing thread: Apple Vision Pro review - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39190468
I have racked up hours upon hours of actual, productive work in my Quest 2 and 3, so to say that I am a big proponent of the ideas that Apple is trying to advance would be an understatement. This makes me all the more disheartened to read that, for all their efforts, this release is mired by the same drawbacks that I have encountered across numerous headsets over the last decade:
> [..] there’s a little bit of distortion and vignetting around the edges of the lenses, and you’ll see some green and pink color fringing at the edges as well, especially in bright environments. [..] If you’re looking at something bright or otherwise high contrast [..] you’ll see highlights reflecting in the lenses.
Prior to this review, I was actually willing to understand certain seemingly odd decisions, such as the concept of putting an OLED display on the outside, the potential for weight distribution issues, and an external battery, as I was hopeful that, similar to the iPhone, there'd be a cohesive whole in the end that wasn't fully understandable until reviewers got to use it.
I also was, somewhat naive, I admit that, under the impression that their handling of vignetting, etc. would be less noticable then what seems to be the case and, again naively following their marketing videos, had higher FOV expectations.
To draw a parallel, the initial iPhone made some major tradeoffs and at the time odd choices, to say the least, many of which were laughed at for arguably justifiable reasons at the time, but I could see something in that that went beyond then-available touch-only smartphones and PDAs in terms of usability and cohesiveness.
I fail to see the same in this review. Neither as an actual user nor as an enthusiast, do I see anything here that has not been done before. While your then-PDA may have supported 3G and came with many other capabilities the first iPhone lacked, there were certain things in regard to build, design, usability and intuitiveness that were unparalleled in the products at the time. Comparing an iPhone and an iPAQ Pocket PC made the latter seem ancient, even though it could do a lot the iPhone couldn't. Compare a Vision Pro to a Quest 3, I am saddened to say I don't see the same.
>> While your then-PDA may have supported 3G and came with many other capabilities the first iPhone lacked, there were certain things in regard to build, design, usability and intuitiveness that were unparalleled in the products at the time. Comparing an iPhone and an iPAQ Pocket PC made the latter seem ancient, even though it could do a lot the iPhone couldn't. Compare a Vision Pro to a Quest 3, I am saddened to say I don't see the same.>>
I too was hoping for the sum of the parts to be something special.
I’m picking my AVP up on Saturday. I’ll give it an honest go but expect to return it within a week. I’ve owned most VR headsets and they sit in a drawer, rarely used. For a few hundred dollars I’m ok with that. For a few thousand I am not.
When I see comments like this, and there seem to be many, I can’t help but think VR is a technology in search of a problem. With every platform Apple has launched they show the problem it will solve for customers and I just don’t see that here, and really haven’t seen it with any VR headset, at least not enough to overcome the downsides.
I can’t help but think of this video of Steve Jobs… “you’ve got to start with the customer experience and work backward to the technology. You can’t start with the technology and try to figure out where you’re going to try and sell it.”
It was argued that a big part of the original xbox for Microsoft was making sure they had a toehold in the gaming console market because that market had a change of disrupting the personal computer - and if that happened, they wanted to be there for it and have something ready to go.
They did something similar with phones, and we can see how it spectacularly failed - they have zero say or relevance in the massive smartphone market.
I almost feel the Vision Pro is Apple's attempt to put a toe in the water just in case this VR stuff takes off and destroys the smartphone market.
If I'm not mistaken this is the first properly post-Steve product?
I've avoided the Watch for that reason. The little conveniences of various Apple-thingies are the sort of stuff you can't un-experience, and then you're stuck buying the damn things forever.
But I'll be damned if the AirPods experience isn't far more convenient, and has me using them more than I ever did with wired headphones because they're so quick and easy to use. I can pop one in an ear and immediately I'm listening to a podcast while doing laundry. No cord tethering my head to my pocket, nothing to get snagged on a doorknob, it just works. When I pull one out of my ear it pauses, and resumes when I put it back in. When you only have one AirPod in, it knows and automatically converts the audio stream to mono so you still hear everything.
Still would be nice to have the 3.5mm jack back, but I certainly haven't felt a desire to go back to wired headphones since I got AirPods.
- controlling Spotify - telling time - monitoring my health stuff - an easy to wear timer - getting filtered notifications of things I want to see without grabbing my phone to check - counting rows for knitting
- [0] https://www.wired.com/2015/04/the-apple-watch/
> Ive began dreaming about an Apple watch just after CEO Steve Jobs’ death in October 2011.
Ironic considering, if there is a product whose design arguably should be driven by an obsession with reducing weight and thickness, the AVP is it.
https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloa...
I'm sure they're also looking to use the technologies they develop for this in other products, too.
Jobs publicly bemoaned the lack of, and presumably thought a lot about, "headphones for video". I think it's a safe bet that he set the stage for Apple Vision (and probably sketched out a 50 year plan) with current Apple leaders before his death.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO0OGmNDKVg
> "You know, the fundamental problem here is that headphones are a miraculous thing. You put on a pair of headphones, and you get the same experience you get with a great pair of speakers, right?
> "There's no such thing as headphones for video, right? There's not something I can carry with me that I can put on, and it gives me the same experience I get when I'm watching my 50-inch plasma display at home."
As is often the case, I'd give a lot for companies such as Apple to be more open with their ancient prototypes once a new device gets launched. Sometimes brands, such as Microsoft[0] in the console field showcase iterative prototypes or even produce full-on documentaries of their history, but rarely for new device categories.
I understand why that's not possible, but still, one can dream.
Part of it too is that Apple feels pressure to do something innovative. They made some big bets in the 2000s that paid off very well but a company that has a hit like the iPhone becomes profoundly conservative. The trouble is that there aren't many market opportunities bigger than smartphones, there's a possible iCar and an iHouse and that's about it.
Apple's worst fear might be being successful as a niche product: what if every seat of Dassault 3Dexperience ends up with an Apple Vision Pro? Apple might be left with the maintenance burden forever but no real prospects for a mainstream product.
Back then you were just going to have to deal with the rubbish cable box but I think Apple wasn't going to stand for it.
Today Blu Ray seems to be on the way out and so is the cable box (now we have the spectacle of seemingly competitive vMVPDs that are all priced the same within a few dollars), it now is going to be a fight over game consoles.
TVs though have a serious race to the bottom and the TV with an Amazon Fire TV built in is going to be attractive to a lot of people.
(Also already Apple makes a "TV" removes the tuner and replaces the HDMI ports w/ something else and calls it a "monitor" and charges 5x. No way are they going to cannibalize that market to sell something that only costs 1.5x)
A good beamer might be more fitting for them; they would only have to build them in ‘small’, ‘medium’ and ‘large’.
In either case, like you I’m not sure the market is large enough for a company of Apple’s size and DNA (it’s unlikely that they’ll try to find not one huge next big hit, but lots and lots of smaller ones. They’re not Ikea)
Probably best to just connect TVs to some box (Apple TV, Roku, etc) via plain HDMI and leave it that. There's no technical reason to connect TVs to an IP directly anymore IMHO: what would that actually provide over and above what you get with some box/stick?
Now that I think about it it wouldn't be hard to cut a few holes and route the cables through the wall and have them come out in a spot that's not too conspicuous but who's going to do that?
People who believe in aesthetics uber alles (Apple fans?) might appreciate a TV that has just a power cable and connects through WiFi but you could mostly accomplish that with the right kind of stick. You might say in 2024 who needs a cable box or Blu Ray but game consoles are still a reason to have HDMI. (Though somehow I think Apple would think plugging a Playstation into an Apple TV is as unthinkable as plugging a phonograph into an iPod.)
And even something similar embedded in some TVs.
What I could see Apple doing is some kind of "Made for Apple TV" feature that combines eArc, HDMI, etc, and makes the TV turn into a "dumb TV" for the Apple TV when it is connected and detected.
I don't believe there is an "tvOS Embedded". "Apple TV+" is just an app within the OS; there isn't really any similarity between the embedded app and tvOS.
I've read online some smart tvs will complain, often, to please connect them.
I'd like a tv that works for me, not for the tv manufacturer.
It's also got a remote with way too many buttons like "Netflix" "Disney+" etc. Touch them by accident and it immediately goes to "setup your tv account"
I have Plex, Podcasts, Soma FM, VLC, and Settings in my top row. None of them show me ads; I get to see what I’m in the middle of watching or listening to and jump directly to that content if I want.
Settings is the outlier, as I like to check the battery status of my remote somewhat often, but again, no ads for any of the apps I listed.
Are you sure?
The old idea of giving TVs built-in cellular backup connection is probably still too risky/expensive - dealing with people extracting and repurposing the SIM card with a free (for them) data plan is a hassle. But what about eSIM?
Using a typical smart TV or Chromecast is astoundingly slow in comparison. I have no idea how people tolerate it.
Let’s not forget that Apple and apps on the App Store gather plenty of information about you, especially if you aren’t vigilant about settings.
This seems unlikely. Apple has not hesitated in the past to exit market segments they felt did not suit them. To name a few: servers, displays, routers.
I do think that most people without an iPhone won't buy them so they're essentially still bought as iPhone accessories, but they don't have to be!
I agree about the watch though, that's definitely an iPhone accessory.
Modern Apple is anything like that.
xBox addressed a very well defined product sector with a couple of big players doing stuff that is well understood. xBox wasn't a toe in the water, they planned a whole strategy around it using known facts about the industry, how people play, what kind of games work, they didn't break much new ground with the xBox. All they had to do was make a compelling, affordable gaming device that had amazing games on it. The rest takes care of itself. Apple Vision Pro is nothing like that. There is no existing market to put your toe in, there are no real competitors, we haven't even found a killer use case for these devices.
No one really knows how these AR/VR devices can fit into everyday life. Currently Apple is working on finding the water to put their toe in. Right now they are at an exclusive oasis when they really need an ocean.
Not that I'd be advocating this for library study halls!
Today's smartphones have to evolve this way, imo. I don't know what the most efficient hardware realization would look like but I imagine it's something that isn't in your pocket most of the time, more of a sleek wearable. It will need to be able to hear and see what you do.
I kind of disagree with this. They made networking and online gaming on consoles finally a thing most home consumers were interested in. Sure, there were some earlier forays into online gaming/networking on previous consoles (SegaNet, for example), but those were generally pretty niche. Sega only included a dial-up adapter by default, while the Xbox shipped with an Ethernet adapter. Shipping the Xbox with Ethernet made networking on the box pretty simple right at the time when people started buying home routers and broadband internet and opened up the console to easy LAN gaming.
Microsoft made Xbox Live a pretty massive feature of the console a year after launch. While Xbox Live launched a year after the console shipped, I'd still say the planning of it and including the Ethernet port was something nobody else in the console gaming world was doing and ended up defining the console gaming future.
Sadly they also popularized and solidified the "pay to play games online" feature of consoles, vs the "online play is free except for MMOs" that PCs normally have.
If I am cooking and can hold a whole conversation with my virtual chef,that beats a video though. Talking through ideas at my desk would be great. Talking for navigation while I drive, yes please. Shopping with my headphones on and the device seeing everything I see and making suggestions about deals, recipe options, what's low in your pantry, and so on. I'll take that. I see technology becoming more and more transparent in our life. User interfaces will feel awkward when all you need to do is say "show me a video of cats" and it serves it to your companion screen without ever needing to touch tap any UI. No need to even have a web UI for youtube. Just an API and your device does the rest. It can show you a list of related videos without YouTube themselves providing anything more than the data model.
The cost cutting of not needing sophisticated front ends will be a big driving factor if this is as effective as I think it could be.
Anyways, my head is full of ideas like this.
The issue is... I like(d) writing CSS.
Then the Watch is the future.
This device? No, absolutely not. I see it as a speculative play by Apple: release a very capable device with a bare-bones ecosystem at a high price.
"Early adopters" will buy it because that's what they do.
"Influencers" will buy it, because that's what they do. Their social media posts about it will give Apple all the data they need to nail down the size of the potential market.
Finally, developers will buy it, because it's cool tech. We'll tell ourselves that it's an emerging market, and we can get it early. The launch of the iOS App Store spawned a gold rush for app developers; I expect that the launch of the AVP and its visionOS App Store will do the same. The size and profitability of that opportunity will be determined by how well Apple develops and popularizes the product.
This is where I'm at on it. I expect the AVP to be best-in-class in terms of hardware and OS-level integration (though, to be fair, I expect the latter will be limited at first in odd ways, in the grand Apple tradition).
I'll get one. I plan to use it for productivity, and as long as that justifies the cost I'll be happy with it. I'll also work on some minimal apps for visionOS. The purpose there will be to "skill up". If Apple releases a more consumer-focus headset that gains adoption, I'll be in a good position to take advantage of that by selling paid apps that are already mature by the time the general public are getting on the bandwagon.
> What is going to destroy phones is natural language.
Maybe?
We've heard about "wearable computing" and "personal area networks" for decades at this point. While it still feels like something in the near future, the truth of the matter is that for a large segment of the population, it's already here. I already have an iPhone with me whenever I'm away from home, and usually an iPad as well. If I'm going to be away from home for a while, I've got an MBP in my backpack. All of those devices can hand off tasks between each other to an increasingly large degree - it's not uncommon for me to pull out my phone to show someone a website I had open on my laptop before I left home, then pull out my iPad if they're interested in it so they can interact with it more easily. Until recently, I had an Apple Watch surfacing an integrated notification stream from all of the above.
Today, smartphones are the central "wearable computing" device that ties everything together. They act as a hub for a computing experience. There's no guarantee in my mind that it will continue in that role forever. Maybe the hub will end up being the descendant of the AVP. Maybe it will be something more akin to a Humane AI Pin, or a Rabbit R1.
In other words... phones have already destroyed phones. Smartphones are really wearable computing hubs that we just happen to still _call_ "phones", because that's what they used to be. They're very rarely used for telephony, and many other devices are capable of doing so.
> Maybe, maybe in the distant future this tech will be mature enough to provide the visual support to a natural language first device.
My hope is that it ends up being a "spatial" interface that provides a generic interface so it can be used by pretty much anything.
This is a really important distinction. And if you calculate your phone bill by actual minutes used for talking, it's an insane number of dollars per minute.
I'd be completely unsurprised if the amount of "talking on Zoom/Teams/voice chat" is soon to surpass the total number of minutes talking on phones.
I'm extremely skeptical of this, just because of the vast number of situations where speaking-out-loud isn't going to be desirable. It'll have a place, for sure, but I think it'll be more of a supplement to our current phone paradigm.
There seems something fairly fundamental about smartphone like devices at the moment in that people want a screen where they can see pictures, text messages and so on. A smartphone is a fairly minimal implementation of that. I don't think people want goggles / glasses stuck on their heads especially, at least I don't, regardless of how advanced the tech is. I mean looking around the cafe I'm in it's roughly 100% of people have smartphones, zero have google glass like things. Although the tech has been with us longer than you might think. I first tried a wearable computer with a small eye level display in the 90s and thought hey cool but they never caught on. https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-pc-goes-readytowear
So when a group of people meet, instead of all sitting quiet and typing in their phones, they will all talk to their phones at the same time?
I think the last few years have pretty conclusively proven that there is no VR train to miss. It remains mainly a novelty (with some niche uses) and none of its fundamental issues have been resolved.
Apple putting a toe in the water is roughly equivalent to Microsoft's HoloLens effort. I wouldn't compare it to Xbox or even the Windows Phone. Ironically Apple might fail here because they're developer relations isn't exactly great right now and they might lose this the same way Microsoft lost mobile.
The transition from the PC/laptop has been brutal to the prior entrenched players. I’m inclined to agree with OP that this is a play that is about more about creating options now. Might be that Apple executes the winner and happily cannibalizes itself but it does not want to be in a position where it is 5 years behind in terms of R&D if another company breaks through first.
Namely, I wonder if the tethered battery and lack of dedicated controller exists to prepare people for a future where their headset plugs into an iPhone (or iPad or Mac), which then serves as a battery, co-processor, and input device.
Instead now I use it for entertainment and very much like it, but if I could make that next leap it would be great!
I have Q3 and try to use it for work from time to time and it is still not enough to replace an actual monitor, at least for me.
FOV of 110 degress is too narrow, maybe 140 degress would solve it, but I'm not sure. The thing is that apparently I glance to content without turning my head a lot and I discovered it when I tried to use Q3 for actual work. Even though the lenses and POV are much better than on Q2 and other wired VR glasses it's not enough for me still. Also sometimes reflections in the lenses are too bright and distracting and I don't know how to fix this.
Resolution is much much better than Q2 and Quest S that I also have, but it's still not enough. And IPS panel is the biggest downside of it. That should've use OLED instead.
But the main problem that stops me from using it is the smoothness of the whole process of starting to work. You can't just sit behind you desk, put on the glasses and start working. The whole process reminds me of preflight preparation: you need to ensure that the software is running and correctly setup on you PC and that's not always the case. You always need to ensure that you have controllers by your side, because hand tracking often fails, and Q3 often struggles to find my hands at all. Basically, software wise it's not there for a 100% smooth ride like with screens where you just sit at your desk and start to work without a single hitch.
In short, it's like a death by thousand cuts. Some people can tolerate some of them and can use Q3 for work, but in my case I wasn't able to tolerate any of them and that kills it for me for now. I hope for Q4 or maybe Quest Pro 2 after seeing a slim prototype that Mark showed some time ago.
Incidentally it seems like the apple set does a much better job of this if you are in the apple ecosystem, but at such a high cost and limit on the entertainment options, at least for now.
I just sit behind my desk, put on the glasses and start working.
Maybe you’re not aware of the feature that both Meta Remote Desktop and Virtual Desktop offer, to auto-connect when the headset is put on. No friction.
OTOH, VD only permits 1 virtual display, and Meta RD offers 3x1080p ones, but both options are plenty sharp to work on.
The free Desktop+ overlay for SteamVR, however provides unlimited virtual displays of any resolution. That’s what I prefer, but it doesn’t have the auto-connect feature like the other 2.
Not sure what you think you need hand tracking for, I use my keyboard and mouse like I do without the headset.
Regarding hand tracking it's just more comfortable for me to use my hands to control MQ interface without looking for controllers every time I need to do something in VR.
It might work for your specific circumstances or maybe you're more tolerant to it's issues but as a whole it doesn't work for me at the moment. I've seen a few reviews of AVP and it seems to tick more boxes for me than MQ. But the problem right now are the price and Apple-only ecosystem, i.e. there's no way to use virtual desktops with non-Mac computers.
The thing is that the current state of VR regarding work inside it is still mostly for enthusiasts who are willing to tolerate early-adopters' issues and I'm not one of them. I need it to work flawlessly like a regular setup with a monitor.
> it just can't keep being authenticated with my Meta account. Virtual Desktop … can't remember my Meta Quest username … I must always remember to enter the username.
That would be a really rough experience, I’m sorry to hear that’s happening to you. I haven’t had to enter my username since the first time I launched either app, over a month ago.
I also use hand tracking to adjust the screens, but stick to keyboard and mouse for all my work on said virtual displays.
Thankfully the auto-connect feature works smoothly for me, so adjusting the position of displays is the only time I need to use the hand tracking.
I have a lot of questions. Would you recommend them? Do you work primarily in VR? I haven't tried VR but the use-case I envision is to put on a VR headset and be "at work".
Yes, no, maybe. Thing is, I've never used a device or software that I haven't found faults with. Overall, the Quest has turned into a solid, though still imperfect, platform, with Meta pushing updates at a consistent, but also breakneck pace, sometimes at the expense of addressing existing issues. Hand tracking from the early days of the Q2 has made massive leaps and has become my preferred method of navigation for its reliability and ease, yet at the same time, the changes in camera placement between the Q2 and Q3 lead to a decrease in controller tracking performance in very specific scenarios. Essentially, they are constantly experimenting, both on the hard- and software front, trying to optimize what they can within their very low price point. Still, if you are interested and have an idea what you'd like to use the headset for, I'd recommend trying one within the return window, though I'd strongly suggest adding a "halo-style" strap (BoboVR is my current favorite) for comfort.
> Do you work primarily in VR?
No, a more healthy mix between a single 27" JOLED and the Quest 3 for workloads that require more screen real estate but can go without as much overall resolution. About 60/40 in favor of the regular panel.
- Requires controllers - Requires wifi instead of plugging in the cable and it just works* - Has fairly limited battery life
Am I mistaken on these points / do you think it would work on an airplane despite them?
* To be fair, the XA only "just works" in vanilla display mode, the fancy xreal multiple virtual monitors feature called Nebula doesn't work well enough to be worth the hassle.
Concerning your question, it's very different. While VR content can be cast both over USB or wireless, for flat-screen casting, wireless is the preferred and most comprehensively supported way, which, whilst tether-free, can be less seamless when out-and-about than just plugging in a cable. Note that wireless does not require a local WiFi router or internet connection but can also be handeled directly from a host device, still, less reliable than a plain cable carrying video signal. Furthermore, as the Quest has its own full on operating system based on Android, rather than receiving an HDMI signal like the Viture or XA, there is an additional point of complexity to consider, and it looks a lot less inconspicuous than the XA. Lastly, tracking via the cameras is a great advantage in general use, though a very inclosed, darkish space such as an aeroplane may push the small sensors to their limit and yes, battery life can be a limit as well, though I do hot-swap BoboVR battery at the back of my skull for that. Still not as convenient as just using your phones power and having that charged.
Quest does not require an controller at this point, hand tracking is currently my prefered way of navigating the system day-to-day.
Overall, I'd agree, on an airplane I'd consider the Quest to be of marginal usability.
With VR/AR headsets, the friction to 'boot in' seems to be one of the biggest problems in adoption, and one that I feel Meta et al don't openly talk about. (Note, I am ignorant of this field in general).
How close are we to seamless, quick boot, such that one puts on a headset and are 'immediately' immersed? (Compare to my phone, which unlocks before my eyes even have time to focus on the screen).
(My admittedly poor) web searching of this question just tends to offer webpages on common boot issues (e.g. 'Quest boot time'/'Vive startup time' just leads to complaints and support forums.)
I suspect this also to be a primary issue with the true 'metaverse' taking hold. GTA6 will, in my opinion, be the luxury 'hang-out' metaverse, but will likely take many minutes to access. I feel that Microsoft could have made Minecraft the de facto metaverse (by implementing certain features), but will never quite get there. Perhaps a WebGL game that can take you to a bookmarked 'spacial' lobby within 3000ms can get real traction.
It's not something I ever really thought about, you boot it once a session and it goes idle/wake, not hibernate if you just put it on your desk for a minute.
The MQ3 is WAY better than my Vive and better even than the MQ2 at being a "throw on and gun" quick device. It's way lighter, less work to get going with.
The MQ3 is an awesome device, I love it.
I have no skin in the game and no intention of buying anything for another couple of years at least, FWIW.
Anyway: Sibling post says ~5 seconds from standby - Which seems very reasonable to me, so I suppose it's just lack of compelling features (subjectively to the people in question, not regular users) that result in the 'gathering dust'... Which means the people I have spoken to haven't wanted to bother keeping it on standby (thus increasing the barriers further).
And while it may sound weird that putting it on is such an ordeal, keep in mind that there's a lot of inherently fiddly bits and many have compromises. Like the PSVR2 requires me to go turn the lights on, because it uses inside-out tracking which doesn't work well in a dark room. But also you have to fiddle around with the position of it, get it in a comfortable spot, wiggle it a bit so the lenses line up with your eyes as you had it last configured, etc... Then realize that you smudged the lens with your forehead so take it off and clean it and do it again but more carefully this time.
Nothing I use with any frequency gets rebooted except for updates, more or less.
Exception: non-Apple stuff. Because those things tend to die while "sleeping" and unplugged, very quickly (my secondary work Windows laptop, which burns almost half its battery per 12 hours in "sleep mode"; my Steamdeck, which is barely better than that; the Switch though it's almost always on the dock anyway so that's rarely an issue)
If it's like macOS, maybe 2-3 seconds to interactive.
Odd that it doesn't work that way for me with controllers, maybe it's a setting you chose? For me no amount of moving the controllers or even pushing the buttons or triggers will wake the headset, it only wakes up if I put it on or through the power button.
I have a Quest 2 right now and attempting to use it for desktop computing just doesn't work all that well for me (their Quest Link app with desktop windows, or SteamVR desktop feature; might also have to use the Meta Workspace app or whatever it was called in the future). All of the text feels a bit blurry and it's like the resolution just isn't there.
I don't even have that high of a resolution dev setup outside of VR, just four 21.5" monitors running at 1080p. I do catch myself squinting a little bit at them sometimes, but 10, 11 and 12 font sizes (in JetBrains IDEs and VS Code) seem too small in VR and going bigger decreases the lines of code per screen to an annoying degree.
Best I can do in VR for that ends up being one huge monitor in front of me, two on each side, as well as a huge overhead one, but that leads to a lot of turning my head, maybe just a bit more than I'd like to.
I'm not sure whether it's the headset with the lenses that's messed up, whether it's my eyes that are just bad, or the fact that the distance between the lenses should be a little higher than the headset allows for (at least based on what an IPD test I read online suggests), but the end result is that the experience isn't very good... yet.
What I want is, the ability to have large displays laid back on my bed/couch, and the ability to walk around the room and place different open Safari windows and apps around my physical space as I think and study some new topic. That’s all. The new virtual world stuff is just a cute addition for me, it’s not what I am buying it for. I am buying this thing to have an infinite number of screens placed anywhere in my space, and that’s all I wanted.
Sure, I can do other safari windows for research and stuff, but what I really want is different windows of IDEs, code search, docs, and work artifacts. Many of which may not be accessible through the vision pro (VPN, device certs, etc.), but are through my macbook.
If we could have at least 4 or 5 mac windows, it would be much better, otherwise it's akin to a macbook + external monitor. Hopefully they figure out a way to add it in, but it's hard to buy with such an obvious usecase missing.
This seems like a perfectly reasonable task and why it is useful.
> I plan to use it with a keyboard and mouse anyway
And judging from reviews this seems required for productivity.
I cannot imagine walking around the room with one hand holding a keyboard and another holding a mouse. Maybe they need to sell a contraption that straps a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse to your body so much you can move around hands free?
The original comment explained perfectly well how they would use it. If that use case suits them, then its their prerogative. This gatekeeping of use cases is so odd; why does it matter so much how someone else uses the device?
I'm simply stating my opinion as to why this device doesn't suit me; to be more precise I'm stating why somebody else's use case is not my use case. Why do you assume my comment is supposed to generalize to everybody's use cases?
Anyways this sounds infuriating:
> you have to be looking at something in order to click on it, and that means you are constantly taking your attention away from whatever you’re working on to specifically look at the button you need to press next. I spent some time playing a lovely little game called Stitch that quickly became maddening because I kept looking away from the piece I wanted to move to the place I wanted to move it, which meant I wasn’t picking it up when I tapped my fingers.
And also:
> I talk through writing video scripts to make sure things flow, and I talk with my hands. So as I was writing the video script for this review in the Vision Pro, the system kept catching my hands moving and started scrolling and clicking on things by accident. I cracked up the first time I realized what was happening. But eventually, it meant that I took the Vision Pro off and wrote the rest of the script on my Mac, which only does things when I actually want it to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkPw6ScHyb4&t=549s
This seems, to me, the only possible way to use this as a productivity device and wish more reviews would have tried it to get a better sense of whether it changes things.
Gruber's review also talks about the trackpad a bit:
That right there might be worth the price of admission.
CNET - Apple Vision Pro Review: A Mind-Blowing Look at an Unfinished Future
https://www.cnet.com/tech/computing/apple-vision-pro-review-...
WSJ - Apple Vision Pro Review: The Best Headset Yet Is Just a Glimpse of the Future
https://www.wsj.com/tech/apple-vision-pro-review-39f2d82e?mo...
Tom's Hardware - Apple Vision Pro review: A revolution in progress
https://www.tomsguide.com/computing/smart-glasses/apple-visi...
CNBC - Apple Vision Pro review: This is the future of computing and entertainment
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/30/apple-vision-pro-review-the-...
Experience shows that they will keep on iterating on it year after year.
The thing I was most interested in was if they could nail an intuitive UI right from the outset.
Hopefully they can reduce price to $1500 in next few generations and increase functionality:
- macOS support (We can only probably dream about it)
- usb-c / hdmi out so this can replace desktop iMac when connected to external monitor (still probably unlikely)
- 3rd party access to cameras stream if given permission - hard to make any innovation with this hardware if you cannot even detect QRCodes because Apple doesn't provide any API and you don't have access to camera feed.
Apple has always said that they want a version that fits in a glasses style form factor as their mass market product, but the tech wasn't there yet.
> Apple CEO Tim Cook said that it will be a while before the technology available for augmented reality glasses rises to Apple’s standards, according to British Vogue.
“There are rumours and gossip about companies working on that, and we obviously don’t talk about what we work on. But today I can tell you that the technology itself doesn’t exist to do that in a quality way,” Cook told Vogue.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/11/apple-ar-glasses-tim-cook-sa...
They keep iterating on it in-house, and keep finding that the tech still isn't ready.
https://www.tomsguide.com/news/apple-glasses
I think the current plans are to focus on a cheaper version of Vision Pro in the short term.
https://www.tomsguide.com/news/apple-glasses-reportedly-dela...
This is a Pro product release. I’m personally inclined to believe that this product is more likely to kill off the entire VR/goggles dream than lead to a $500-$1000 iteration that’s at least as big as iPad.
Glasses? Like the ones I have on my face? Not in my lifetime…
This is Tim Cook’s trash can Mac.
Your remaining lifetime must be pretty short.
Technology evolves at a ridiculously fast pace. Just as a reminder, the Nokia 3310 was one of the most popular phones in 2000. We went from tiny, monochrome displays to foldable full-color displays with magnitudes higher resolution in what most call a quarter of a lifetime.
But I mean, look at it - the first Quest was $300-400, fairly comfortable, self-contained and standalone with tethering capability. If you just wanted to watch TV or browse the web in VR, that's what you'd want to buy. Oculus made the Steam Deck of VR, and all the other business models seem kinda extreme by comparison. I doubt we'd be seeing the reservation towards Vision Pro today if there weren't cheaper entertainment-focused headsets already on the market.
Also it costs 10x as much with huge drawback above. Inflation makes this a smaller number but the difference is still massive, for a plastic toy soon to be obsolete looking like kids ski googles.
But if they persist, which all reviews seem to hang their overall positive rating on, magic we all hope for might eventually happen
A cell phone was necessary, but a smart phone was not. At the time, most people were still using non-smart cell phones. It’s still a valid comparison.
> Still 90% of folks around me (doctors, IT, rest of reality) think whole concept of VR/AR is for kids
This is exactly why Apple insists on only using the term “spatial computing” in order to fight the strange bias people have for something they haven’t even tried yet
> But if they persist, which all reviews seem to hang their overall positive rating on, magic we all hope for might eventually happen
Yes, it mirrors the reviews for the original iPhone
It's uncomfortable, isolating, constraining, expensive, anti-social and its use cases are at best temporarily impressive but quickly grow old.
The entire product category simply sucks. I'm sure the incidental 3D movie experience is great, but most people don't watch movies every single day for hours on end whilst sitting alone on the couch.
It's slow to operate, can't easily be shared with others and having gigantic screens surrounding you is a useless novelty without utility. Watch people with big monitor setups. They watch the middle one whilst the other 2 are stale and only get the occasional peek. This super-multitasking idea is a myth and not how people work.
Consider how when people own both an iPhone and an iPad, they almost always use the iPhone, even for use cases in which the iPad is superior. It's quicker, more flexible, hassle-free, always ready.
Another issue is that the type of content/experience that would truly shine on such a headset, is impossibly hard/expensive to make. So that leaves out 99% of app developers.
Everything else seems to be more a question of price.
Maybe it will be useful in 20 years.
> Watch people with big monitor setups. They watch the middle one whilst the other 2 are stale and only get the occasional peek.
That makes it sound unviable, but you underestimate how great a passive monitor can be. Something to have some music or video run on, or to view output while one monitor has developmental tools on it. It saves a lot of friction from switching virtual desktops or alt-tabbing (which can ruin certain viewing applications).
That's honestly a big selling point for me, the ability to pack in a portable double/triple monitor setup for travel. Not $3500 selling point, but it does make me consider trying one of them out before the close of the decade
>Another issue is that the type of content/experience that would truly shine on such a headset, is impossibly hard/expensive to make.
Yeah I imagine so. Beat Saber is crazy fun and something not easily emulated on a controller, but making that truly killer app in this modern environment is hard. But I guess the App Store encouraged that for mobile, maybe they can capture lightning twice.
I also wish the Vision would do that, but it only allows one virtual display from your Mac, unless you’re satisfied with running iPhone and iPad apps as your “multiple monitors”.
But.. that's the point. Of course 90% of the time you look right in front of you. Everything else would be tiring.
The advantage of a multi-monitor setup, or spatial computing with Vision Pro, is that for those 10% of times when you need to do something else, that other window is right there. No need to alt-tab through a bunch of apps to find your log file viewer. It's always there, just a glance away, and you can cross-reference multiple windows without them overlapping another.
This is what people always say about this, but you can’t look at two different monitors simultaneously.
Your fingers are already on the keyboard. Once you get the two apps together on alt-tab order, they are one kepress away from each other, and you don’t have to move your eyes or head at all if they are overlapping or just next to each other in the same monitor.
I do this as well as using a tiling window manager than can be completely controlled from the keyboard, and I am much faster at getting information between different windows than colleagues who have multiple monitors. They spend a lot of time trying to remember where they put the other window, looking back and forth between many monitors many times, looking for their mouse pointer, and also, they too still have to alt-tab.
The farther apart two windows are, like on two monitors, the harder it is to copy text from one and paste it in the other, etc etc.
I have a vive, q2 and q3. Look at him trying to type on that keyboard. I have hand gestures on my q3. They're nice for a few certain things, but thankfully I can forget they exist for 99% of what I do, that isn't flinging windows/screens left and right and expanding them in front of me. Or turning wifi on and off, etc..
And.. you can't do multiple screens and it has less resolution than my real life monitor when connecting to a mbp.. hm. I thought that was a super cool feature when I thought you could just add monitors wherever. I hadn't even thought of it before they showed it in the demo.
Knowing Apple they would more likely follow the lead of the Quest Pro controllers though, which have their own set of cameras and perform their own inside-out tracking independently of the headset. It's expensive and power hungry but more robust since they work just as well when the headset can't see the controllers.
But maybe in my 5 years these will be in every single hospital, school, etc. Who knows.
I think there's still appeal in that you can take this monitor with you and float it in front of you wherever you want. That's worth the reduced resolution imo
If you’re satisfied with using only iPhone and iPad apps, then fair enough.
That's the main feature I would have bought this device for - seamless window sharing between apple devices/macbooks. Sad to see it isn't the case. Hopefully the immersed visor [0] pans out for work! Excited to try vision pro, but seeming likely that I'll end up returning it by the 2 week period.
[0] - https://www.visor.com/.
Disclaimer, I have a preorder for both Visor and Vision Pro.
$40 monthly membership. And that's the cheaper option to get the cool features like multiple work spaces and the extended battery.
I get the feeling that the Visor will not be long for this world if they don't change their business model.
edit: Now that I've watched the visor video it seems almost 100% focused on productivity with monitors, interesting
I think they knew before halfway through that it was not possible to build a practical product, but Apple thinks it's important to stay relevant and appear innovative, so they went along and built it anyway. Maybe that was the intention from the start.
I'm not sure why they created and marketed so many dystopian features though. The part of the demo where the dad played with his kids while wearing the Vision Pro and then watched the playback alone later was disturbing. Same with people talking using the EyeSight feature instead of taking of the goggles and making real eye contact.
I'm glad I'm not alone who feels the same. To me, that scene is so out of place, so dystopian that it's outright ridiculous that it's presented in a demo like this.
We're already looking at pictures and videos of our kids on the phone a lot of the time anyway. Which required us to be holding our phones in hand while playing with our kids.
It only seems weird because it's unfamiliar. But it's not more dystopian than trying to capture special moments with a camcorder.
A phone in the hand is objectively far less intrusive than a full on mask on your eyes that prevents half of your face being seen by your kids.
What I was reminded by by this trailer is this image actually [0]. And then I had the thought immediately how technology doesn't actually "get us ahead" in a way, but rather, sets a new baseline. I have a car, so I can get faster to work, but since everyone has cars, I'm expected to drive to begin with, and work is further away, so commute still takes a lot of time. With VR, I can see that people don't meet, for example, since they can "see each other" in VR anyways, so why bother. I'd not like to say that this is the only valid way to think, but this was about my thought process, when they flashed that scene in the video. It felt lonely, isolated, only a shell of the good times past. And indeed, it's not very different than doing the same with a camcorder. So if the camcorder can provide access to that special memory, I'm sure this new tech also can.
[0] https://www.deviantart.com/eranfowler/art/Reality-78861805
But I do not think it was ever the plan that you would create spatial videos primarily from the headset. You can also take them with the latest gen of iPhones, but the VisionPro demo predated the iPhone announcement.
And not in a Porsche shouldn't make an SUV sort of way -- rather on the way out he shared some pretty well articulated moral issues with the product and how Jobs would release buggy products, but rarely fundamentally flawed ones.
This IMO is Tim Cooks first totally original product. The Watch was an Ive product. It will mark whether or not he can find original needs in the market, or simply will fall into what Jobs accused every bad CEO of doing -- SKUs for SKUs sake.
Well they're not stupid and know/research their target customer. Apparently this is what people want?
I am confused why they didn't go with something like google glass.
I feel like this is for loner people who want experiences
One has worked with VR for research, and is familiar with the HTC Vive and Meta Quest headsets, but has not used VR for personal use. The other person used the Quest for gaming, and has been curious about Apple's approach.
Outside of people with past experience using VR, though, I haven't personally heard people talking about Apple's version. The price point is likely a major factor: a larger number of people could imagine owning an Apple Watch or iPad shortly after release (even if relatively pricey), in contrast to the Apple Vision Pro upon release.
Regardless I don't really think the products are really comparable. Microsoft never really made a good example usecase for what a normal person would use a Hololens for. It was always moonshot, "construction workers will wear them to map out things for work" and "doctors will use it to assist with surgery." Apple at least has a layman utility for the VP. Whether that utility and its tradeoffs are worth the money is yet to be seen.
Anybody who can afford the VP for watching movies can afford the place and equipment to have a far superior movie-watching experience.
And as many reviews have noted: the VP has a worse FOV than the Quest 2 or 3, and the same blurriness and artifact issues that the Quest 3 has. The summary consensus is that the VP is the best VR headset on the market, but not 7x its next competitor.
we're arguably in a recession right now and this device is priced higher than almost any other apple product in history. Only a top of the line retina macbook pro really comes close. It's not a great time to sell super expensive tech, and not a good time to invest in such tech unless you can fund yourself.
The first Apple Watch started at $349 for aluminum/small screen.
Living in LA at the time, I know a lot of people that coughed up the extra ~$250 (so $599 total) because of the implications of having the aluminum ones.
The Vision Pro is hardly "priced higher than almost any other apple product in history."
The Max prices do start to hit $3500 but by that point these are essentially top of the line builds instead of the bare minimum cost of entry.
That being said, it feels like a few small things would make a consumer version of this really take off:
- Cut the weight in half (i.e., use plastic).
- Drop the gimmicky eye TV (save weight, and probably make the whole thing thinner).
- Make it thin/modular enough to collapse into a headphones-sized case.
- And then if its light enough, a magnetic strap might be strong enough, making the transition in/out smoother and less likely to mess up hair.
- Drop the price $1k.
That is, simply paring things down might be enough to take this product out of the awkward-nerd-goggles category and into something more like a cozy-interactive-sleepmask for travelers.
If the rumors are true that Valve is working on a standalone VR headset based around an AMD APU, I think that might be the shot in the arm that VR gaming needs, with hardware more powerful than can be found in the Quest lineup as well as x86/Windows compatibility and greater general openness.
Alyx is very well made, but its not hard to see that they designed around fundamental limits that make VR suck. they don't overcome them. They perhaps manage to cover it with enough polish to get people to not notice. but its hard for anyone with design or, let's call it "gamer sense"
I think that HL:A is easily the best VR game that exists, but it doesn't have a lot of replay value and can only be played on desktop.
HL:A, as I said in another comment, is just a case study on why VR won't work. With no disrespect to the devs because I think they really did do a good job with what they had, but it still sucks if you dare to peek under the hood. It coddles you (because it needs to).
During lockdown, I was playing 8 hours a day. It became a problem.
But yeah, not really game.
Strong disagree. This is the single best idea they had with the headset. VR isolation is at the very top of things keeping back mass adoption, and Eyesight is a brilliant solution to that.
I’ve wanted a VR headset for a few years and if it was a bit cheaper and compatible with existing flight sims and stuff I’d be interested but the lack of compatibility is a deal killer for that price.
I know I’m not the target market apparently but I’m all in on the rest of the apple ecosystem.
I have much lower spec'd VR goggles and they mostly gather dust. There's just something about having a screen pressed up against your eyes that's weird and uncomfortable in a way that is hard to articulate.
No screen door? Cool! Great motion tracking? Awesome! Premium materials? Eh, OK! But as long as I still need to strap a little box around my eyes with screens in it, I'm going to be limiting my exposure time. My eyes like air, and "better than the competition at all the things" doesn't actually make it solve any real problems I have.
For me, such a thing just can't be more than a toy.
I think this device will flounder, early adopters will struggle to make full use of it because of all the compromises. Take it on the plane? Why? It will run out of power in 1-2 hrs (if you remembered the full charge before you board). Lugging all that bulk just for a movie on the plane while you look like a black mirror drone.
Then there is TV, it's great if you live by yourself, but what couple has $7k to drop so they can watch TV together. For ~2hrs.
Office work? No thanks, I can't wear that all day and actually be productive.
It's an amazing accomplishment, but who is it for? The ~200k wealthy people who mostly live by themselves isn't going to fulfill an AR revolution for Apple.
I wonder what Jobs would have done.
I am sure USB-C with PD will be available at some point, but it's not a majority of economy today AFAIK
That's not "their old mouse", it's the current mouse. We're still on the 2015 design with the charging port at the bottom. (I have one and I don't mind/care, I just chuckle once a month when I remember to charge it)
The annoying Apple limitation is that you can't hot-swap the battery.
The device has breakthrough--when someone comes near (eg a flight attendant), it breaks through the immersive VR and shows them to you. You can take off the headset at that point if you choose.
Again there's a lot to question about how this headset will practically work for people, but this ain't it. In fact I'd argue airplanes are one of the use-cases for this device that makes the most sense. How many places do I want to completely disappear from my environment and pretend I'm somewhere else? A long haul flight is tops on that list.
It's unfortunate that it can't be used on planes yet, then. I saw a video where someone tried it, and apps were just left behind in space by the airplane's movement. It makes sense why this would be the case, but it also should be obvious that if you're in a sealed room, apps you open into the room shouldn't fall through the room if it's moving.
Or when someone walks past to use the washroom.
I guess we'll see how people use it, but right now it is too expensive and full of compromises for me to consider.
Together and alone at the same time. Eye contact and unhindered vision of the face of a partner are important things.
You can get an awesome 2-3 hour immersive movie experience and still look at your partner after. A good cinema experience already envelopes me and makes me forget I’m surrounded by a hundred others.
I think every "new paradigm" Apple product had similar growing pains. The Mac launched with only 128kb RAM, the iPhone lacked basic functionality and ditched physical keyboards, and the iPad was "just a big iPod". Also, in all cases, there was no software for them at launch.
Every time, we seem to ask "What is this good for?" or "How will this ever be good when it has these fundamental limitations?" But then, a few years down, it's suddenly commonplace, even indispensable.
I think that like the new paradigms before it, it's hard to imagine a clear future for this product. But they always seem to find their way after Apple gets them out the door. Not saying I'm convinced there will be a headset in every home, but I think the "spatial computing" paradigm is far more likely to find a path forward than it is to die.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1357650X.2021.2...
possibly nsfw if you work for the puritans and love kelloggs
(and... that, with my off hand as well. No clue why. I guess I hold a screen with my dominant hand?).
Yeah, but at least Apple focuses on privacy
I honestly don’t think the general public is all that concerned.
(But I am)
One smart thing Apple usually does when using cameras for sensing (see Face ID) is never showing you the image, making it feel a lot less creepy.
My thought at this point is that I'm going to decide pretty quickly after using it whether this is actually going to work, and there's about a 50% chance I'm going to return it, because I'm starting to doubt whether it will.
Some things I'm worried about:
- The weight may make it so uncomfortable that the whole experience isn't worth it for 8 hours a day
- FOV and vignetting issues are likely going to be worse than I thought and a distraction
- App compatibility means it's possible that 90% of the work I'm doing is going to be on the mac virtual display anyway, meaning I paid $3500 for a bigger (virtual) screen that I have to put a heavy/uncomfortable headset on my head to see
We'll see what the verdict is. I'm hoping they have a software update at some point that lets you "tear out" macOS app windows into virtual space... that may put it over the edge from not-worth-it to worth-it if it happens.
The weight is definitely on the "let's see how big of a deal this becomes" list though.
A mouse, keyboard, and proper monitor/screen work likely work better than a virtual screen without all the well known negatives that come with the latter. We'll see how it plays out though.
Also worth pointing out that the mouse seamlessly moves from your Mac screen to any native Vision Pro apps. So if I do all my web browsing in “native” Vision Pro, then add in Slack and Messages and Mail as native vision pro apps (using the same keyboard and mouse for input, mind you), I will likely only be using the virtual Mac screen for my IDE. Being able to put everything but my IDE in arbitrary virtual space around me is a step up from my single screen today, absent other comfort issues.
But, i haven't tried it (nor do I plan to any time soon), so I can only guess.
Can the same be said for productivity and general computing yet? I don’t think so. Will I prefer a Vision Pro over 2 4K monitors? Highly unlikely. Will I grab my Vision Pro as I head out the door, rather than my laptop? No.
There are some fundamental technology problems that need solving before that becomes a reality. Size and weight need an order of magnitude reduction, and the pass through has to be better which will require advancements in dark scene video processing.
Realistically speaking, if AR does “take off” as a productivity and general computing tool I don’t see it happening for another 7-15 years.
Good controls on a 2D screen are far more immersive than bad controls on a VR headset. VR makes good controls very hard to do.
But this review got me really hooked, and I didn't even notice that it was 30 minutes long. Easily the best tech review I've ever seen. And it also felt very well-balanced between the good and the not so good things about the vision pro.
By all accounts, Apple is at least 5 years ahead of Meta in terms of hardware. With all of Apple's compute/display tech, and at 8-9x the price point of Quest, it still seems like the Vision Pro falls short of delivering the breakthrough experience needed to make AR/VR mass market.
Not to mention that it still doesn't seem like AVP answers the "killer app" question that Meta has been trying to answer. If the value prop at this point is "a big virtual screen", I guess their work over the next few years will be getting the price point down to a level where consumers buy this over a monitor?
The reason they can’t is their target price is much lower.
Now those definitely exist in a research lab somewhere on the Meta campus, but I doubt they're close to making them in high quantities.
The shortcomings and skepticism surrounding the AVP is pretty reminiscent of the above examples' own initial releases. Unless AVP is an exception to the rule, I think both the hardware and the software will start to get extremely good over the next few years. But that is unavoidably predicated by a flawed gen 1 being released.
what about Apple Watch, AppleTV and HomePod? Those don't have the app success story of the Mac, iPhone and iPad.
There's two paths that lead to a passionate developer base popularizing your platform via their apps: 1) build a platform that developers love to use i.e. Mac and iPhone to a certain extent 2) offer access to a product with a lot of users i.e. iPhone and iPad
The AVP is more like the first HomePod (quite expensive compared to its 'competition' and irrelevant long before the mini arrived) than the iPhone and iPad which launched at competitive/accessible prices so we're not expecting a product with lots of users.
Could the AVP be a platform that developers love to use? The mostly likely use case from a developer perspective appears to be as a portable big screen monitor for your Mac albeit with limitations*. Would that be compelling enough? Craig Hockenberry https://furbo.org/2024/01/29/the-next-40/ :
"Apple Vision Pro is a technical marvel, but ultimately falls short in ways that satisfy the natural curiosity of developers."
*p.s. there are other headsets with similar display specs to AVP rumored for later this year. It might be worth waiting if you primarily want virtual monitors for your Mac
I have to agree with this. We're getting more and more physically lonely as we find ourselves represented by personas on social networks and messaging services. I find the thought of viewing even the real world through a lens an extension of the wrong path we're already onto. Letting technology improve our daily lives and to connect doesn't have to be done this way. It's ironic, because mental health is plummeting in the western world and loneliness has been seen as a major contributing factor. That isn't letting technology help us, but letting technology consume us.
As someone who used a living room tv with a wireless keyboard as a monitor for a while, I felt it sucked. Can't see why this would actually be a plus.
I would riot without my 49", mouse and kbs, and aeron.
As much as I don't love VR - it makes me nauseous, it leaves marks sometimes on my face I can't help but notice how amazing the immersive quality is. It isn't going to replace everything and it won't replace a computer - its a different product vertical and it will certainly be around in the future. It's been around since the 90s and will last a long time.
Early innings still...
I think this the Apple Business plan in its entirety.
But we shorten it to "Lock-in" for brevity. (or platform, moat, walled garden, etc)\
Not that theres anything wrong with that!
Cant run MacOS.
Lockin, HW.
I would bet the version announced in 4 years will be naturally usable all day
What do you imagine that device to look like, and cost?
Didn’t realize how limited the field of view and the color coverage was.
But all the popular reviewers are pretty skeptical. I think when another company offers a less ambitious VR headset they have given them a pass because the market target is more limited. Apple’s not getting a pass. It’s impressive but not magical and there are a lot of unoptimal design characteristics for a general purpose face mask computer.
The travel case is stupid and costly but necessary. Can you imagine buying the travel backpack that can hold it, and then unpacking everything in economy plus, and then having to store it away most of it for a flight, and then repack at landing? Even in business class it’d be conspicuous and bothersome and busy.
But the Vision Pro would need two cables (power brick and battery pack, which is required even when plugged in to the brick) and when you get up to use the bathroom your neighbor will absolutely trip crossing your seat and land their ass on the Vision Pro you left behind.. that you don’t want to wear into the cramped airplane bathroom.
I hope this term takes off more than "spatial computing device"
GPFMC
https://tftcentral.co.uk/articles/pointers_gamut
The charts obscure it but it is reds/purples/blues you are missing, not the reds and blues that occur in naturally lit scenes but rather colors you might see in fireworks or CGI effects. The "Pointer Gamut" of naturally occurring colors is relatively small compared to the colors you might see hypothetically. There has been a lot of progress in the greens for formats like Display P3 but more saturated red and blue primaries are difficult because the sensitivity of the eye drops off and you need a lot more light to get equivalent perceived brightness.
Also, if you don't like Apple... read the review! Nilay Patel has a lot of really good critiques of the headset. He concludes by basically saying he's not sold.
That’s still a far cry from “millions” (plural), but I wouldn’t be surprised.
This really is an amazing tech "solution" looking for a problem to solve.
There effectively wasn’t a tablet market before the iPad.
You also forgot ‘mp3 player’ - which was a market not created by Apple but there wasn’t really a “growing mass market” - it was niche at best.
According to Statista, there is[0]. The market is expected to grow by about 10% annually for the next half decade. Moreover, if this weren't a growing mass market, I don't think FB would have renamed to Meta and gone all-in on VR headsets. They just dropped the Quest 3 which undercut their 3x as expensive Quest Pro. The tech is rapidly improving and the market is definitely growing so I think it's natural that Apple wants to enter it.
I was thinking you might use a device like this as a laptop replacement while traveling. Maybe I would because I'm a notorious overpacker but I think most people wouldn't. The carrying case for my Hololens 1 is crazy big and I know a grad student who sometimes shuttles a Meta Quest Pro to work and it fills his whole backpack.
one thing I'm super surprised about is that it doesn't use their stage manager window management. When they introduced that to the mac os, it seemed like it was designed for this, and introducing it on the mac would get their users ready to already know how to use the vision pro before it even releases.
I think this is a good thing. I don't want to be protected from myself - let me find and push my own limits, and I'll keep myself in my comfort zone if I need to. Attempts to protect me from myself typically result in frustration, since I don't like being confined to what they think is safe.
The Verge hit the nail on the head with hand gestures. The input device is critical for a new computing platform. This is too awkward to be something you do all day.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is the most returned Apple product.
Only thing that annoys me about this review that he has to mention constantly that it messes up his precious hair :/
That seemed to me the most historic if true!
1. Vision Pro will definitely replace all kind of monitors, such as TV, projectors, etc., because it provides a completely immersive watching experience
2. Besides that, due to the limitations of latency and noise issues in the low light situations, it will still be an entertainment toy instead of a productive tool
Since then, millions more have quietly joined those misfits and weirdos, and the opt-out trend feels like it's accelerating.
There must be strong demand for products that are actually good and healthy for those who use them, products that don't systematically make their customers ill in order to further enrich a few billionaires.
Ignore for a moment how you might monetize it to make yourself a billionaire. Instead, imagine what would be most useful, most healthy, most beneficial for the customer. Then build that.
The result probably won't make you a billionaire, but you could live pretty well. And the world would be better for it.
apple can use this on their next keynote.
VR falls apart for me when you realise there is no tactileness or depth to anything. no touch, no smell, no feeling, nothing.
This veritasium video at 12:00 shows how these goggles work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAeJHAFjwPM
That said I wouldn't be surprised if someone in the DOD was buying them for general tech exploration though.
Similar to AirPods Max, they oddly chose heavy materials just for the sake of finish - rather than functionality. If they truly cared about the user experience of the actual software/hardware, they would have went with better materials.
In general, Vision Pro feels to me like another weird prototype showcase product, released years before they actually had a real viable solution
"I found the solo loop much more comfortable" - direct quote out of the article you're replying to.
My point is this band just looks good in marketing photos, but it will not be what the vast majority of people will be using once they’ve put the common dual loop band on
Current XR headsets are all too big to really be "mobile" devices (you're really going to take it on a plane or use it in a hotel?) but once you add something like the "Elite Strap" you know you aren't taking it anywhere. Still the MQ3 is a nice self-contained package that you can walk around the house with and do activities that involve a lot of motion without having a battery pack to worry about.
My understanding is that XReal's displays are really good for a compact device
but those devices also tether you with a tail. They are really focused on the "watch TV" angle and even support HDMI at the expense of real spatial computing. (so far)
They're making upgrade parts to my mq2 stuff will work on my mq3 which is really awesome of them so I can drop another $20 not $70.
Have never owned a Vive but have that head strap connected to a Quest 2 with 3D printed adapters (a setup dubbed by the community “frankenquest”) and it works quite nicely.
Then, as Google does, they dropped it, and no one took it up again. I'd have to imagine that in 10+ years of display and battery improvements an even better Glass is waiting to hit the market. It seems more a social issue rather than a technological one: we as a society are not ready for universal AR.
At one point talking on the phone in public (video chats, bluetooth earpieces, etc) would have been weird. Now it's annoyingly common.
Maybe this release is a longer term play at "culture/social change" rather than a true non-just-prototype device. Soften up the market and make "spatial computing" more acceptable. And then integrate a "non pro" version for general consumers.