I'm in the perfect demographic for this product. I live alone, I love using and taking risk on new tech, I'm deeply integrated into Apple's ecosystem, and have the financial means to afford it....
I'm in the perfect demographic for this product. I live alone, I love using and taking risk on new tech, I'm deeply integrated into Apple's ecosystem, and have the financial means to afford it. But I don't see myself buying this. In fact, I'm baffled Apple thinks this is a product worth selling.
I watched the whole keynote and I didn't see a single use case for this product. The tech is certainly cool, assuming it works as flawlessly as it's presented in the keynote (which is a very big if. Apple's AR experiments don't even work properly unless in perfect conditions), but what exactly does it allow me to do that I can't do with a competing product? I'm sure it's better in every area with better ergonomics, comfort, screen, sound but what's the "killer app"? That I can use Microsoft Word in a spatially created window that blends in with my environment but still having to type on a keyboard? Or god forbid dictate it with Siri?
The entertainment aspect is somewhat appealing, but no matter how good it is, it's also an isolating experience.
It's a cool product, I'd love to try it in person, but apart from the problems I think it has, it also has to overcome the biggest problem of all, which is that anyone who wears it will look ridiculous. I don't think this will be a big flop, and even if it is, who cares, Apple has more money than many of the countries in the world, but I also think it's a solution searching for a problem.
What I think of this as, is to monitors and screens what headphones are to speakers. Headphones didn’t replace speakers, but way more people use headphones than fancy speakers. Putting the audio...
Exemplary
What I think of this as, is to monitors and screens what headphones are to speakers. Headphones didn’t replace speakers, but way more people use headphones than fancy speakers.
Putting the audio driver or screen right next to your sensory organ allows you to do more with less. Headphones can have the quality of much more expensive speaker spaces with a fraction of the space and cost.
Clearly the headset hasn’t gotten there yet, but it’s promising. You can have an infinite number of high quality screens of any shape or size.
That's a pretty thought provoking analogy, but I don't think it addresses the core issue with this product. It's not the tech, it's the social norms that is going to hamper it. Given enough time,...
That's a pretty thought provoking analogy, but I don't think it addresses the core issue with this product. It's not the tech, it's the social norms that is going to hamper it. Given enough time, maybe this product would overcome them, but for it to do so it has to be ubiquitous, and for it to be ubiquitous, it has to be more affordable and solve an actual problem. Headphones did that, this doesn't.
I don't think it's that big of a deal honestly. For one, these are intended to be in door entertainment devices. It does not matter that much if your SO or family think you're a bit goofy for...
I don't think it's that big of a deal honestly. For one, these are intended to be in door entertainment devices. It does not matter that much if your SO or family think you're a bit goofy for wearing the device. I look goofy when I wear heated eye masks for dry eye syndrome and I don't really care, because I'm not going outside to strangers with them.
And yeah, this is the first iteration. The first headphones were invented in the 1880s by Ezra Guilliland for telephone operators and weighed 10 pounds and cost more than $5k in today's money. It's been a long way from that to airpods.
I actually think this is a limitation due current Apple Silicon efficiency, the target performance, and current battery technology. They mentioned that the Vision Pro can last for 2 hours when...
For one, these are intended to be in door entertainment devices
I actually think this is a limitation due current Apple Silicon efficiency, the target performance, and current battery technology. They mentioned that the Vision Pro can last for 2 hours when plugged into an external battery pack. This seems like it is a massive compromise, but reflects that Apple wanted to ship this thing with current technology. Apple has driven the longevity of laptop computer battery life up significantly over the past two decades, so I'd be very surprised if they don't keep pushing the efficiency of their silicon and battery technology to drive their Vision hardware's battery life up until it can be worn "all day".
If this is going to be solely an indoor device, I agree it will be a nice toy for people with the means to afford it. It will be less socially awkward too, at least in comparison. I still don't...
If this is going to be solely an indoor device, I agree it will be a nice toy for people with the means to afford it. It will be less socially awkward too, at least in comparison. I still don't think the hassle of putting it on and having it on your head for the duration of a regular film will be worth it, but that's my personal opinion. It's also debatable how big of a market this serves.
As for your second point, yes, obviously this product can become essential with Apple continuously iterating on it by the next century 😊. I apologize for being cheeky but in the long term, who knows what happens.
I remember when talking on your cell phone in public caused similar consternation, but we eventually got over it. Same with people basically living with earphones on.
I remember when talking on your cell phone in public caused similar consternation, but we eventually got over it. Same with people basically living with earphones on.
This is kind of where VR is in general as an industry (a solution in search of a problem). Setting gaming aside for a moment (because there are some great VR games), there aren't really any broad...
I don't think this will be a big flop, and even if it is, who cares, Apple has more money than many of the countries in the world, but I also think it's a solution searching for a problem.
This is kind of where VR is in general as an industry (a solution in search of a problem). Setting gaming aside for a moment (because there are some great VR games), there aren't really any broad problems that VR can solve that aren't more cheaply and easily solved by an existing tool. There are a bunch of niche applications where it works really well (I'm biased, I've worked on several of them), which is why I think the tech will continue to stick around. But that's different than it gaining widespread smartphone-level adaptation.
AR has much bigger potential, as it can do things you currently can't do with any existing tech. Namely overlay the real world with useful data (such as map navigation). The advantage AR has is anyone can do this with a common smartphone, the downside is that it's awkward and clumsy to strap your phone to your face so that your hands are free.
Great points about AR. I remember reading reports a few years ago1 that Apple saw no future in VR but thought AR had great potential for the same reasons you stated. Just the enterprise solutions...
Great points about AR. I remember reading reports a few years ago1 that Apple saw no future in VR but thought AR had great potential for the same reasons you stated. Just the enterprise solutions alone would be immensely useful.
Remember the Google Glass announcement? I honestly thought it had great promise and it was actually useful. It didn't stick for myriad of reasons, but imagine Apple take a crack at it with today's technology and their ecosystem behind them, which Google sorely lacked.
1: I found a report that goes back as far as 2016.
Google Glass was actually discontinued this year. After the initial backlash died off they brought out an enterprise edition and it actually found some limited industrial usage. Things like...
Google Glass was actually discontinued this year. After the initial backlash died off they brought out an enterprise edition and it actually found some limited industrial usage. Things like assembly line workers having instructions overlaid onto the environment. There were even experiments using it to teach kids on the autistic spectrum how to recognize facial expressions (the idea was not for them to wear the glasses 24/7 but for it to be used as a training tool which could have benefits later on when not wearing the device).
Lightweight wearable AR devices that you can actually wear all day without damaging your neck or running out of battery probably have a bright future in all sorts of niche applications, even if they will never be integrated into your average person’s day to day spare time (which was the initial pitch for Google Glass and failed miserably).
I think you nailed it right there. I immediately imagined how it would integrate with what I do now, regardless of the price tag. Would it help in my work or anything else? Not that I can see...
I think you nailed it right there. I immediately imagined how it would integrate with what I do now, regardless of the price tag. Would it help in my work or anything else? Not that I can see currently, if anything it would slow me down and make me less efficient.
Entertainment wise my 75 inch TV and surround sound are more than enough. Which brings up another point, most of the time I don't want something on my head and to be immersed. Most of the time my partner and I's leisure time is focused on lounging around the couch. We have something on in the background, chatting casually about something, looking at stuff or playing games on our phones, in between playing with the puppy, etc. Why would we pay $7K+ that makes that more difficult and doesn't add anything to the experience. If I was single and more isolated I could certainly see this working well, minus attention for the puppy, guess it would have to be a virtual pet.
For a device as expensive as this is I think the fact that Apple didn’t bring up the motion sickness problem is pretty telling of their ability to solve it.
For a device as expensive as this is I think the fact that Apple didn’t bring up the motion sickness problem is pretty telling of their ability to solve it.
The interaction paradigms they showed don't really seem like they'd cause motion sickness. The issue with VR environments that are "immersive" is that your eyes feel like you're moving but your...
The interaction paradigms they showed don't really seem like they'd cause motion sickness. The issue with VR environments that are "immersive" is that your eyes feel like you're moving but your body gives you no sensory feedback to corroborate which throws off your sense of equilibrium. But nothing you do with RealityOS involves moving through space. You manipulate other things in the space around you, but you are just immersed in your own surroundings. The only examples where you're not are if you're watching a movie, in which case it still treats the movie like a screen in your environment, so it would be no more likely to cause motion sickness than going to an IMAX theater.
Gaming is where motion sickness becomes a big issue, and there didn't seem to be much of a gaming story here.
You’re still viewing your environment through a screen. There will be a tiny bit more lag than in real life and I think that would be enough to totally throw me off.
You’re still viewing your environment through a screen. There will be a tiny bit more lag than in real life and I think that would be enough to totally throw me off.
True I hadn't considered that. I expect the reason they positioned this as a stand-alone device rather than some kind of iPad accessory is probably to minimize the processing time and cut latency...
True I hadn't considered that. I expect the reason they positioned this as a stand-alone device rather than some kind of iPad accessory is probably to minimize the processing time and cut latency as low as they can get it.
The documentation seems to say about 12ms of visual latency, which I think would be perceptible, but barely. Apparently simply being drunk slows down your visual processing by 10-20ms and I definitely do notice that (although alcohol induces nausea by a lot of other mechanisms as well).
As @Subvocal mentioned, the AR is a pass-through rather than an overlay (like MS Hololens). So by it's very nature there will always be a lag >0, even if no processing is done to the image. I've...
As @Subvocal mentioned, the AR is a pass-through rather than an overlay (like MS Hololens). So by it's very nature there will always be a lag >0, even if no processing is done to the image. I've given VR demos to 100s of people using multiple kinds of headsets, and there are some folks who are just incredibly sensitive to that kind of eye/ear disagreement who will probably never be able to use the tech.
Given Apple's high standards for it's products I'm sure they've tested and optimized as best they can, but we'll have to wait for some wider access to see how well they've solved for it.
After going through the entire web page that Apple put up, they're claiming a 19 ms delay from capturing the video and displaying it on the screens. That seems pretty low, but there might be more...
After going through the entire web page that Apple put up, they're claiming a 19 ms delay from capturing the video and displaying it on the screens. That seems pretty low, but there might be more to it that just that. I also can't find any information about the Field of View or the refresh rate of the screens, which I've read studies that claim those are pretty big factors in VR sickness. Seems a bit weird, since those are pretty standard bits of information that most VR headsets will publish.
Isolation is one of the things that I feel like they really had a hard time portraying. For example it felt really bizarre to show how you practice mindfulness by putting on VR glasses. Those two...
Isolation is one of the things that I feel like they really had a hard time portraying.
For example it felt really bizarre to show how you practice mindfulness by putting on VR glasses. Those two things just feel so opposite to me.
I like Apple's design philosophy, but I find their approach to health to be bizarre, over-designed with too much interactive overhead, and counter to its usual "less is more"/"less but better"...
I like Apple's design philosophy, but I find their approach to health to be bizarre, over-designed with too much interactive overhead, and counter to its usual "less is more"/"less but better" approach.
If I remember things right, people were saying the same thing about smart watches. Those became a norm though, and if enough people start using this product, it's going to go from ridiculous...
anyone who wears it will look ridiculous
If I remember things right, people were saying the same thing about smart watches. Those became a norm though, and if enough people start using this product, it's going to go from ridiculous (because I agree that VR headsets look very bad and bulky) to not really mattering
I don't think what you're saying is entirely valid here for a number of reasons. By the time the apple watch came out people had been wearing fit bits for years, we already had seen other smart...
I don't think what you're saying is entirely valid here for a number of reasons.
By the time the apple watch came out people had been wearing fit bits for years, we already had seen other smart watches, people had been wearing regular watches for 80 (?) years, and we had gone through that livestrong bracelet fad. People were used to seeing other people put things on their wrists. People saying it looked stupid were minimal and I doubt anyone would have been seriously ridiculed for wearing one.
The apple vision pro would look totally ridiculous in public. This is an at home alone device period.
Right now you can buy the nreal air and I think that style of AR glasses could be seen as not ridiculous in the near future. They also cost an order of magnitude less than the apple glasses.
I get what you're getting at, but I disagree. People have been wearing wristwatches for centuries. When Apple launched the Watch, it was criticized mainly for the same reason I criticize the...
I get what you're getting at, but I disagree. People have been wearing wristwatches for centuries. When Apple launched the Watch, it was criticized mainly for the same reason I criticize the Vision Pro -- the company didn't know what the product was for. Over time, the market pushed Apple into focusing on exercise tracking and now the Watch is a success story. But the market conditions for smartwatches and AR/VR products are not the same. People are used to wearing watches and there were digital watch users well before Apple Watch was launched. The norms were already established. Sure, Apple Watch was a bit different because it was square, but that's a trivial change.
Vision Pro has two enormous obstacles in front of it and neither of them are about its tech. One, eye contact is very important for social interactions. Apple must have thought so because they literally designed the product around it. Second, the device has a lot of cameras that are capturing the outside world. Apple may be benevolent about the implications of that, but seeing a lot of small cameras directed at your face by someone wearing something big and weird on their head is going to turn off a lot of people.
That and like...I feel smartwatches have not gained that same level of market penetration, again for similiar reasons. I've always seen them as more of a status symbol than anything.
That and like...I feel smartwatches have not gained that same level of market penetration, again for similiar reasons.
I've always seen them as more of a status symbol than anything.
Number #1 reason I'll be avoiding AR as much as possible. I've seen enough scifi knowing that its going to gamify everything and people will Black Mirror stuff because Black Mirror was not an...
Number #1 reason I'll be avoiding AR as much as possible. I've seen enough scifi knowing that its going to gamify everything and people will Black Mirror stuff because Black Mirror was not an innacurate criticism of our culture, mapped onto near-future tech.
I'm kinda baffled more people aren't more alarmed about these scenarios. From the video: "And now you can capture photos and videos with remarkable depth and relive a memory as if you're right...
The scene with the dad filming his kids with it did not come off as endearing - it came across as creepy spaceman
I'm kinda baffled more people aren't more alarmed about these scenarios.
From the video:
"And now you can capture photos and videos with remarkable depth and relive a memory as if you're right back in the exact moment...."
Yeah because you weren't "there" in the first place. Why do we continue to push reliving instead of living when we know it's not good for us. This is filming at a concert taken to an extreme. It's always for later, for others, clout or just with an agenda that forces (or maybe relieves) you not to be there. This maybe expensive, ugly or "not really helping with anything" as many people here seem to think but this scares the shit out of me.
Obviously the price is steep and I would have trouble justifying it at that price point. That being said, the price is not that different than the price of a new macbook, or a new high end gaming...
Obviously the price is steep and I would have trouble justifying it at that price point. That being said, the price is not that different than the price of a new macbook, or a new high end gaming PC. I think this is supposed to be look at through the lens (heh) of a full replacement for those pieces of tech as opposed to a peripheral of them. If I was thinking of getting a new desktop, I would at least consider this: It can do most if not all of what a laptop could do, is highly mobile, better resolution, mimics a personal theater, etc.
I agree that the video didn't highlight any killer application that makes me think "I need this now". But it also does everything my computer does and more, so maybe that's not the right metric to go by. Regardless, the original iPhone also had comparatively little functionality (at least compared to what came later) and look how that changed our relationship to computers. On that note, I think it is interesting to compare some reactions to the original iPhone announcement to some of the reactions here ;) :
Apparently none of you guys realize how bad of an idea a touch-screen is on a phone. I foresee some pretty obvious and pretty major problems here.
I'll be keeping my Samsung A707, thanks. It's smaller, it's got a protected screen, and it's got proper buttons. And it's got all the same features otherwise. (Oh, but it doesn't run a bloatware OS that was never designed for a phone.)
Touch screen buttons? BAD idea. This thing will never work.
Im not impressed with the iPhone. As a PDA user and a Windows Mobile user, this thing has nothing on my phone. It sure is good at what it was designed for, a phone that entertains and talks... other than that, i dont see much potential. How the hell am I suppose to put appointments on the phone with no stylus or keyboard?! I can sync it with my computer, but when Im on the go, I cant do either!
No thanks Apple. Make a real PDA please....
So, it's a phone with a touchscreen. That about it folks. Now hand over a fortune in your hard earned cash.
I think the first market will be companies buying them for their employees. Might be the scale-up Apple needs to bring the price down to consumer/prosumer-level.
I think the first market will be companies buying them for their employees. Might be the scale-up Apple needs to bring the price down to consumer/prosumer-level.
Eh, I don't know if those folks were really so off. Sure, touchscreens functioned, but I still would seriously rather have an actual honest-to-god physical keyboard back. I hate having no tactile...
Eh, I don't know if those folks were really so off. Sure, touchscreens functioned, but I still would seriously rather have an actual honest-to-god physical keyboard back. I hate having no tactile feedback.
It’s not really about how a touchscreen keyboard is (although I think in typing plain English most people would be faster on a virtual touchscreen*), but what you give up when you have a physical...
It’s not really about how a touchscreen keyboard is (although I think in typing plain English most people would be faster on a virtual touchscreen*), but what you give up when you have a physical keyboard. It takes up screen real estate, it adds weight. It turns out people spend just as much time if not much more scrolling, reading, watching on their phones than typing, and while you can type on a touch screen, you can’t watch a YouTube video on a keyboard.
* basically, the modern paradigm for fast typing is you just throw things out there, ignore the typos and let autocorrect do it’s thing. People can get above 100 wpm doing this. It’s worse when you’re typing words that autocorrect can’t find, but for dictionary English it’s faster than a blackberry keyboard. Having to press individual tiny keys slows you down with physical. Of course, it’s less satisfying because there’s no feedback and half of the words you write are wrong pre-autocorrect , but practically it’s effective.
The hardware looks nice, the design is very.. Apple. Both of which are to be expected, of course. Apple are at least consistently good at those things. Price is also something they are good at,...
The hardware looks nice, the design is very.. Apple. Both of which are to be expected, of course. Apple are at least consistently good at those things. Price is also something they are good at, and that is also in line with expectations.
That said, I don't think this is going to be VR's iPhone. Maybe a few people will want to wear a headset to look at their photos or watch videos but I sort of suspect most of the people interested in that already have other devices. A proportion of Apple fans with deep pockets will buy one and I suspect most will play with it for a few hours before it eventually just gathers dust. VR needs a killer app that makes that price tag worth it (even the more sane price tags of other headsets), not to mention the hassle of putting on the headset - and I really don't think big virtual screens are it, nor is it Facetime. Sadly it's not Beat Saber either, as fun as that is. Gaming VR is great but just like all gaming it's not for everyone.
Almost nobody wants to work in VR, Zuck spent billions proving that. I doubt Apple are going to change anything much on that front. No matter how comfortable and light this is, and it looks at least comfortable - wearing a VR headset for extended periods is uncomfortable. VR certainly has work applications, but it's not being a virtual desk.
I didn't see them demoing much in the way of AR but I think unlike VR, AR is going to be huge. Like, every day huge. Mobile phone level of use. It won't be with this big, tethered device though, it'll be something more like Google's Glass, that you can put in your pocket and wear on the bus. Because done right, AR has the potential to make many of our current human/device interactions much easier and less painful, in a way VR-style headsets just don't.
I do think this is an excellent "fuck you, this is how it's done" to Zuck from Tim Apple. It remains to be seen whether doing this is something people actually want much of.
Definitely agree regarding AR vs VR. If they can get the size down a bit more in the next few iterations I could see this being a useful AR tool. I can already imagine some use cases for this in...
Definitely agree regarding AR vs VR. If they can get the size down a bit more in the next few iterations I could see this being a useful AR tool. I can already imagine some use cases for this in the house, e.g. cooking with recipes/tutorials right in front of you, but it is a bit bulky to be taking out into the world on a regular basis. I do like their example of using this in flight, but I don't think it will be "AR's iphone" as you say until people can wear one out and about with little encumbrance.
The good: I like the form factor. Much more streamlined than existing headsets and the ski goggles shape is approachable. I expect v3 or v4 of this thing to be increasingly miniaturized, and I'd...
The good:
I like the form factor. Much more streamlined than existing headsets and the ski goggles shape is approachable. I expect v3 or v4 of this thing to be increasingly miniaturized, and I'd guess around that point is where it'll start to gain mass market appeal. This looks like a decent starting point for that trajectory.
The ability to make eye contact with others in the room "through" the headset is going to be a big winner here I think. It was hard to gauge what it looks like in person, but it seems like the choice to use a curved lenticular screen was a smart one to avoid the uncanny valley.
The fabrics look really comfortable. My experience with VR is mainly on my PS VR2 which I picked up a few months ago. That headset uses soft plastic cushions that are (somewhat) comfortable but also tend to feel hot and get sweaty. Hopefully Apple's will do better in that department.
The pixel density sounds incredible. I'm really hoping they found the sweet spot for high-res comfort. My PS VR2 screen looks great compared to the current competition but my eyes are still strained and sore after extended play sessions.
Those look like great lenses. I can't speak knowledgeably about optical hardware but Apple's claim that text is sharp and legible even at the edges of the viewable area is huge, if true. That's my biggest gripe with my headset, text looks great directly in front of you, but you have to swing your head around to read anything on the periphery.
The bad:
I wasn't expecting a self-contained platform with a brand new OS and its own app store. I feel like that's going to limit a lot of the usefulness of the system. They did show it connecting to a Mac so I'm curious to see the extent of what's possible there.
I'm not sold on the hand-tracking input. As I understand it, the cameras for that only face down? How much visibility does it have for tracking if you reach above your head, or behind your back? How much tolerance does it have for shifting your position on the couch, scratching an itch, sipping a drink, etc.? Hopefully simple movements don't cause all your apps to fly everywhere!
Definitely not big on the voice interface. I think that's generally a bad idea across the board.
A 2 hour battery is nothing. I don't personally have concerns about staying tethered, but enough people might that I expect a lot of handwringing about it.
I'm pretty skeptical about the audio. They have hyped up the quality of the sound, but it's being directionally projected into your ear from significantly far above it. There are no earbuds or headphones. Apple's pretty good with audio (I love my AirPods Pro) but I'm not really sure how that's going to work in practice. If I'm going for the immersive movie-watching experience, I'm probably going to want that sound a bit more isolated/direct.
The face-scanned chat avatar looks significantly better than that of the Second Life-esque jank Meta has been demoing, but truth be told (based on what was demoed today) it's still pretty rough. Definitely some dead-eyed, uncanny valley stuff happening there. The facial animations around the mouth looked particularly rough. I'd guess they're going to do a lot more work on this in particular before launch. Seemed like the video was edited to hide the badness.
The price, obviously. I'm optimistic that this could be what the future of XR hardware looks like, and so be it if it simply costs that much to do it right. But in this economy that's a tall order. I'd much rather see Apple trying a loss-leader approach (as un-Apple as that is) to get people in the door. They can afford to take a loss up front if it means they'll make it up in App Store revenue or whatever.
These are my initial reactions. Looking forward to seeing some hands-on impressions. I'm not in the target market for this (though I could be if the price were anywhere near what I paid for the PS VR2). If it's well received and they iterate smartly on it, I could easily see myself saving up for a few generations down the road.
Oh, quick edit to add: I think the two killer apps for this are going to be...
Significantly higher capacity battery. If they can figure out a way to let me go untethered for 8+ hours a day (and if the OS can handle multi-room AR, which is its own conundrum) just keeping it on constantly could be viable. I don't think that would be hard to normalize, just like people walking around with AirPods in wasn't, as long as the eye display on the front of it looks enough like an actual window that people feel comfortable interacting with you when you wear it. It looked dark in the videos, I could imagine a bright, less reflective version of the eye display in the future helping with that.
Some sort of mesh networking that allows multiple headsets to share the same XR space. This would be vital in breaking through the solitary nature of XR. Of course asking every member of the household to buy one, plus a couple extra for guests, just to watch movies together? Not at this price, that's absolutely ridiculous. I feel like really good tech (apparently) like this is going to drive XR adoption but there will never be critical mass until it can be made widely available for cheap. They need to be subsidized like iPhones or something.
A 2 hour battery life is gonna be a tough sell. Having to be tethered kind of starts to defeat the purpose of VR for me. If I have to stay put, then I want to sit down. If I'm sitting down, a...
A 2 hour battery life is gonna be a tough sell. Having to be tethered kind of starts to defeat the purpose of VR for me. If I have to stay put, then I want to sit down. If I'm sitting down, a laptop and headphones will do just fine. I want to be immersed in the content. I want to be able to move around and experience it.
Likewise, for AR, I want it to be just that– augment my reality. I don't want to worry about some device strapped to my face rapidly running out remaining charge, or worse, physically tethered to one spot. That's worse than a computer I can walk away from or a phone I can put down.
Coming from a quest 2, I know the hassle of taking off my headset, finding my glasses, and avoiding getting tangled up with the cable every time I want to use the bathroom or grab a drink is just inconvenient enough that I'll just end up not using the damn thing, especially if it can't do something really well that I can't do more conveniently on another device
I'm really surprised by the negative reactions of people here. I'm really not an Apple user, though I guess I would be in the target demographic if I would be one. The 'killer feature' everyone is...
I'm really surprised by the negative reactions of people here. I'm really not an Apple user, though I guess I would be in the target demographic if I would be one.
The 'killer feature' everyone is speaking of would simply be the ability to use this as a screen replacement. If text is readable enough to browse the web comfortably and to program, it would be an absolutely amazing alternative to using multiple displays at a desk. Want to program in bed - or in the living room - or outside in your hammock? Go ahead! The entire setup becomes extremely mobile - a laptop, keyboard, and the headset are all you need. Hell, if you program on a company VM you could even drop the laptop.
I really see this extending even further for other office jobs - say you're an HR or sales-person, you could easily take this between work and home and not have a disruption to your workflow. You just have the same setup wherever you are.
If I had an Apple laptop I would be all over this as a replacement for my screens at home. No need for a TV, no need for a work desktop setup. Hell, if I was a console gamer I could even play my games on it and not have any sort of computer desk setup at all.
This is also the use-case in which the 2-hour battery life doesn't matter at all, since you'd be stationary anyway. Just plug in a (long) USB-C cable into the laptop and you're ready. In any case however I think this is primarily a stationary device rather than something you'd be mobile in. Can anyone see themselves wearing this while on a walk outside? At most it would be worn during a commute, in which case 2 hours are plenty IMO.
I've used other VR headsets. I'm very skeptical about this announcement because Apple's press release and the articles aping it are full of vague or missing specs ("23 million pixels!" That's...
I've used other VR headsets. I'm very skeptical about this announcement because Apple's press release and the articles aping it are full of vague or missing specs ("23 million pixels!" That's photo camera marketing speak.) and claims that Apple just invented a series of features that have been in other headsets for years. Hardware-wise, I'm having a hard time seeing a lot here that isn't just a small incremental upgrade over my €400 Pico 4, with a ridiculously high markup. The Pico 4 already has pretty good passthrough cameras that let you seamlessly leave your playspace and walk around the house if you want to. It can run a game for two and a half hours without a dangling powerbank, several more with one (or an additional battery attachment). The clarity of its pancake optics is perfectly good for reading text/operating a projected desktop through virtual desktop. The more recently released Pro version has eye and hand tracking as well (haven't tested it). It's lightweight and balances well on the head, with the top strap being optional. It has good off-ear audio.
If the Vision Pro's materials truly are more comfortable that's definitely a plus. Other manufacturers have traditionally been terrible at designing good interfaces between the device and the fleshy sweaty human meatbag. Seeing the eyes through the device is also an interesting and innovative feature.
You say you think this will be a stationary device, but in the same breath you say you'd replace all your screens with it. You still need to carry it between your bed, your living room and your hammock! Are you dragging your laptop around with you in these scenarios?
Just a heads up, but in my experience not just any USB-C connection will be able to provide power fast enough for this device not to run out. You need high intensity fast charging.
I wonder if the hardware can truly sustain its maximum refresh rate for such a high resolution when using an application that isn't mostly stationary. Even high end PC hardware has trouble doing that. If it can, I worry about cooling. I worry about power consumption as well, and what that would do to an already poor battery life.
The way Apple chooses to do their operating system is of course unique enough, I guess. They like to do software their own way. I'm sure there are things about their use of gestures, voice commands, augmented/extended reality, etc. that will be suitably innovative. It's just that I find the hardware way too expensive for what they seem to be offering and especially don't trust what they're not saying.
Price seems fair for the specs. That being said, if it were 2.5k I would’ve bought one for sure since it seems fun, but 3.5k is pretty borderline. Who knows, it’s next year so if it get bored...
Price seems fair for the specs. That being said, if it were 2.5k I would’ve bought one for sure since it seems fun, but 3.5k is pretty borderline.
Who knows, it’s next year so if it get bored enough at Christmas, anything can happen…
Of course, reviews and experiences from the media would be appreciated.
I think their foray into AR/VR will be successful, but it will be in part for a different reason: the buying experience will be improved. You won’t be confronted with a sticky, half-working...
I think their foray into AR/VR will be successful, but it will be in part for a different reason: the buying experience will be improved. You won’t be confronted with a sticky, half-working headset that only has Beat Saber as a demo, and nobody to help you. You’ll receive a clean, working headset, with several different programs available to try, including coding apps, games, and productivity software. You’ll have a Genius to help you out, and plenty of space to try it out in. While it is quite expensive for now (limiting purchases to early adopters and corporate buyers), the price will come down quickly as it scales up in popularity, just as the first iPhone did.
I think I’ll have to wait until the price comes down, if ever. Or if one of their competitors comes out with a cheaper alternative. I’m actually really excited for Mixed Reality headsets - more...
I think I’ll have to wait until the price comes down, if ever. Or if one of their competitors comes out with a cheaper alternative. I’m actually really excited for Mixed Reality headsets - more than I ever have been about VR. So I’m hoping this will enter the mainstream and be affordable a few years down the road
I'm really excited by this announcement. I don't think $3500 is too steep considering that this is something actually new and innovative with the requisite massive R&D costs. (The innovation is in...
I'm really excited by this announcement. I don't think $3500 is too steep considering that this is something actually new and innovative with the requisite massive R&D costs.
(The innovation is in the integration, UI/UX, and attention to detail. Apple is not usually the first to market, but they are usually the best.)
That said, I am more inclined to buy $3500 worth of AAPL. I think this will take off to replace monitors, TVs, and cell phones if they don't give up on the concept prematurely.
i have long since realised that apple is a good company, in a strange way not because they make products i want to use, but because they spurn other companies to make products i want to use...
i have long since realised that apple is a good company, in a strange way
not because they make products i want to use, but because they spurn other companies to make products i want to use
hopefully this in turn will cause new interest in more novel vr headsets
(of course, this is a double edged sword, because it applies in the opposite direction, too. rip my main man the headphone jack)
I agree, I think although there is traditionally an "apple tax", this does look amazing and is the best example of a "this is the future" kind of keynote I've seen in a very, very long time....
I agree, I think although there is traditionally an "apple tax", this does look amazing and is the best example of a "this is the future" kind of keynote I've seen in a very, very long time.
Fortunately, it doesn't come out until next year, so I'll be saving up, but I'm an AR/VR enthusiast so I'm their target demographic.
Amazing tech. 23 million pixels for the display is unprecedented and will solve the screen door effect. The gesture tracking is promising. I'm skeptical of voice-to-text and voice-as-command as...
Amazing tech. 23 million pixels for the display is unprecedented and will solve the screen door effect. The gesture tracking is promising.
I'm skeptical of voice-to-text and voice-as-command as primary interaction modes, given the relatively poor performance of Siri and Apple's in-house voice transcription model, compared to bleeding edge models like Whisper. I predict that a Bluetooth keyboard will become a necessary rather than an accessory.
Lackluster applications. VisionOS is essentially iPadOS for your face. Lots of 2D experiences in curved rectangles will float around you in 3D, but you're not ever "in" 3D experiences. I hope to see an enterprising developer pull off a compelling concept.
I was hyped until I saw the price, then I realize it's not that crazy when people regularly spend more money on things that's "normal". This is cheaper than a family vacation to disneyland, or a...
I was hyped until I saw the price, then I realize it's not that crazy when people regularly spend more money on things that's "normal". This is cheaper than a family vacation to disneyland, or a nice road bike, or designer bags/clothes, or tattoos, or even weird car mods. I believe that Apple intends to market this to the everypeople and not toward a niche group of users. If they can deliver what they showed on the demo, people are willing to pay a lot than you think.
I see some people complaining about pricing, but from the reading I have done, Apple is selling this product at-cost or very close to it, something unheard of from the company. The main reasonable...
I see some people complaining about pricing, but from the reading I have done, Apple is selling this product at-cost or very close to it, something unheard of from the company.
The main reasonable driving points for its pricing would seem to be the massive R&D investments in its display, hand + eye tracking, and audio. We can hope all three of those investments were fruitful.
I would honestly find the price of Vision Pro acceptable if I could use it as a replacement- and substantial upgrade to - a $2000+ display setup at home, linking it as essentially a ~50" ultra-wide 5k high refresh-rate display setup connected to my PC. I expect that using it in this way would not actually be possible due to compatibility outside MacBooks being either non-existent or very limited. In any case, I'm excited for the technology on display and for potential competitors taking inspiration from Apple and providing something closer to my interests!
Even if they are, if they're pricing this one at $3500, what would they end up cutting to get it much cheaper? Not sure this is a winning strategy for them, honestly.
Even if they are, if they're pricing this one at $3500, what would they end up cutting to get it much cheaper? Not sure this is a winning strategy for them, honestly.
I am curious about the recording functionality of this product. This tech demo from a few years ago and a more recent one were one of the most jaw-dropping experience I had in VR. It's basically...
I am curious about the recording functionality of this product.
This tech demo from a few years ago and a more recent one were one of the most jaw-dropping experience I had in VR. It's basically VR photo and VR video; you can actually move you head as if you were here.
If they can manage to compute similar light field with their camera and depth sensor (and perhaps a sprinkle of NeRF?) within a reasonable time, they could have an effortless killer app.
My (completely unsupported) instinct is that this must have been developed for the Metaverse, but that didn't pan out, so now they are pivoting and trying to scratch out a different market for it....
My (completely unsupported) instinct is that this must have been developed for the Metaverse, but that didn't pan out, so now they are pivoting and trying to scratch out a different market for it.
It's hard to justify such an expensive and niche piece of hardware in the current economic climate, but the decision makes a little more sense if they were betting on the Metaverse taking off, the bet didn't pay off, and now they are trying to recoup some of their losses.
Not sure about that. Apple doesn't really bet on other companies' platforms. Usually their strategy is to observe other players in the space, learn from their mistakes, invest big in doing it...
Not sure about that. Apple doesn't really bet on other companies' platforms. Usually their strategy is to observe other players in the space, learn from their mistakes, invest big in doing it "right," then release an expensive but polished product that is less configurable but easier and much more pleasant to use. It doesn't always work out but that seems to be their preferred strategy. So this is their slow, calculated move after watching Google Glass and Cardboard, Oculus/Meta, Vive, HoloLens, PSVR, etc.
This also wouldn't have been possible without a mature Apple Silicon, display advances, lidar, and spatial audio, etc. Looks like the only compromise that had to be made was with the battery pack,...
This also wouldn't have been possible without a mature Apple Silicon, display advances, lidar, and spatial audio, etc. Looks like the only compromise that had to be made was with the battery pack, since battery technology has not had its moment just yet.
You may be right. I'm just struggling to understand the decision to release such a high-end product in a niche (and shrinking) area at a time when most people are cutting back on unnecessary...
You may be right. I'm just struggling to understand the decision to release such a high-end product in a niche (and shrinking) area at a time when most people are cutting back on unnecessary expenditures due to soaring inflation and interest rates. Maybe they are banking on the economy turning around in the next couple of years.
I would caution from leaning too deeply into internet "vibes" as the metric for the economy - if you went by what Twitter thought, we've been in a recession since the start of the site! By...
I would caution from leaning too deeply into internet "vibes" as the metric for the economy - if you went by what Twitter thought, we've been in a recession since the start of the site!
By metrics, consumer spending is quite strong, and unemployment is low - inflation is slowing, and even on a real basis wages are not far behind inflation.
Personal income increased $80.1 billion (0.4 percent at a monthly rate) in April, according to estimates released today by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (table 3 and table 5). Disposable personal income (DPI) increased $79.4 billion (0.4 percent) and personal consumption expenditures (PCE) increased $151.7 billion (0.8 percent).
The PCE price index increased 0.4 percent. Excluding food and energy, the PCE price index increased 0.4 percent (table 9). Real DPI increased less than 0.1 percent in April and Real PCE increased 0.5 percent; goods increased 0.8 percent and services increased 0.3 percent (table 5 and table 7).
Even on an adjusted basis, which isn't necessarily relevant since the headset has a fixed price, consumer spending is not only growing, but record highs.
If you look at the graph of US PCE (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCE), we've not only recovered from the COVID dip but it's actually growing at a faster rate than before.
I am not getting those vibes not only from the internet, but also from personal family and friends. My dad, for example, has had to delay retirement due to inflation. I'm not so sure that a rise...
I am not getting those vibes not only from the internet, but also from personal family and friends. My dad, for example, has had to delay retirement due to inflation.
I'm not so sure that a rise in consumer spending is necessarily indicative of people being willing to spend more on VR headsets. In many cases (such as the case of most people I know personally), they are spending more, but they are simultaneously buying less. Their dollars just aren't stretching very far. It's pretty hard to imagine them making room in their budgets for a $3500 VR headset right now.
Perhaps this is just the socioeconomic bubble that I am in, and what we are both seeing is true. This may just be a manifestation of wealth inequality.
You can also drill down into the specifics. Consumer spending on "personal computers/tablets and peripheral equipment" is at record high's at 87b. For comparison, it was at 57b in January of 2020....
You can also drill down into the specifics. Consumer spending on "personal computers/tablets and peripheral equipment" is at record high's at 87b. For comparison, it was at 57b in January of 2020. Same for software, at 164b vs 104b. I'd also note that both real PCE and real disposable incomes are increasing as well. "Real" means inflation adjusted.
People in the US by the numbers have never been more willing to spend on electronics and software.
In the end, for a country of 300m, trying to capture a picture of the economy with personal interactions is like trying to observe the health of an ecosystem with a grain of sand.
That being said, regardless of whether this was the case Apple wouldn't care - this product isn't supposed to sell particularly well. It's to get something they believe in the future of shipped, so that the wave of consumers can find the kinks, and Apple can get a better sense of consumer demand statistics.
But if you were trying to sell an expensive gadget, there hasn't really been a better time.
Im very hyped for this proving more immersive environments than regular screens, and see the see-through nature as less isolating than regular VR. I look forward to the price falling with time.
Im very hyped for this proving more immersive environments than regular screens, and see the see-through nature as less isolating than regular VR. I look forward to the price falling with time.
Late to the party, but I just watched this video by MrWhoseTheBoss on YouTube. Thought it was pretty decent and wanted to share: https://youtu.be/SSC0RkJuBVw
Late to the party, but I just watched this video by MrWhoseTheBoss on YouTube. Thought it was pretty decent and wanted to share: https://youtu.be/SSC0RkJuBVw
Oh gods, it's begun, Apple users acting like Apple invented something again. It's just a premium headset that will have the same gripes common between all headsets that make it something people...
Oh gods, it's begun, Apple users acting like Apple invented something again.
It's just a premium headset that will have the same gripes common between all headsets that make it something people don't want to wear everywhere. It likely won't be everyday use until it's more like swimming goggles or wrap around sunglasses, but at least they have a community that's more likely to like the AR side so it has some kind of chance, if it can lower the price.
If it doesn't flop, hopefully it will give the industry some better competition and new highs to shoot for. Feels like it's been rather slow at progressing lately.
Apple is like water cutting through rock: slowly, ever so slowly, but with persistence and determination. I think this can be attributed to a strong, centralized, continuous leadership. I hear...
Apple is like water cutting through rock: slowly, ever so slowly, but with persistence and determination. I think this can be attributed to a strong, centralized, continuous leadership.
I hear that Google is an ever-shifting agglomeration of fiefdoms with ever shifting fortunes and trends.
I read that there will be snap in prescription lenses (similar to the setup for the Oculus Quest 2): Read More: https://www.slashgear.com/1305456/how-apple-vision-pro-works-prescription-glasses/
I read that there will be snap in prescription lenses (similar to the setup for the Oculus Quest 2):
In a collaboration with lens-maker ZEISS — arguably best known for its camera glass — it was confirmed that Vision Pro would be compatible with Optical Inserts to suit those requiring vision correction. Each extra lens clings magnetically in place, Apple revealed, allowing them to be quickly removed should the headset need to be switched with someone who doesn't require eyeglasses themselves (or who doesn't share the same prescription).
I'm curious about the eyes on the front display. At first I assumed they were live video from inside the headset, but now I'm wondering if they're actually using the face-scanned avatar model,...
I'm curious about the eyes on the front display. At first I assumed they were live video from inside the headset, but now I'm wondering if they're actually using the face-scanned avatar model, synced up to your eye tracking and blinking. Anybody know? It was hard to tell from the videos I saw.
As unnatural as it would be to make "eye contact" with a live image of somebody's eyes, I'm concerned it would be even weirder if it was a virtual puppet's eyes you were looking at.
Face scanned avatar would make more sense to me. It seems to be occluded enough to where the loss of fidelity won't be noticeable. It's more like a suggestion of eye-contact than actual eye contact.
Face scanned avatar would make more sense to me. It seems to be occluded enough to where the loss of fidelity won't be noticeable. It's more like a suggestion of eye-contact than actual eye contact.
It will either be an expensive flop or a way to further our collective descent into shedding our humanity and putting as many layers as possible between us and the outside world (not that I blame...
It will either be an expensive flop or a way to further our collective descent into shedding our humanity and putting as many layers as possible between us and the outside world (not that I blame us for doing so when reality often sucks). Can't imagine walking around an office with everyone wearing one of these (or a similar product) in a meeting or whatever. Something about things like this becoming mass-adopted creeps me out to no end.
Of course, at this price, mass adoption is probably far-off if unlikely altogether
I'm in the perfect demographic for this product. I live alone, I love using and taking risk on new tech, I'm deeply integrated into Apple's ecosystem, and have the financial means to afford it. But I don't see myself buying this. In fact, I'm baffled Apple thinks this is a product worth selling.
I watched the whole keynote and I didn't see a single use case for this product. The tech is certainly cool, assuming it works as flawlessly as it's presented in the keynote (which is a very big if. Apple's AR experiments don't even work properly unless in perfect conditions), but what exactly does it allow me to do that I can't do with a competing product? I'm sure it's better in every area with better ergonomics, comfort, screen, sound but what's the "killer app"? That I can use Microsoft Word in a spatially created window that blends in with my environment but still having to type on a keyboard? Or god forbid dictate it with Siri?
The entertainment aspect is somewhat appealing, but no matter how good it is, it's also an isolating experience.
It's a cool product, I'd love to try it in person, but apart from the problems I think it has, it also has to overcome the biggest problem of all, which is that anyone who wears it will look ridiculous. I don't think this will be a big flop, and even if it is, who cares, Apple has more money than many of the countries in the world, but I also think it's a solution searching for a problem.
What I think of this as, is to monitors and screens what headphones are to speakers. Headphones didn’t replace speakers, but way more people use headphones than fancy speakers.
Putting the audio driver or screen right next to your sensory organ allows you to do more with less. Headphones can have the quality of much more expensive speaker spaces with a fraction of the space and cost.
Clearly the headset hasn’t gotten there yet, but it’s promising. You can have an infinite number of high quality screens of any shape or size.
That's a pretty thought provoking analogy, but I don't think it addresses the core issue with this product. It's not the tech, it's the social norms that is going to hamper it. Given enough time, maybe this product would overcome them, but for it to do so it has to be ubiquitous, and for it to be ubiquitous, it has to be more affordable and solve an actual problem. Headphones did that, this doesn't.
I don't think it's that big of a deal honestly. For one, these are intended to be in door entertainment devices. It does not matter that much if your SO or family think you're a bit goofy for wearing the device. I look goofy when I wear heated eye masks for dry eye syndrome and I don't really care, because I'm not going outside to strangers with them.
And yeah, this is the first iteration. The first headphones were invented in the 1880s by Ezra Guilliland for telephone operators and weighed 10 pounds and cost more than $5k in today's money. It's been a long way from that to airpods.
I actually think this is a limitation due current Apple Silicon efficiency, the target performance, and current battery technology. They mentioned that the Vision Pro can last for 2 hours when plugged into an external battery pack. This seems like it is a massive compromise, but reflects that Apple wanted to ship this thing with current technology. Apple has driven the longevity of laptop computer battery life up significantly over the past two decades, so I'd be very surprised if they don't keep pushing the efficiency of their silicon and battery technology to drive their Vision hardware's battery life up until it can be worn "all day".
If this is going to be solely an indoor device, I agree it will be a nice toy for people with the means to afford it. It will be less socially awkward too, at least in comparison. I still don't think the hassle of putting it on and having it on your head for the duration of a regular film will be worth it, but that's my personal opinion. It's also debatable how big of a market this serves.
As for your second point, yes, obviously this product can become essential with Apple continuously iterating on it by the next century 😊. I apologize for being cheeky but in the long term, who knows what happens.
I remember when talking on your cell phone in public caused similar consternation, but we eventually got over it. Same with people basically living with earphones on.
That’s a really cool way of thinking about it. Thanks for sharing!
This is kind of where VR is in general as an industry (a solution in search of a problem). Setting gaming aside for a moment (because there are some great VR games), there aren't really any broad problems that VR can solve that aren't more cheaply and easily solved by an existing tool. There are a bunch of niche applications where it works really well (I'm biased, I've worked on several of them), which is why I think the tech will continue to stick around. But that's different than it gaining widespread smartphone-level adaptation.
AR has much bigger potential, as it can do things you currently can't do with any existing tech. Namely overlay the real world with useful data (such as map navigation). The advantage AR has is anyone can do this with a common smartphone, the downside is that it's awkward and clumsy to strap your phone to your face so that your hands are free.
Great points about AR. I remember reading reports a few years ago1 that Apple saw no future in VR but thought AR had great potential for the same reasons you stated. Just the enterprise solutions alone would be immensely useful.
Remember the Google Glass announcement? I honestly thought it had great promise and it was actually useful. It didn't stick for myriad of reasons, but imagine Apple take a crack at it with today's technology and their ecosystem behind them, which Google sorely lacked.
1: I found a report that goes back as far as 2016.
Google Glass was actually discontinued this year. After the initial backlash died off they brought out an enterprise edition and it actually found some limited industrial usage. Things like assembly line workers having instructions overlaid onto the environment. There were even experiments using it to teach kids on the autistic spectrum how to recognize facial expressions (the idea was not for them to wear the glasses 24/7 but for it to be used as a training tool which could have benefits later on when not wearing the device).
Lightweight wearable AR devices that you can actually wear all day without damaging your neck or running out of battery probably have a bright future in all sorts of niche applications, even if they will never be integrated into your average person’s day to day spare time (which was the initial pitch for Google Glass and failed miserably).
I think you nailed it right there. I immediately imagined how it would integrate with what I do now, regardless of the price tag. Would it help in my work or anything else? Not that I can see currently, if anything it would slow me down and make me less efficient.
Entertainment wise my 75 inch TV and surround sound are more than enough. Which brings up another point, most of the time I don't want something on my head and to be immersed. Most of the time my partner and I's leisure time is focused on lounging around the couch. We have something on in the background, chatting casually about something, looking at stuff or playing games on our phones, in between playing with the puppy, etc. Why would we pay $7K+ that makes that more difficult and doesn't add anything to the experience. If I was single and more isolated I could certainly see this working well, minus attention for the puppy, guess it would have to be a virtual pet.
For a device as expensive as this is I think the fact that Apple didn’t bring up the motion sickness problem is pretty telling of their ability to solve it.
The interaction paradigms they showed don't really seem like they'd cause motion sickness. The issue with VR environments that are "immersive" is that your eyes feel like you're moving but your body gives you no sensory feedback to corroborate which throws off your sense of equilibrium. But nothing you do with RealityOS involves moving through space. You manipulate other things in the space around you, but you are just immersed in your own surroundings. The only examples where you're not are if you're watching a movie, in which case it still treats the movie like a screen in your environment, so it would be no more likely to cause motion sickness than going to an IMAX theater.
Gaming is where motion sickness becomes a big issue, and there didn't seem to be much of a gaming story here.
You’re still viewing your environment through a screen. There will be a tiny bit more lag than in real life and I think that would be enough to totally throw me off.
True I hadn't considered that. I expect the reason they positioned this as a stand-alone device rather than some kind of iPad accessory is probably to minimize the processing time and cut latency as low as they can get it.
The documentation seems to say about 12ms of visual latency, which I think would be perceptible, but barely. Apparently simply being drunk slows down your visual processing by 10-20ms and I definitely do notice that (although alcohol induces nausea by a lot of other mechanisms as well).
As @Subvocal mentioned, the AR is a pass-through rather than an overlay (like MS Hololens). So by it's very nature there will always be a lag >0, even if no processing is done to the image. I've given VR demos to 100s of people using multiple kinds of headsets, and there are some folks who are just incredibly sensitive to that kind of eye/ear disagreement who will probably never be able to use the tech.
Given Apple's high standards for it's products I'm sure they've tested and optimized as best they can, but we'll have to wait for some wider access to see how well they've solved for it.
After going through the entire web page that Apple put up, they're claiming a 19 ms delay from capturing the video and displaying it on the screens. That seems pretty low, but there might be more to it that just that. I also can't find any information about the Field of View or the refresh rate of the screens, which I've read studies that claim those are pretty big factors in VR sickness. Seems a bit weird, since those are pretty standard bits of information that most VR headsets will publish.
I fear I’m one of those people. :(
Yep and not to mention other issues like accessibility, which Apple takes great pride in with their work. (And rightly so.)
Isolation is one of the things that I feel like they really had a hard time portraying.
For example it felt really bizarre to show how you practice mindfulness by putting on VR glasses. Those two things just feel so opposite to me.
I like Apple's design philosophy, but I find their approach to health to be bizarre, over-designed with too much interactive overhead, and counter to its usual "less is more"/"less but better" approach.
If I remember things right, people were saying the same thing about smart watches. Those became a norm though, and if enough people start using this product, it's going to go from ridiculous (because I agree that VR headsets look very bad and bulky) to not really mattering
I don't think what you're saying is entirely valid here for a number of reasons.
By the time the apple watch came out people had been wearing fit bits for years, we already had seen other smart watches, people had been wearing regular watches for 80 (?) years, and we had gone through that livestrong bracelet fad. People were used to seeing other people put things on their wrists. People saying it looked stupid were minimal and I doubt anyone would have been seriously ridiculed for wearing one.
The apple vision pro would look totally ridiculous in public. This is an at home alone device period.
Right now you can buy the nreal air and I think that style of AR glasses could be seen as not ridiculous in the near future. They also cost an order of magnitude less than the apple glasses.
I get what you're getting at, but I disagree. People have been wearing wristwatches for centuries. When Apple launched the Watch, it was criticized mainly for the same reason I criticize the Vision Pro -- the company didn't know what the product was for. Over time, the market pushed Apple into focusing on exercise tracking and now the Watch is a success story. But the market conditions for smartwatches and AR/VR products are not the same. People are used to wearing watches and there were digital watch users well before Apple Watch was launched. The norms were already established. Sure, Apple Watch was a bit different because it was square, but that's a trivial change.
Vision Pro has two enormous obstacles in front of it and neither of them are about its tech. One, eye contact is very important for social interactions. Apple must have thought so because they literally designed the product around it. Second, the device has a lot of cameras that are capturing the outside world. Apple may be benevolent about the implications of that, but seeing a lot of small cameras directed at your face by someone wearing something big and weird on their head is going to turn off a lot of people.
And all this trouble is for what?
That and like...I feel smartwatches have not gained that same level of market penetration, again for similiar reasons.
I've always seen them as more of a status symbol than anything.
Yup, the eye thing is a questionable feature as well. If its not perfect from the outset it will quickly hit that uncanny valley feeling.
Number #1 reason I'll be avoiding AR as much as possible. I've seen enough scifi knowing that its going to gamify everything and people will Black Mirror stuff because Black Mirror was not an innacurate criticism of our culture, mapped onto near-future tech.
I'm kinda baffled more people aren't more alarmed about these scenarios.
From the video:
"And now you can capture photos and videos with remarkable depth and relive a memory as if you're right back in the exact moment...."
Yeah because you weren't "there" in the first place. Why do we continue to push reliving instead of living when we know it's not good for us. This is filming at a concert taken to an extreme. It's always for later, for others, clout or just with an agenda that forces (or maybe relieves) you not to be there. This maybe expensive, ugly or "not really helping with anything" as many people here seem to think but this scares the shit out of me.
Obviously the price is steep and I would have trouble justifying it at that price point. That being said, the price is not that different than the price of a new macbook, or a new high end gaming PC. I think this is supposed to be look at through the lens (heh) of a full replacement for those pieces of tech as opposed to a peripheral of them. If I was thinking of getting a new desktop, I would at least consider this: It can do most if not all of what a laptop could do, is highly mobile, better resolution, mimics a personal theater, etc.
I agree that the video didn't highlight any killer application that makes me think "I need this now". But it also does everything my computer does and more, so maybe that's not the right metric to go by. Regardless, the original iPhone also had comparatively little functionality (at least compared to what came later) and look how that changed our relationship to computers. On that note, I think it is interesting to compare some reactions to the original iPhone announcement to some of the reactions here ;) :
I think the first market will be companies buying them for their employees. Might be the scale-up Apple needs to bring the price down to consumer/prosumer-level.
Eh, I don't know if those folks were really so off. Sure, touchscreens functioned, but I still would seriously rather have an actual honest-to-god physical keyboard back. I hate having no tactile feedback.
It’s not really about how a touchscreen keyboard is (although I think in typing plain English most people would be faster on a virtual touchscreen*), but what you give up when you have a physical keyboard. It takes up screen real estate, it adds weight. It turns out people spend just as much time if not much more scrolling, reading, watching on their phones than typing, and while you can type on a touch screen, you can’t watch a YouTube video on a keyboard.
* basically, the modern paradigm for fast typing is you just throw things out there, ignore the typos and let autocorrect do it’s thing. People can get above 100 wpm doing this. It’s worse when you’re typing words that autocorrect can’t find, but for dictionary English it’s faster than a blackberry keyboard. Having to press individual tiny keys slows you down with physical. Of course, it’s less satisfying because there’s no feedback and half of the words you write are wrong pre-autocorrect , but practically it’s effective.
The hardware looks nice, the design is very.. Apple. Both of which are to be expected, of course. Apple are at least consistently good at those things. Price is also something they are good at, and that is also in line with expectations.
That said, I don't think this is going to be VR's iPhone. Maybe a few people will want to wear a headset to look at their photos or watch videos but I sort of suspect most of the people interested in that already have other devices. A proportion of Apple fans with deep pockets will buy one and I suspect most will play with it for a few hours before it eventually just gathers dust. VR needs a killer app that makes that price tag worth it (even the more sane price tags of other headsets), not to mention the hassle of putting on the headset - and I really don't think big virtual screens are it, nor is it Facetime. Sadly it's not Beat Saber either, as fun as that is. Gaming VR is great but just like all gaming it's not for everyone.
Almost nobody wants to work in VR, Zuck spent billions proving that. I doubt Apple are going to change anything much on that front. No matter how comfortable and light this is, and it looks at least comfortable - wearing a VR headset for extended periods is uncomfortable. VR certainly has work applications, but it's not being a virtual desk.
I didn't see them demoing much in the way of AR but I think unlike VR, AR is going to be huge. Like, every day huge. Mobile phone level of use. It won't be with this big, tethered device though, it'll be something more like Google's Glass, that you can put in your pocket and wear on the bus. Because done right, AR has the potential to make many of our current human/device interactions much easier and less painful, in a way VR-style headsets just don't.
I do think this is an excellent "fuck you, this is how it's done" to Zuck from Tim Apple. It remains to be seen whether doing this is something people actually want much of.
Definitely agree regarding AR vs VR. If they can get the size down a bit more in the next few iterations I could see this being a useful AR tool. I can already imagine some use cases for this in the house, e.g. cooking with recipes/tutorials right in front of you, but it is a bit bulky to be taking out into the world on a regular basis. I do like their example of using this in flight, but I don't think it will be "AR's iphone" as you say until people can wear one out and about with little encumbrance.
The good:
The bad:
These are my initial reactions. Looking forward to seeing some hands-on impressions. I'm not in the target market for this (though I could be if the price were anywhere near what I paid for the PS VR2). If it's well received and they iterate smartly on it, I could easily see myself saving up for a few generations down the road.
Oh, quick edit to add: I think the two killer apps for this are going to be...
A 2 hour battery life is gonna be a tough sell. Having to be tethered kind of starts to defeat the purpose of VR for me. If I have to stay put, then I want to sit down. If I'm sitting down, a laptop and headphones will do just fine. I want to be immersed in the content. I want to be able to move around and experience it.
Likewise, for AR, I want it to be just that– augment my reality. I don't want to worry about some device strapped to my face rapidly running out remaining charge, or worse, physically tethered to one spot. That's worse than a computer I can walk away from or a phone I can put down.
Coming from a quest 2, I know the hassle of taking off my headset, finding my glasses, and avoiding getting tangled up with the cable every time I want to use the bathroom or grab a drink is just inconvenient enough that I'll just end up not using the damn thing, especially if it can't do something really well that I can't do more conveniently on another device
I'm really surprised by the negative reactions of people here. I'm really not an Apple user, though I guess I would be in the target demographic if I would be one.
The 'killer feature' everyone is speaking of would simply be the ability to use this as a screen replacement. If text is readable enough to browse the web comfortably and to program, it would be an absolutely amazing alternative to using multiple displays at a desk. Want to program in bed - or in the living room - or outside in your hammock? Go ahead! The entire setup becomes extremely mobile - a laptop, keyboard, and the headset are all you need. Hell, if you program on a company VM you could even drop the laptop.
I really see this extending even further for other office jobs - say you're an HR or sales-person, you could easily take this between work and home and not have a disruption to your workflow. You just have the same setup wherever you are.
If I had an Apple laptop I would be all over this as a replacement for my screens at home. No need for a TV, no need for a work desktop setup. Hell, if I was a console gamer I could even play my games on it and not have any sort of computer desk setup at all.
This is also the use-case in which the 2-hour battery life doesn't matter at all, since you'd be stationary anyway. Just plug in a (long) USB-C cable into the laptop and you're ready. In any case however I think this is primarily a stationary device rather than something you'd be mobile in. Can anyone see themselves wearing this while on a walk outside? At most it would be worn during a commute, in which case 2 hours are plenty IMO.
I've used other VR headsets. I'm very skeptical about this announcement because Apple's press release and the articles aping it are full of vague or missing specs ("23 million pixels!" That's photo camera marketing speak.) and claims that Apple just invented a series of features that have been in other headsets for years. Hardware-wise, I'm having a hard time seeing a lot here that isn't just a small incremental upgrade over my €400 Pico 4, with a ridiculously high markup. The Pico 4 already has pretty good passthrough cameras that let you seamlessly leave your playspace and walk around the house if you want to. It can run a game for two and a half hours without a dangling powerbank, several more with one (or an additional battery attachment). The clarity of its pancake optics is perfectly good for reading text/operating a projected desktop through virtual desktop. The more recently released Pro version has eye and hand tracking as well (haven't tested it). It's lightweight and balances well on the head, with the top strap being optional. It has good off-ear audio.
If the Vision Pro's materials truly are more comfortable that's definitely a plus. Other manufacturers have traditionally been terrible at designing good interfaces between the device and the fleshy sweaty human meatbag. Seeing the eyes through the device is also an interesting and innovative feature.
You say you think this will be a stationary device, but in the same breath you say you'd replace all your screens with it. You still need to carry it between your bed, your living room and your hammock! Are you dragging your laptop around with you in these scenarios?
Just a heads up, but in my experience not just any USB-C connection will be able to provide power fast enough for this device not to run out. You need high intensity fast charging.
I wonder if the hardware can truly sustain its maximum refresh rate for such a high resolution when using an application that isn't mostly stationary. Even high end PC hardware has trouble doing that. If it can, I worry about cooling. I worry about power consumption as well, and what that would do to an already poor battery life.
The way Apple chooses to do their operating system is of course unique enough, I guess. They like to do software their own way. I'm sure there are things about their use of gestures, voice commands, augmented/extended reality, etc. that will be suitably innovative. It's just that I find the hardware way too expensive for what they seem to be offering and especially don't trust what they're not saying.
coming from the company that brought you $700 wheels and $1000 monitor stands, disappointing but not shocking.
Price seems fair for the specs. That being said, if it were 2.5k I would’ve bought one for sure since it seems fun, but 3.5k is pretty borderline.
Who knows, it’s next year so if it get bored enough at Christmas, anything can happen…
Of course, reviews and experiences from the media would be appreciated.
I think their foray into AR/VR will be successful, but it will be in part for a different reason: the buying experience will be improved. You won’t be confronted with a sticky, half-working headset that only has Beat Saber as a demo, and nobody to help you. You’ll receive a clean, working headset, with several different programs available to try, including coding apps, games, and productivity software. You’ll have a Genius to help you out, and plenty of space to try it out in. While it is quite expensive for now (limiting purchases to early adopters and corporate buyers), the price will come down quickly as it scales up in popularity, just as the first iPhone did.
I agree, Apple's stores are a big advantage since people can try them out. And if they decide not to buy them, maybe they'll buy something else?
$3500 is a pretty steep price! What do you think about this announcement? How do you think it will do? Let's discuss!
I've added my thoughts over on the WWDC thread
It looks like something I would definitely use, but not for $3500. That's ridiculous.
The price isn't as ridiculous when compared to the Hololens 2 which is also $3500 and 4 years old at this point
I think I’ll have to wait until the price comes down, if ever. Or if one of their competitors comes out with a cheaper alternative. I’m actually really excited for Mixed Reality headsets - more than I ever have been about VR. So I’m hoping this will enter the mainstream and be affordable a few years down the road
I'm really excited by this announcement. I don't think $3500 is too steep considering that this is something actually new and innovative with the requisite massive R&D costs.
(The innovation is in the integration, UI/UX, and attention to detail. Apple is not usually the first to market, but they are usually the best.)
That said, I am more inclined to buy $3500 worth of AAPL. I think this will take off to replace monitors, TVs, and cell phones if they don't give up on the concept prematurely.
i have long since realised that apple is a good company, in a strange way
not because they make products i want to use, but because they spurn other companies to make products i want to use
hopefully this in turn will cause new interest in more novel vr headsets
(of course, this is a double edged sword, because it applies in the opposite direction, too. rip my main man the headphone jack)
I agree, I think although there is traditionally an "apple tax", this does look amazing and is the best example of a "this is the future" kind of keynote I've seen in a very, very long time.
Fortunately, it doesn't come out until next year, so I'll be saving up, but I'm an AR/VR enthusiast so I'm their target demographic.
Amazing tech. 23 million pixels for the display is unprecedented and will solve the screen door effect. The gesture tracking is promising.
I'm skeptical of voice-to-text and voice-as-command as primary interaction modes, given the relatively poor performance of Siri and Apple's in-house voice transcription model, compared to bleeding edge models like Whisper. I predict that a Bluetooth keyboard will become a necessary rather than an accessory.
Lackluster applications. VisionOS is essentially iPadOS for your face. Lots of 2D experiences in curved rectangles will float around you in 3D, but you're not ever "in" 3D experiences. I hope to see an enterprising developer pull off a compelling concept.
I was hyped until I saw the price, then I realize it's not that crazy when people regularly spend more money on things that's "normal". This is cheaper than a family vacation to disneyland, or a nice road bike, or designer bags/clothes, or tattoos, or even weird car mods. I believe that Apple intends to market this to the everypeople and not toward a niche group of users. If they can deliver what they showed on the demo, people are willing to pay a lot than you think.
I see some people complaining about pricing, but from the reading I have done, Apple is selling this product at-cost or very close to it, something unheard of from the company.
The main reasonable driving points for its pricing would seem to be the massive R&D investments in its display, hand + eye tracking, and audio. We can hope all three of those investments were fruitful.
I would honestly find the price of Vision Pro acceptable if I could use it as a replacement- and substantial upgrade to - a $2000+ display setup at home, linking it as essentially a ~50" ultra-wide 5k high refresh-rate display setup connected to my PC. I expect that using it in this way would not actually be possible due to compatibility outside MacBooks being either non-existent or very limited. In any case, I'm excited for the technology on display and for potential competitors taking inspiration from Apple and providing something closer to my interests!
That costs way too much. lol
I could see $1000 or even $1500. But no way this is worth $3500.
Rumor has it they are working on cheaper priced models.
Even if they are, if they're pricing this one at $3500, what would they end up cutting to get it much cheaper? Not sure this is a winning strategy for them, honestly.
Looks pretty slick for sure!
I want one for a week to play with and watch a few movies.
But $3500... Phew!
I'll upgrade my 2015 MBP first.
I am curious about the recording functionality of this product.
This tech demo from a few years ago and a more recent one were one of the most jaw-dropping experience I had in VR. It's basically VR photo and VR video; you can actually move you head as if you were here.
If they can manage to compute similar light field with their camera and depth sensor (and perhaps a sprinkle of NeRF?) within a reasonable time, they could have an effortless killer app.
My (completely unsupported) instinct is that this must have been developed for the Metaverse, but that didn't pan out, so now they are pivoting and trying to scratch out a different market for it.
It's hard to justify such an expensive and niche piece of hardware in the current economic climate, but the decision makes a little more sense if they were betting on the Metaverse taking off, the bet didn't pay off, and now they are trying to recoup some of their losses.
Not sure about that. Apple doesn't really bet on other companies' platforms. Usually their strategy is to observe other players in the space, learn from their mistakes, invest big in doing it "right," then release an expensive but polished product that is less configurable but easier and much more pleasant to use. It doesn't always work out but that seems to be their preferred strategy. So this is their slow, calculated move after watching Google Glass and Cardboard, Oculus/Meta, Vive, HoloLens, PSVR, etc.
This also wouldn't have been possible without a mature Apple Silicon, display advances, lidar, and spatial audio, etc. Looks like the only compromise that had to be made was with the battery pack, since battery technology has not had its moment just yet.
You may be right. I'm just struggling to understand the decision to release such a high-end product in a niche (and shrinking) area at a time when most people are cutting back on unnecessary expenditures due to soaring inflation and interest rates. Maybe they are banking on the economy turning around in the next couple of years.
I would caution from leaning too deeply into internet "vibes" as the metric for the economy - if you went by what Twitter thought, we've been in a recession since the start of the site!
By metrics, consumer spending is quite strong, and unemployment is low - inflation is slowing, and even on a real basis wages are not far behind inflation.
From the latest report: https://www.bea.gov/news/2023/personal-income-and-outlays-april-2023
Even on an adjusted basis, which isn't necessarily relevant since the headset has a fixed price, consumer spending is not only growing, but record highs.
If you look at the graph of US PCE (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCE), we've not only recovered from the COVID dip but it's actually growing at a faster rate than before.
I am not getting those vibes not only from the internet, but also from personal family and friends. My dad, for example, has had to delay retirement due to inflation.
I'm not so sure that a rise in consumer spending is necessarily indicative of people being willing to spend more on VR headsets. In many cases (such as the case of most people I know personally), they are spending more, but they are simultaneously buying less. Their dollars just aren't stretching very far. It's pretty hard to imagine them making room in their budgets for a $3500 VR headset right now.
Perhaps this is just the socioeconomic bubble that I am in, and what we are both seeing is true. This may just be a manifestation of wealth inequality.
You can also drill down into the specifics. Consumer spending on "personal computers/tablets and peripheral equipment" is at record high's at 87b. For comparison, it was at 57b in January of 2020. Same for software, at 164b vs 104b. I'd also note that both real PCE and real disposable incomes are increasing as well. "Real" means inflation adjusted.
People in the US by the numbers have never been more willing to spend on electronics and software.
In the end, for a country of 300m, trying to capture a picture of the economy with personal interactions is like trying to observe the health of an ecosystem with a grain of sand.
That being said, regardless of whether this was the case Apple wouldn't care - this product isn't supposed to sell particularly well. It's to get something they believe in the future of shipped, so that the wave of consumers can find the kinks, and Apple can get a better sense of consumer demand statistics.
But if you were trying to sell an expensive gadget, there hasn't really been a better time.
Im very hyped for this proving more immersive environments than regular screens, and see the see-through nature as less isolating than regular VR. I look forward to the price falling with time.
Late to the party, but I just watched this video by MrWhoseTheBoss on YouTube. Thought it was pretty decent and wanted to share: https://youtu.be/SSC0RkJuBVw
Oh gods, it's begun, Apple users acting like Apple invented something again.
It's just a premium headset that will have the same gripes common between all headsets that make it something people don't want to wear everywhere. It likely won't be everyday use until it's more like swimming goggles or wrap around sunglasses, but at least they have a community that's more likely to like the AR side so it has some kind of chance, if it can lower the price.
If it doesn't flop, hopefully it will give the industry some better competition and new highs to shoot for. Feels like it's been rather slow at progressing lately.
Google glass version 2? 👀
I'm convinced Google really fumbled AR. They could have dominated the whole space if they hadn't given up.
Apple is like water cutting through rock: slowly, ever so slowly, but with persistence and determination. I think this can be attributed to a strong, centralized, continuous leadership.
I hear that Google is an ever-shifting agglomeration of fiefdoms with ever shifting fortunes and trends.
Relevant comic on their org charts: https://theartofdoing.com/tag/manu-cornet/
It looks cool but I didn't see a single person wearing this with glasses on, and for that very reason I don't think this product will ever be for me.
I read that there will be snap in prescription lenses (similar to the setup for the Oculus Quest 2):
Read More: https://www.slashgear.com/1305456/how-apple-vision-pro-works-prescription-glasses/
I'm curious about the eyes on the front display. At first I assumed they were live video from inside the headset, but now I'm wondering if they're actually using the face-scanned avatar model, synced up to your eye tracking and blinking. Anybody know? It was hard to tell from the videos I saw.
As unnatural as it would be to make "eye contact" with a live image of somebody's eyes, I'm concerned it would be even weirder if it was a virtual puppet's eyes you were looking at.
Face scanned avatar would make more sense to me. It seems to be occluded enough to where the loss of fidelity won't be noticeable. It's more like a suggestion of eye-contact than actual eye contact.
It will either be an expensive flop or a way to further our collective descent into shedding our humanity and putting as many layers as possible between us and the outside world (not that I blame us for doing so when reality often sucks). Can't imagine walking around an office with everyone wearing one of these (or a similar product) in a meeting or whatever. Something about things like this becoming mass-adopted creeps me out to no end.
Of course, at this price, mass adoption is probably far-off if unlikely altogether
Marques Brownlee's review is up
A bit of background information on the interface design