Far be it from me to defend Apple on a product that’s not even released yet, but many of the points here seem like speculation at best and hearsay at worst. Apple is known for putting an insane...
Far be it from me to defend Apple on a product that’s not even released yet, but many of the points here seem like speculation at best and hearsay at worst. Apple is known for putting an insane attention to detail in their hardware, but more so, their software. So, fear about the cameras being misaligned? The battery cable being able to snap off, leaving users blind? The displays not filling out peripheral vision, therefore making AR pass through unnatural? It pains me to say this because I quite like Karl Guttag, but do you honestly think they haven’t thought of that?
Also, the spec sheet confirmed that Vision Pro runs at 90 Hertz, so I don’t know why he speculates about refresh rate in the write up. That information is already available.
I'm not one to defend Apple either (usually the opposite), but I agree with you. The Vision Pro is going to fail because it completely lacks a usecase that isn't incredibly niche and situational,...
I'm not one to defend Apple either (usually the opposite), but I agree with you. The Vision Pro is going to fail because it completely lacks a usecase that isn't incredibly niche and situational, not because Apple messed up the design or the hardware.
I don't see the vision pro failing, so much as it's being released basically as a devkit so the ecosystem can mature while they bring the price down. The device seems to obviously be building...
I don't see the vision pro failing, so much as it's being released basically as a devkit so the ecosystem can mature while they bring the price down. The device seems to obviously be building top-down in terms of price/quality, rather than bottom-up.
Right. AVP is very obviously not Apple’s final goal; they’re releasing now because it has to start somewhere—the “it” being AR glasses, if I had to guess. By launching the ecosystem now, they’ll...
Right. AVP is very obviously not Apple’s final goal; they’re releasing now because it has to start somewhere—the “it” being AR glasses, if I had to guess. By launching the ecosystem now, they’ll have a decade to mature the software and accessories of a vision-based operating system, so that when AR glasses are possible, they’ll be ready.
Of course, that’s assuming AR glasses are physically possible. Maybe there’s some breakthrough that makes compact, full color, spatially-aware holograms with finger tracking, 3D cameras, battery that won’t melt your head, etc. fit into regular eyewear. Or maybe our universe will say no.
It doesn't seem like a pass/fail sort of thing. It's been a long time, but Apple has sold to specialized markets before. In the end, Apple is going to have to decide for themselves whether sales...
It doesn't seem like a pass/fail sort of thing. It's been a long time, but Apple has sold to specialized markets before. In the end, Apple is going to have to decide for themselves whether sales meet their own expectations.
I don't expect there will be one in every home, but I expect every research lab that does anything with VR will want one. Maybe it will be good for architects or CAD or 3D graphics artists, but that depends on the software, which depends on software developers buying in. Apple might subsidize software development somehow to get it off the ground? Or build their own software.
Context: the original Mac cost $2500 ($7,317 in today's dollars) and people didn't really know what to do with it either.
Not that I think it's impossible but most of the current VR headsets don't fill out peripheral vision (aka horizonal field of view). Pimax has an 8K headset that goes to 160° horizonal FOV. For...
Not that I think it's impossible but most of the current VR headsets don't fill out peripheral vision (aka horizonal field of view). Pimax has an 8K headset that goes to 160° horizonal FOV. For reference the Quest 2 and Quest Pro have visible horizontal FOVs of 97° and 106° on 2K displays (source: vr-compare.com).
I think it's possible for Apple to do improve upon this but they haven't marketed it or put it on any specs lists so I'm leaning towards they just don't compete on that front.
Has anybody tried some of these light AR glasses (Rokid, Nreal, ...) ? Seems to have much better day-to-day use cases (e.g. I could see myself take a pair while traveling) :...
Has anybody tried some of these light AR glasses (Rokid, Nreal, ...) ? Seems to have much better day-to-day use cases (e.g. I could see myself take a pair while traveling) :
A set of “dumb” glasses that is functionally just a monitor would suit me well I think, but the cheapest ones I see are over $400 with an effective resolution of 1080. That’s way too much for too...
A set of “dumb” glasses that is functionally just a monitor would suit me well I think, but the cheapest ones I see are over $400 with an effective resolution of 1080. That’s way too much for too little.
I have the Nreal Air glasses. I use them often for my Steam Deck and lately for work. They feel pretty great once you get used to them being on your head. And being able to look through them...
I have the Nreal Air glasses. I use them often for my Steam Deck and lately for work. They feel pretty great once you get used to them being on your head. And being able to look through them without doing anything helps with that a lot
Far be it from me to defend Apple on a product that’s not even released yet, but many of the points here seem like speculation at best and hearsay at worst. Apple is known for putting an insane attention to detail in their hardware, but more so, their software. So, fear about the cameras being misaligned? The battery cable being able to snap off, leaving users blind? The displays not filling out peripheral vision, therefore making AR pass through unnatural? It pains me to say this because I quite like Karl Guttag, but do you honestly think they haven’t thought of that?
Also, the spec sheet confirmed that Vision Pro runs at 90 Hertz, so I don’t know why he speculates about refresh rate in the write up. That information is already available.
I think the point he’s trying to make isn’t how did apple not think of that and more “Apple must have prioritized form over function”
gasp but that's never happened before
I'm not one to defend Apple either (usually the opposite), but I agree with you. The Vision Pro is going to fail because it completely lacks a usecase that isn't incredibly niche and situational, not because Apple messed up the design or the hardware.
I don't see the vision pro failing, so much as it's being released basically as a devkit so the ecosystem can mature while they bring the price down. The device seems to obviously be building top-down in terms of price/quality, rather than bottom-up.
Right. AVP is very obviously not Apple’s final goal; they’re releasing now because it has to start somewhere—the “it” being AR glasses, if I had to guess. By launching the ecosystem now, they’ll have a decade to mature the software and accessories of a vision-based operating system, so that when AR glasses are possible, they’ll be ready.
Of course, that’s assuming AR glasses are physically possible. Maybe there’s some breakthrough that makes compact, full color, spatially-aware holograms with finger tracking, 3D cameras, battery that won’t melt your head, etc. fit into regular eyewear. Or maybe our universe will say no.
It doesn't seem like a pass/fail sort of thing. It's been a long time, but Apple has sold to specialized markets before. In the end, Apple is going to have to decide for themselves whether sales meet their own expectations.
I don't expect there will be one in every home, but I expect every research lab that does anything with VR will want one. Maybe it will be good for architects or CAD or 3D graphics artists, but that depends on the software, which depends on software developers buying in. Apple might subsidize software development somehow to get it off the ground? Or build their own software.
Context: the original Mac cost $2500 ($7,317 in today's dollars) and people didn't really know what to do with it either.
Not that I think it's impossible but most of the current VR headsets don't fill out peripheral vision (aka horizonal field of view). Pimax has an 8K headset that goes to 160° horizonal FOV. For reference the Quest 2 and Quest Pro have visible horizontal FOVs of 97° and 106° on 2K displays (source: vr-compare.com).
I think it's possible for Apple to do improve upon this but they haven't marketed it or put it on any specs lists so I'm leaning towards they just don't compete on that front.
Has anybody tried some of these light AR glasses (Rokid, Nreal, ...) ? Seems to have much better day-to-day use cases (e.g. I could see myself take a pair while traveling) :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkztgptX4wE
A set of “dumb” glasses that is functionally just a monitor would suit me well I think, but the cheapest ones I see are over $400 with an effective resolution of 1080. That’s way too much for too little.
Yeah it's a bit expensive, although the Rokid max has OLED panels that apparently looks better than most VR googles.
I have the Nreal Air glasses. I use them often for my Steam Deck and lately for work. They feel pretty great once you get used to them being on your head. And being able to look through them without doing anything helps with that a lot