I would love to replace my monitor with Apple Vision Pro for programming and productivity. I would gladly pay $1000 for that.
But at $4000 it really needs to put me in a Microsoft Flight Simulator cockpit.
I would love to replace my monitor with Apple Vision Pro for programming and productivity. I would gladly pay $1000 for that.
But at $4000 it really needs to put me in a Microsoft Flight Simulator cockpit.
Apple had more money and influence than combination of all of them, yet failed with car and VR. Why would anyone think they can't fail much much bigger with AI and LLMs ?
Besides that, I actually disagree that the Vision Pro is not good for gaming. It's not good for traditional VR gaming, but using apps like Portal it's phenomenal for, e.g., playing existing PS5 games on a massive virtual screen, which in many ways I actually enjoy more than VR gaming, which is far too limited in comparison.
Conversely; the grandparent comment is still right, Apple could have made this a real VR headset without compromising any part of the AR experience. Apple knew that Hololens was a total failure, they saw the pushback on Google Glass, they should have known that people would feel like an idiot buying one of those headsets. Instead of trying to recoup the missed opportunity, Apple doubles down and pretends that those experiences are beneath them.
Anyone with a $300 headset can stream games to it. AVP isn't unique for that, it's was already outsold by the Index and it's eschatologically destined to be outsold by user-respecting headsets like the Steam Frame. It's downright impossible to imagine a world where Vision Pro outsells the Quest.
I'm perfectly fine being the minority for now. You say that as if you think I'd have a problem with that. That does absolutely nothing to sway my thinking, which is based on my own principles, not a popularity contest at a single moment in time. You are dramatically underestimating my personal comfort maintaining an unpopular perspective for an extended period of time (years) based on fundamentals.
> Anyone with a $300 headset can stream games to it
No thanks. This is, of course, technically possible, but the quality is so astoundingly low compared to the Vision Pro that, for me, it would be a waste of time. You're welcome to do this if you so please with your time.
It's no skin off my back when you pay $3,500 for that type of mistreatment. Whatever "principles" that led you down that path aren't going to make the Vision Pro a more enjoyable experience. You're virtue signalling a platform that everyone predicted would be a failure.
FOMO, someone else being successful in VR (and now in glasses) is a nightmare scenario for Apple because it's not their platform. They've got a lot to fear from someone else owning the platform, having written the playbook on how that platform would be controlled and exploited at everyone else's expense.
Imagine if Apple doesn't make their glasses: Meta keeps selling truckloads of them, as they get more powerful the smartphone becomes an optional accessory and then an unnecessary one, eventually they become an alternative to a smartphone and an app platform for third party devs.
It's the same story with VR, Apple does nothing and risks Meta or Steam building a viable platform where people want to use software instead of on their iOS devices, until the hardware can replace iOS devices entirely. (although VR is certainly more of a moonshot)
Meta are selling millions of glasses and growing so it's looking like a hit.