Apple Vision Pro review: Eyes on the future
sixcolors.com
sixcolors.com
I found [0-2] the AVP to be an excellent piece of hardware that is unfortunately limited by software, a common refrain for Apple's iOS/iPad OS. I have no doubt that I will buy a future version of this device as the software gets better, the cameras/passthrough improves, the price drops, and/or the software allowed to run is opened up.
I absolutely loved playing with the AVP but right now it's just an infinite-screen iPad with window management. I can't work on an iPad and likewise I can't work in this. "Mac Virtual Display!" I hear you screaming, and while impressive, the blurriness of the MVD is something I can't put up with, especially while I have 3 external monitors available to me. If I traveled more and/or only used the laptop screen I might feel differently but I don't.
So for now I will probably return mine unless some "killer app" comes out before my return window closes. I applaud Apple for releasing this now though, it's not fully fleshed out but it won't be until 3rd party developers are able to use it and get a feel for how best to build apps for it. Right now the AVP is a dev kit++ in my eyes.
[0] https://joshstrange.com/2024/02/03/apple-vision-pro-first-im...
[1] https://joshstrange.com/2024/02/04/apple-vision-pro-writing-...
[2] https://joshstrange.com/2024/02/05/apple-vision-pro-or-4k/
I have a Quest Pro which I pull out from time to time, I don't regret the exploration opportunity, but this kind of device is currently just confining and awkward. The Vision Pro is even heavier, with their questionable use of aluminum it really seems they target collectors rather than comfort, which is odd in an age of e-waste consciousness. For many people, it basically seems like a "treat" for those with excess wealth since nobody really describes it as useful like a computer or phone.
I have no doubt Apple (among others) anticipates a world where super high resolution sensor laden headsets are lightweight and much less expensive. It really seems more sensible as a peripheral, though I know that goes against their DNA as one device for every category.
Maybe I’m dense but I don’t really understand this jump to [shakes hands like Doc Brown] “the future”. We’re in Magic Leap’s future right now, how did the physics and battery constraints turn out for them?
How do you let people wearing VR goggles on their faces participate in videoconferences?
Me being dense again: Why is this a necessary use case? It seems pointlessly complicated when taking the thing off is easy or just make calls audio only. What will the Persona ever add?
I don’t think that just joining a Zoom as a normal participant makes much sense, but I would love the ability to hop into a virtual space with someone to sketch out ideas and designs while still having some kind of personal connection/interaction.
The difficulty accomplishing this with existing tools is what justified the hefty travel budget I had to go work in-person with teams during certain stages of product design as a product manager.
I think the feature has a long way to go to meet this need based on the early demos.
I don’t think floating head faces are compelling nor do I think it represents Apple’s ultimate goal. This is why I concluded with:
> I think the feature has a long way to go to meet this need based on the early demos.
If they can make the headfaces convincing enough to enable reasonably good eye contact and to portray an accurate representation of facial expressions/emotions, it will make certain kinds of on-site collaboration where such things matter less necessary. If they can extend this to convincing whole-body avatars, the utility skyrockets.
How old are you?
I distinctly remember the first time my brother and I had a video chat with our parents on the other side of the world who we hadn't seen for a few years, and our sister on yet another continent. We were all sitting on couches, and we kept remarking it felt like we were in the same room, and it was amazing. Truly "the future". Like back to the future 2 (I saw that video-call scene at the movies, it was right after intermission).
Our family video call was ~2005, Skype. I'd had video calls before, but they were always glitchy and slow and made the call worse.
I've never used a VR/AR headset, but I suspect in just a few years this feature alone will be extremely compelling. Maybe those with immediate family scattered around the globe feel it the most.
Now though the standard is pretty darn good on FaceTime and usually good, but tiresome, in group video calls.
AVP has to go that much further to be better than the status quo. And now with not just a feed but a reconstruction.
What is the actual resolution on this device and pixel density? How does it compare to Valve index?
Can you still see individual pixels if you look for them?
It’s very difficult to spot individual pixels. I arguably only notice if I bring a 3D render very close to my eyes, but generally speaking - it’s not worse/better than a regular 4K display
> the lit area totals 3660 px by 3200 px
> The Vision Pro comes in at a stunning 3,386 PPI
Though PPD (pixels per degree) is really what you want to measure here:
> With a rough measurement of 100° FOV (Field of View), we estimate the Vision Pro to have an average of 34 PD. In comparison, a 65″ 4K TV viewed 6.5 feet away is 95 average PPD
Valve index is ~14 PPD and Quest 3 is ~25 PPD as per https://vr-compare.com
> the iPhone 15 Pro Max held 1 foot away is 94 average PPD. Even though the pixel density and physical dimensions are drastically different between the iPhone and the 65” TV, they end up having similar PPD simply because of how they’re viewed.
(I personally found the phone example much more useful than the TV, possibly because I don't own a TV.)
For more examples: a modern MacBook Air viewed at 60 cm (2 ft) gives you the exact same value. With a MacBook Pro, it's somewhat more at 108 PPD.
An 11" iPad (10th gen / Air / Pro) comes out at 83 PPD viewed from 45 cm / ~18in. (I suppose the midpoint between phone and laptop seems like a reasonable iPad viewing distance?)
I could not. The passthrough is slightly grainy and "smears" a bit when you move your head but the displays themselves are amazing. I couldn't see pixels when I ran native visionOS apps. The Mac Virtual Display is slightly blurry but again, that wasn't the fault of the displays as evidenced by the sharp UI of AVP apps.
1. Poor vertical FOV 2. Motion blurring whenever you move which is likely due to the OLED screens
You can’t use this on Steam until we get Virtual desktop on the Vision Pro. Not sure how well it would work though since the blur is not great unless you mostly play sim games.
It ain't the cheery future described by Extremely Online (although even that book mentions the ugly but not enough, not by far).
Not, it's the future of platform decay (to use a more polite word for enshittification) and Stop Talking to Each Other and Start Buying Things https://catvalente.substack.com/p/stop-talking-to-each-other...
To be closer to topic , let me quote Paris Marx's excellent summary from his Apple Vision Pro preview https://disconnect.blog/apples-vision-pro-headset-deserves/
> Tech companies want us isolated and constantly staring at screens because it drives profit
and of course
> The Vision Pro lets users further separate themselves from their surroundings and even create “digital personas” for video calls so other people are talking to a digital, abstracted version of themselves instead of seeing the real person.
Even The Verge acknowledges:
> using the Vision Pro is such a lonely experience, regardless of the weird ghost eyes on the front.
Oh yes, I have my eyes on the future and I am bloody unhappy about it.