I'm sure some people will think this is an unusual barrier to entry, but I actually really like this for the simple fact that most VR/AR headsets just assume you have perfect vision and then refer...
I'm sure some people will think this is an unusual barrier to entry, but I actually really like this for the simple fact that most VR/AR headsets just assume you have perfect vision and then refer you to a partner who will charge you an inflated price to get prescription lenses made for it if you need them. Having them come with the system out of the box is a really nice experience and discourages you from trying to fit the headset over your glasses, which is a very uncomfortable experience that will likely damage both your glasses and the lenses in the headset.
You definitely need your head scanned if you’re willing to shell out that kind of money. Sorry for the Reddit-esque non-contributory reply. Had to get it out of my system. Actually I see it as a...
You definitely need your head scanned if you’re willing to shell out that kind of money.
Sorry for the Reddit-esque non-contributory reply. Had to get it out of my system.
Actually I see it as a bit of a barrier to adoption. If your headset is customized to you, it’s harder to let your friends try it out. But then again, I get the preemo, customized approach.
For my Oculus Rift I bought prescription lenses that magnetically attached to the headset. Removed in seconds when people wanted to give it a spin.
Presumably you'll be able to buy lenses and head cushions separately, though yes, it still complicates the resale. Head cushions on VR sets can get really nasty, so one might want to replace it on...
Presumably you'll be able to buy lenses and head cushions separately, though yes, it still complicates the resale.
Head cushions on VR sets can get really nasty, so one might want to replace it on a used model in any case. Though ideally they should just clean it if that's an option.
I would also assume that if you have good vision that you won't need the prescription lenses, but they may take your PD into account when producing those lenses, which would make it basically customized in such a way that makes it essentially useless to most people.
Personally speaking I'd have a hard time letting my friends drive a theoretical $3500 car, let alone a custom-built headset that's presumably much more delicate. It seems pretty clear that Apple...
Personally speaking I'd have a hard time letting my friends drive a theoretical $3500 car, let alone a custom-built headset that's presumably much more delicate.
It seems pretty clear that Apple is treating this like a boutique product. They don't need word of mouth style marketing and they are focusing on people who already know they want it. It also seems like they aren't going to produce a ton of these either, so they aren't intending to make their money on bulk sales. But it's really hard to say for sure what they're thinking.
Part of the fun of an expensive thing is showing it off to people. And I don't mean in a snobby way, but like letting people experience something new without having to pay for it is something I...
Part of the fun of an expensive thing is showing it off to people.
And I don't mean in a snobby way, but like letting people experience something new without having to pay for it is something I enjoy.
For the first few months after I got it, other people were using my quest 2 more than I was.
metaphor makes sense but not the scale of the prices mentioned. I have a $3500 beater 2005 car. Sure, if my friends aren't maniacs and need a short drive to the store, they can go for it. the...
metaphor makes sense but not the scale of the prices mentioned. I have a $3500 beater 2005 car. Sure, if my friends aren't maniacs and need a short drive to the store, they can go for it.
the price tag of this, however, is more along he lines of a very nice $80k+ car. Maybe a REALLY good friend who I know is passionate about cars, or a dire emergency would warrant lending, but for the most part that isn't something I'd lend out willy nilly. I guess that's the market Apple is going for, which isn't new nor unusual for Apple.
You misunderstand me; I was trying to illustrate how unlikely I was to let anyone borrow a theoretical Vision Pro I would have owned. I won't pretend that the Vision Pro is not fantastically...
You misunderstand me; I was trying to illustrate how unlikely I was to let anyone borrow a theoretical Vision Pro I would have owned.
I won't pretend that the Vision Pro is not fantastically expensive. But to be fair, people's perception of the cost of a VR headset is very off right now because Meta is currently offering their headsets at a much lower price than they are actually worth. Consider something like the Bigscreen Beyond that is available for preorder at $1000 for only a barebones headset with no controllers, external cameras for visual pass-through, and doesn't even have the base stations required to track the motion of your head. The Valve Index is the same price but still doesn't come with the expensive computer required to run it, and uses a display that is roughly half of what the rumors are saying the Vision Pro will have.
$3500 is still a really high asking price, perhaps unreasonable for what's actually under the hood, but I don't think it's quite as astronomical as one would first expect it to be. It'll be a lot more clear once it gets released and someone can tear it down.
The difference between Oculus & Vision though is that Oculus came first and had to help people figure out what VR is. With Vision, it's less about establishing VR and way more about making it...
The difference between Oculus & Vision though is that Oculus came first and had to help people figure out what VR is. With Vision, it's less about establishing VR and way more about making it better. If anything, not being as demo-able may work in Vision's favor, since "better" is subjective, so you're left with the owners raves about how much they love AppleVR.
A Vision owner could spend ~10% more and buy a Quest, and then let uninformed friends use that and just tell them the Vision Pro is just way better. It'd probably cost less than an extra set of lenses and pads....
Could be, if it weren't for the lenses. You ever try wearing someone else's glasses? It's hard to get a good take on a premium product when everything is blurry and giving you a headache.
Could be, if it weren't for the lenses. You ever try wearing someone else's glasses? It's hard to get a good take on a premium product when everything is blurry and giving you a headache.
I mean in the end, a minority of people require vision correction, and if the owner is the one with the vision correction lenses, you can just take them out. I am nearsighted but wear contacts -...
I mean in the end, a minority of people require vision correction, and if the owner is the one with the vision correction lenses, you can just take them out. I am nearsighted but wear contacts - it wouldn't matter for us either.
Is that how the Vision Pro will work? If you need a prescription to order, are these corrective lenses a separate piece fitted on top of the basic lenses or do you pop them off and find yourself...
Is that how the Vision Pro will work? If you need a prescription to order, are these corrective lenses a separate piece fitted on top of the basic lenses or do you pop them off and find yourself missing a key component?
Yes, it seems as reasonable as needing an eye exam before buying glasses, particularly since it’s more expensive than most glasses. Apple’s stores are going to be a big advantage for selling these.
Yes, it seems as reasonable as needing an eye exam before buying glasses, particularly since it’s more expensive than most glasses.
Apple’s stores are going to be a big advantage for selling these.
I am a big skeptic that this product will really take off and lure the masses. Too many barriers. And beyond that, you have to be onboard with the idea that many people will actually want to strap...
I am a big skeptic that this product will really take off and lure the masses. Too many barriers. And beyond that, you have to be onboard with the idea that many people will actually want to strap a computer to their face. Maybe after a few generations when the product gets simplified, is less cumbersome and hopefully less expensive. Google Glass was way less cumbersome, and even that failed. Otherwise, I see it as a niche product that has a risky future. As with all new tech, time will tell.
As I mentioned in another comment, this headset looks like is positioned as a boutique product; they're not planning on making money by selling to the masses with this iteration. I'm kind of...
As I mentioned in another comment, this headset looks like is positioned as a boutique product; they're not planning on making money by selling to the masses with this iteration.
I'm kind of amazed at how many people talk about Google Glass. The reason why it failed is because it was never as good as people thought it was. For the average person it was basically a camera on your face with a HUD. That's why the only publicly available ones were part of a developer program that advertised that it wasn't ready for primetime. Snapchat released the same basic thing without the display as Spectacles and they were actually successful; they're on their third iteration right now. Google later tried to market Glass towards businesses who could develop specialized AR applications for their internal use, but they got beat by a number of different companies in that market so they pulled out. Google Glass failed because it was a bad product.
For anyone that travels a lot for work the Vision Pro means you can have a setup that replicates a triple monitor workstation anywhere in the world. You won’t even need a desk.
For anyone that travels a lot for work the Vision Pro means you can have a setup that replicates a triple monitor workstation anywhere in the world. You won’t even need a desk.
The thing I like about the Vision Pro is not only does the high resolution make it a more worthwhile proposition than many earlier headsets, but it's actually a computer in and of itself that has...
The thing I like about the Vision Pro is not only does the high resolution make it a more worthwhile proposition than many earlier headsets, but it's actually a computer in and of itself that has a purpose-designed computing environment built into it. You might not even need to bring the laptop with you, but it looks like it'll pretty seamlessly integrate if you do and I assume you'll be able to do so remotely as well if you have a good internet connection.
I got to play around with a glass a few years back and navigation app was magical. Having an arrow in the corner of your vision that would update with directions to get you from point A to B was a...
I got to play around with a glass a few years back and navigation app was magical. Having an arrow in the corner of your vision that would update with directions to get you from point A to B was a super cool experience for navigating an unfamiliar space. I could see it being a game changing kind of thing for indoor navigation in an unfamiliar building or being a tourist in a new city and not wanting to pull out your phone to make sure you have the directions right every few blocks.
This is exactly the sort of thing I really wanted as a kid who was into sci-fi stuff. But I’m also unsure if it will succeed here or not. It is an incredibly high price to pay for a new technology.
This is exactly the sort of thing I really wanted as a kid who was into sci-fi stuff. But I’m also unsure if it will succeed here or not.
It is an incredibly high price to pay for a new technology.
It looks like it's definitely a 'first adopter' category of product in the first iteration. If history is anything to go by, it will take time to build up momentum and steam while external...
It looks like it's definitely a 'first adopter' category of product in the first iteration.
If history is anything to go by, it will take time to build up momentum and steam while external developers think of and implement uses for the product (and platform).
Hopefully it will be available in more affordable price points down the line with greater demand and economies of scale.
I’m actually rooting for it. Would love to see this style of technology get popular enough for prices to get reasonable. Imagine not having to hand TVs or computer screens in your house: just have...
I’m actually rooting for it. Would love to see this style of technology get popular enough for prices to get reasonable.
Imagine not having to hand TVs or computer screens in your house: just have a localized computer system that “streams” to the whole house.
Sure, we’re look weird sitting on the couch with friends, all staring at a blank wall. But in our augmented reality it would be awesome.
Ugh, if it's just screen that you're sharing, then it feels dystopic. Economical concerns aside (of course a huge screen is extensive), what difference would it make compared to an actual screen ?...
Ugh, if it's just screen that you're sharing, then it feels dystopic. Economical concerns aside (of course a huge screen is extensive), what difference would it make compared to an actual screen ?
I don't mind a shared AR/VR space though (like an augmented board game).
One corner case that would match what you're describing would be to watch a volumetric video at the same time (like a play or a sports game), but then other question would arise (what if I want to move in the same position as my friend ?).
It sure is easy to have ambivalent feelings with this topic !
I understand the sentiment. But I am looking at this more from a practical point of view. How most people spend time together on the couch now, is watching a movie or TV show together. But...
I understand the sentiment. But I am looking at this more from a practical point of view.
How most people spend time together on the couch now, is watching a movie or TV show together. But actually just being on their phone.
So we’re already at a point where people’s attentions are split 1 million ways.
So what I’m imagining here is a far off future where VR or augmented reality devices are just common apparel.  we could all be staring at a blank wall while sitting on the couch together but in actuality, we could be sharing a movie or playing a game together and off to the side we could have additional activities open. Like text messages or paperwork.
Judging from your comment, you don’t really like technology very much and prefer to relax at home. Disconnected from it all. And I can understand that. But for me, not having to hold the phone and stare down at it all the time while I’m doing other activities would actually be quite nice .
A minor thing is that I think we would have better posture as a society if phones got replaced with these AR devices.
Also, if we could just have the one device replace multiple other devices, that would be great. I’m kind of a tech guy, so I have multiple computer screens, a phone or two for business and privacy and a big TV. I like to watch movies on. If sometime in the future, I could condense that all into some device I just wear on my face I think I would actually like that.
I don’t think this Apple device is going to be that but it would be cool if it progressed to that eventually
(you've got weird  characters appearing in your text, is that an emoji my computer cannot render ?) Ah, not quite. I do like technology: my primary cultural consumption is video-game, I have a...
(you've got weird  characters appearing in your text, is that an emoji my computer cannot render ?)
Judging from your comment, you don’t really like technology very much and prefer to relax at home. Disconnected from it all.
Ah, not quite. I do like technology: my primary cultural consumption is video-game, I have a Oculus Quest that I still use from time to time, my robot vacuum is a life saver, I try to fool myself that I'm past "gear acquisition syndrome" in my photography, my box of random electronic is full of unused Esp8266-that-I-should-really-turn-into-a-CO2-station., and lastly I work and enjoy being a software engineer.
However it's true that I am very wary being over-connected: my favorite videogames experience are all offline, and back in the days I found more value using Pebble as a remote control than as a small notification center. I do like turning my phone off when I'm in holiday.
And thus I felt like the scenario you describe with people sharing the same space but watching the same (2D) stuff like "What's the solution to too much screens in your life ? Another screen !".
I'm not sure what changes in your description of being together in AR/VR. The problems you describe (people being together to do that one thing but doing other stuff on their phone) is dependent on the activity rather than the medium. As you said, it's mainly an attention problem.
Given the opportunity, I would still check Hacker News / Tildes while watching YouTube videos with friend in VR, because frankly looking at cute pet yawning is not that interesting. I don't see any difference between looking at my web-browser on the side in VR or looking at my phone in uh.. "R".
And conversely I would be 100% focused on a game, be it AR/VR or flat-R, because I'm competitive like that.
If it's just chatting or sharing a meal, just turning off the phone or turning it off is more cost effective than any other additional device. But of course that would require agreement from several humans, and getting humans to agree to something is hard, while shepherding them to do something via clever UI is less so.
Also, if we could just have the one device replace multiple other devices
While it is very cool and planet-changing (see: the smartphone), I am also wary of having a jack-of-all-trade-but-master-of-none. Our smartphone has indeed replaced our planner, calendar, flashlight, camera, notebook, bubble-level, audio player; but we also lost some advantages compared to the dedicated device. The immediacy of intuitiveness of a paper notebook + pen, the quality and handling of a decent camera, the power of a maglite. Being able to listen to music with a device with a battery life that spans weeks, not days.
Ultimately the discussion we have proves that Apple might be onto something because the way it's described in their marketing, and the way we're discussing it is "another medium to get to the same stuff". Compared this to the social metapetaomegaverse BS that Zuckerberg try to push down our throat.
You are also forgetting the motion sickness, space and light limitations as well. The problem is that these headsets need their own space, like how a computer needs an office, and when you don’t...
You are also forgetting the motion sickness, space and light limitations as well.
The problem is that these headsets need their own space, like how a computer needs an office, and when you don’t dedicate it a space the headset is treated more like a toy than a serious addition to your life.
I constantly think about Google Glass and wonder if the culture in the last 10 years has shifted enough to where those issues wouldn't even phase people. This was very early social media days and...
Google Glass was way less cumbersome, and even that failed.
I constantly think about Google Glass and wonder if the culture in the last 10 years has shifted enough to where those issues wouldn't even phase people. This was very early social media days and times where smartphone adoption was a little short of critical mass (the days where IPhone was the rich kid in town and nearly uncontestable). But these days, people are recording themselves everywhere and phone cameras have more or less replaced the point and click.
And ofc the price didn't help much either. $1500 at launch in 2014. I'm sure these days we can push that down to $300-400 and actually get people to buy them.
Although the company will sell the Vision Pro at all 270 US Apple Stores, demo stations will initially only be available in major regions like New York or Los Angeles. Furthermore, online purchases will not become available until 2025. So early adopters will have to go into a nearby brick-and-mortar store.
For WWDC, they have an average-ish face mask and they have lenses with common diopters. If you have strong astigmatism it's probably doomed, since astigmatism correction is too high dimensional.
For WWDC, they have an average-ish face mask and they have lenses with common diopters. If you have strong astigmatism it's probably doomed, since astigmatism correction is too high dimensional.
Your comment made me think of those giant eye tester things the ophthalmologist uses to find your prescription being strapped onto a person's head every time someone wants to test one of these.
Your comment made me think of those giant eye tester things the ophthalmologist uses to find your prescription being strapped onto a person's head every time someone wants to test one of these.
While I don’t want to call Apple Vision Pro a dud straight away, I’ll just say that it’s going to be an extremely niche entertainment device. There’s just so many challenges I don’t think are...
While I don’t want to call Apple Vision Pro a dud straight away, I’ll just say that it’s going to be an extremely niche entertainment device.
There’s just so many challenges I don’t think are being appreciated enough.
How isolated will your family feel seeing you with this thing strapped to your face?
How do you quickly share something with another person? “One sec, here, strap this on, let’s get the face seal right, oh wait swap in your lenses, okay good, now sign in with your Apple ID, and you should see that cool landscape”. With a smartphone this looks more like “hey check this out, oh okay cool”.
Everyone’s talking up the whole infinite monitors thing, but how precise is scrolling for some kinds of creative work? The hand gestures will be fine I’m sure, but won’t have the precision of a mouse so you’d likely wanna use one and a keyboard along with it.
It’s expensive. Will it have user profiles? The iPad still doesn’t 13 years later. Do you buy one for your spouse and kid(s) so they don’t feel like they’re missing out?
Given the weight (glass and metal) will you want to use this for more than an hour at a time? We’re humans and naturally like to have access to all our senses and feel uncomfortable if they’re interfered with — it’s millions of years of evolution we’re going up against here.
How good will the software be for this platform? Surely distribution will go through through the App Store. Apple just released Final Cut for the iPad after 13 years. Meta can’t be bothered to put out an Instagram or WhatsApp iPad app because the device usage on iPad for those apps is a fraction of the smartphone’s. What about all those other apps that don’t even have an iPad version? Are those devs gonna publish one for the AVP with an even lower user base than the iPad? I doubt it.
With all that said, I think it could find its legs as an incredibly niche entertainment device for mostly single people who have some money to burn. And that’s fine. Not everything Apple puts out needs to best the iPhone. I just don’t see this as a general-purpose computing platform like some are envisioning.
I think we’ll have a better idea of the market for this product when the price comes down. I fully expect an Apple Vision sans the Pro moniker that jettisons the outward-facing screen and drops the metal for plastic due to weight and price considerations so that it can retail closer to $1999.
It’ll be fun to see where this thing ends up, but my gut tells me people don’t want to spend significant time with anything like this strapped to their face. Not now, not in 10, 20 years. It’s not a technology problem, it’s a human problem.
One thing to keep in mind is that Apple isn’t really positioning this as an entertainment device, but as a computer that can also do some light gaming. And it seems like they really don’t intend...
One thing to keep in mind is that Apple isn’t really positioning this as an entertainment device, but as a computer that can also do some light gaming. And it seems like they really don’t intend to make it for sharing, just like an iPhone. That may make it not for everyone, but at that price point it doesn’t look like they are aiming for everyone - at least not yet.
I simply see this as the early stages for the tech. Almost all your questions will be answered in some decades' worth of time once the size of the device shrinks down more to the size you'd see in...
I simply see this as the early stages for the tech. Almost all your questions will be answered in some decades' worth of time once the size of the device shrinks down more to the size you'd see in your favorite Sci-Fi work. You want to start work on that before you're too late, though. Similar to the current "cloud gaming" wars.
how precise is scrolling for some kinds of creative work? The hand gestures will be fine I’m sure, but won’t have the precision of a mouse so you’d likely wanna use one and a keyboard along with it.
Don't know about Apple, but I do in fact carry a BT mouse and a small keyboard in my backpack for outside studying. I imagine any VR headset I invest in would be able to connect such alternate inputs.
my gut tells me people don’t want to spend significant time with anything like this strapped to their face. Not now, not in 10, 20 years. It’s not a technology problem, it’s a human problem.
I can't speak for you personally, but I see so many people disengaged in group gatherings on their phones. I see a portable XR future as an extension of that.
The evidence just continues to pile up which suggests that Apple has totally jumped the shark with the Vision Pro. I'm a huge fan of iOS and it's devices, but man, the Vision Pro is absolutely...
The evidence just continues to pile up which suggests that Apple has totally jumped the shark with the Vision Pro. I'm a huge fan of iOS and it's devices, but man, the Vision Pro is absolutely going to be dead on arrival.
I wish tech companies would stop trying to make AR and VR a thing. It ain't gonna happen. The smart money is holding out until we reach the holodeck level. Until then, who cares?
Facebook has sold 20 million Quest headsets already. That's comparable in number to the latest Playstation and Xbox generations. By many metrics, VR is already here and successful.
Facebook has sold 20 million Quest headsets already. That's comparable in number to the latest Playstation and Xbox generations. By many metrics, VR is already here and successful.
Not by the metric of capitalism. Most if not all of those Quest headsets were sold at a loss. I got at least four nieces and nephews that each got their own... and guess what? After the novelty...
Not by the metric of capitalism. Most if not all of those Quest headsets were sold at a loss. I got at least four nieces and nephews that each got their own... and guess what? After the novelty wore off three to six months after they received em, fuckers ended up in a corner gathering dust. Meanwhile those ass old Nintendo Switches are still going strong.
The only people winning in VR land is whomever is making bank off Beat Sabre.
This is true for almost all consoles and major platforms. The money is in licensing or game/app sales and those Switches have a long lineage based on exactly that.
Most if not all of those Quest headsets were sold at a loss.
This is true for almost all consoles and major platforms. The money is in licensing or game/app sales and those Switches have a long lineage based on exactly that.
Nintendo is one of the few companies who actually sells their hardware at a profit from day 1. They manage this because they use older technologies that are cheaper to get and better known so they...
Nintendo is one of the few companies who actually sells their hardware at a profit from day 1. They manage this because they use older technologies that are cheaper to get and better known so they can squeeze more performance out of them with fewer surprises/headaches.
Personalized headsets seem to be increasing in popularity. You lose the ability to pass it to friends or resell, but gain improved comfort and reduced weight (no IPD slider or slots for...
Personalized headsets seem to be increasing in popularity. You lose the ability to pass it to friends or resell, but gain improved comfort and reduced weight (no IPD slider or slots for prescriptions). For a lot of people - especially the kinds of enthusiasts this device is aimed that - that trade off will be worth it.
Apple still doesn't go as far as the BigScreen Beyond though, which takes a 3D facial scan (ironically, using an iPhone camera). Apple is aiming for a more full featured AR/VR device, whereas Big Screen is trying to create the lightest device possible, by shaving off every gram of material they can.
I'm excited to see this type of innovation in the VR space, anyway. After pancake lenses and microOLED, personalized interfaces seem like the next logical move in making these things smaller and lighter.
For the viewpoint of someone who does use glasses, the concerns are really overdone. With the Quest, while it’s possible to use glasses under the headset, using customised inserts makes it a...
For the viewpoint of someone who does use glasses, the concerns are really overdone. With the Quest, while it’s possible to use glasses under the headset, using customised inserts makes it a significantly better experience. As Apple know this, along with knowing that the Apple headset doesn’t have space to fit glasses, it means that they’re going to need to cater for a significant proportion of their target audience needing custom lenses, which is what this is.
Now, speculating here, but if you don’t need sight correction, it might well be a off the shelf process, while if you do, they’re probably just bundling the cost into the initial headset cost. As for changes in prescription, I’d expect that it to be possible to purchase later, but you’d expect the vast majority of eyesight prescriptions to remain “good enough” in the mid-range, which is what’s required here, for at least a couple of years.
I'm sure some people will think this is an unusual barrier to entry, but I actually really like this for the simple fact that most VR/AR headsets just assume you have perfect vision and then refer you to a partner who will charge you an inflated price to get prescription lenses made for it if you need them. Having them come with the system out of the box is a really nice experience and discourages you from trying to fit the headset over your glasses, which is a very uncomfortable experience that will likely damage both your glasses and the lenses in the headset.
You definitely need your head scanned if you’re willing to shell out that kind of money.
Sorry for the Reddit-esque non-contributory reply. Had to get it out of my system.
Actually I see it as a bit of a barrier to adoption. If your headset is customized to you, it’s harder to let your friends try it out. But then again, I get the preemo, customized approach.
For my Oculus Rift I bought prescription lenses that magnetically attached to the headset. Removed in seconds when people wanted to give it a spin.
Presumably you'll be able to buy lenses and head cushions separately, though yes, it still complicates the resale.
Head cushions on VR sets can get really nasty, so one might want to replace it on a used model in any case. Though ideally they should just clean it if that's an option.
I would also assume that if you have good vision that you won't need the prescription lenses, but they may take your PD into account when producing those lenses, which would make it basically customized in such a way that makes it essentially useless to most people.
Personally speaking I'd have a hard time letting my friends drive a theoretical $3500 car, let alone a custom-built headset that's presumably much more delicate.
It seems pretty clear that Apple is treating this like a boutique product. They don't need word of mouth style marketing and they are focusing on people who already know they want it. It also seems like they aren't going to produce a ton of these either, so they aren't intending to make their money on bulk sales. But it's really hard to say for sure what they're thinking.
Part of the fun of an expensive thing is showing it off to people.
And I don't mean in a snobby way, but like letting people experience something new without having to pay for it is something I enjoy.
For the first few months after I got it, other people were using my quest 2 more than I was.
metaphor makes sense but not the scale of the prices mentioned. I have a $3500 beater 2005 car. Sure, if my friends aren't maniacs and need a short drive to the store, they can go for it.
the price tag of this, however, is more along he lines of a very nice $80k+ car. Maybe a REALLY good friend who I know is passionate about cars, or a dire emergency would warrant lending, but for the most part that isn't something I'd lend out willy nilly. I guess that's the market Apple is going for, which isn't new nor unusual for Apple.
You misunderstand me; I was trying to illustrate how unlikely I was to let anyone borrow a theoretical Vision Pro I would have owned.
I won't pretend that the Vision Pro is not fantastically expensive. But to be fair, people's perception of the cost of a VR headset is very off right now because Meta is currently offering their headsets at a much lower price than they are actually worth. Consider something like the Bigscreen Beyond that is available for preorder at $1000 for only a barebones headset with no controllers, external cameras for visual pass-through, and doesn't even have the base stations required to track the motion of your head. The Valve Index is the same price but still doesn't come with the expensive computer required to run it, and uses a display that is roughly half of what the rumors are saying the Vision Pro will have.
$3500 is still a really high asking price, perhaps unreasonable for what's actually under the hood, but I don't think it's quite as astronomical as one would first expect it to be. It'll be a lot more clear once it gets released and someone can tear it down.
The difference between Oculus & Vision though is that Oculus came first and had to help people figure out what VR is. With Vision, it's less about establishing VR and way more about making it better. If anything, not being as demo-able may work in Vision's favor, since "better" is subjective, so you're left with the owners raves about how much they love
AppleVR.A Vision owner could spend ~10% more and buy a Quest, and then let uninformed friends use that and just tell them the Vision Pro is just way better. It'd probably cost less than an extra set of lenses and pads....
In practice I've almost never used a friend's headset for longer than a few minutes anyway, so maybe they're banking on that also?
Could be, if it weren't for the lenses. You ever try wearing someone else's glasses? It's hard to get a good take on a premium product when everything is blurry and giving you a headache.
I mean in the end, a minority of people require vision correction, and if the owner is the one with the vision correction lenses, you can just take them out. I am nearsighted but wear contacts - it wouldn't matter for us either.
Is that how the Vision Pro will work? If you need a prescription to order, are these corrective lenses a separate piece fitted on top of the basic lenses or do you pop them off and find yourself missing a key component?
There is a slot for inserting corrective lenses and some sort of arrangement if magnets to snap them in place.
I have a friend who has lenses in his Quest 2 and he pops it out when letting other folks use it.
Yes, it seems as reasonable as needing an eye exam before buying glasses, particularly since it’s more expensive than most glasses.
Apple’s stores are going to be a big advantage for selling these.
I am a big skeptic that this product will really take off and lure the masses. Too many barriers. And beyond that, you have to be onboard with the idea that many people will actually want to strap a computer to their face. Maybe after a few generations when the product gets simplified, is less cumbersome and hopefully less expensive. Google Glass was way less cumbersome, and even that failed. Otherwise, I see it as a niche product that has a risky future. As with all new tech, time will tell.
As I mentioned in another comment, this headset looks like is positioned as a boutique product; they're not planning on making money by selling to the masses with this iteration.
I'm kind of amazed at how many people talk about Google Glass. The reason why it failed is because it was never as good as people thought it was. For the average person it was basically a camera on your face with a HUD. That's why the only publicly available ones were part of a developer program that advertised that it wasn't ready for primetime. Snapchat released the same basic thing without the display as Spectacles and they were actually successful; they're on their third iteration right now. Google later tried to market Glass towards businesses who could develop specialized AR applications for their internal use, but they got beat by a number of different companies in that market so they pulled out. Google Glass failed because it was a bad product.
For anyone that travels a lot for work the Vision Pro means you can have a setup that replicates a triple monitor workstation anywhere in the world. You won’t even need a desk.
The thing I like about the Vision Pro is not only does the high resolution make it a more worthwhile proposition than many earlier headsets, but it's actually a computer in and of itself that has a purpose-designed computing environment built into it. You might not even need to bring the laptop with you, but it looks like it'll pretty seamlessly integrate if you do and I assume you'll be able to do so remotely as well if you have a good internet connection.
I got to play around with a glass a few years back and navigation app was magical. Having an arrow in the corner of your vision that would update with directions to get you from point A to B was a super cool experience for navigating an unfamiliar space. I could see it being a game changing kind of thing for indoor navigation in an unfamiliar building or being a tourist in a new city and not wanting to pull out your phone to make sure you have the directions right every few blocks.
This is exactly the sort of thing I really wanted as a kid who was into sci-fi stuff. But I’m also unsure if it will succeed here or not.
It is an incredibly high price to pay for a new technology.
It looks like it's definitely a 'first adopter' category of product in the first iteration.
If history is anything to go by, it will take time to build up momentum and steam while external developers think of and implement uses for the product (and platform).
Hopefully it will be available in more affordable price points down the line with greater demand and economies of scale.
I’m actually rooting for it. Would love to see this style of technology get popular enough for prices to get reasonable.
Imagine not having to hand TVs or computer screens in your house: just have a localized computer system that “streams” to the whole house.
Sure, we’re look weird sitting on the couch with friends, all staring at a blank wall. But in our augmented reality it would be awesome.
Ugh, if it's just screen that you're sharing, then it feels dystopic. Economical concerns aside (of course a huge screen is extensive), what difference would it make compared to an actual screen ?
I don't mind a shared AR/VR space though (like an augmented board game).
One corner case that would match what you're describing would be to watch a volumetric video at the same time (like a play or a sports game), but then other question would arise (what if I want to move in the same position as my friend ?).
It sure is easy to have ambivalent feelings with this topic !
I understand the sentiment. But I am looking at this more from a practical point of view.
How most people spend time together on the couch now, is watching a movie or TV show together. But actually just being on their phone.
So we’re already at a point where people’s attentions are split 1 million ways.
So what I’m imagining here is a far off future where VR or augmented reality devices are just common apparel.  we could all be staring at a blank wall while sitting on the couch together but in actuality, we could be sharing a movie or playing a game together and off to the side we could have additional activities open. Like text messages or paperwork.
Judging from your comment, you don’t really like technology very much and prefer to relax at home. Disconnected from it all. And I can understand that. But for me, not having to hold the phone and stare down at it all the time while I’m doing other activities would actually be quite nice .
A minor thing is that I think we would have better posture as a society if phones got replaced with these AR devices.
Also, if we could just have the one device replace multiple other devices, that would be great. I’m kind of a tech guy, so I have multiple computer screens, a phone or two for business and privacy and a big TV. I like to watch movies on. If sometime in the future, I could condense that all into some device I just wear on my face I think I would actually like that.
I don’t think this Apple device is going to be that but it would be cool if it progressed to that eventually
(you've got weird
characters appearing in your text, is that an emoji my computer cannot render ?)Ah, not quite. I do like technology: my primary cultural consumption is video-game, I have a Oculus Quest that I still use from time to time, my robot vacuum is a life saver, I try to fool myself that I'm past "gear acquisition syndrome" in my photography, my box of random electronic is full of unused Esp8266-that-I-should-really-turn-into-a-CO2-station., and lastly I work and enjoy being a software engineer.
However it's true that I am very wary being over-connected: my favorite videogames experience are all offline, and back in the days I found more value using Pebble as a remote control than as a small notification center. I do like turning my phone off when I'm in holiday.
And thus I felt like the scenario you describe with people sharing the same space but watching the same (2D) stuff like "What's the solution to too much screens in your life ? Another screen !".
I'm not sure what changes in your description of being together in AR/VR. The problems you describe (people being together to do that one thing but doing other stuff on their phone) is dependent on the activity rather than the medium. As you said, it's mainly an attention problem.
Given the opportunity, I would still check Hacker News / Tildes while watching YouTube videos with friend in VR, because frankly looking at cute pet yawning is not that interesting. I don't see any difference between looking at my web-browser on the side in VR or looking at my phone in uh.. "R".
And conversely I would be 100% focused on a game, be it AR/VR or flat-R, because I'm competitive like that.
If it's just chatting or sharing a meal, just turning off the phone or turning it off is more cost effective than any other additional device. But of course that would require agreement from several humans, and getting humans to agree to something is hard, while shepherding them to do something via clever UI is less so.
While it is very cool and planet-changing (see: the smartphone), I am also wary of having a jack-of-all-trade-but-master-of-none. Our smartphone has indeed replaced our planner, calendar, flashlight, camera, notebook, bubble-level, audio player; but we also lost some advantages compared to the dedicated device. The immediacy of intuitiveness of a paper notebook + pen, the quality and handling of a decent camera, the power of a maglite. Being able to listen to music with a device with a battery life that spans weeks, not days.
Ultimately the discussion we have proves that Apple might be onto something because the way it's described in their marketing, and the way we're discussing it is "another medium to get to the same stuff". Compared this to the social metapetaomegaverse BS that Zuckerberg try to push down our throat.
You are also forgetting the motion sickness, space and light limitations as well.
The problem is that these headsets need their own space, like how a computer needs an office, and when you don’t dedicate it a space the headset is treated more like a toy than a serious addition to your life.
I constantly think about Google Glass and wonder if the culture in the last 10 years has shifted enough to where those issues wouldn't even phase people. This was very early social media days and times where smartphone adoption was a little short of critical mass (the days where IPhone was the rich kid in town and nearly uncontestable). But these days, people are recording themselves everywhere and phone cameras have more or less replaced the point and click.
And ofc the price didn't help much either. $1500 at launch in 2014. I'm sure these days we can push that down to $300-400 and actually get people to buy them.
How will their demo units work then?
For WWDC, they have an average-ish face mask and they have lenses with common diopters. If you have strong astigmatism it's probably doomed, since astigmatism correction is too high dimensional.
Ah, thanks!
Your comment made me think of those giant eye tester things the ophthalmologist uses to find your prescription being strapped onto a person's head every time someone wants to test one of these.
While I don’t want to call Apple Vision Pro a dud straight away, I’ll just say that it’s going to be an extremely niche entertainment device.
There’s just so many challenges I don’t think are being appreciated enough.
With all that said, I think it could find its legs as an incredibly niche entertainment device for mostly single people who have some money to burn. And that’s fine. Not everything Apple puts out needs to best the iPhone. I just don’t see this as a general-purpose computing platform like some are envisioning.
I think we’ll have a better idea of the market for this product when the price comes down. I fully expect an Apple Vision sans the Pro moniker that jettisons the outward-facing screen and drops the metal for plastic due to weight and price considerations so that it can retail closer to $1999.
It’ll be fun to see where this thing ends up, but my gut tells me people don’t want to spend significant time with anything like this strapped to their face. Not now, not in 10, 20 years. It’s not a technology problem, it’s a human problem.
One thing to keep in mind is that Apple isn’t really positioning this as an entertainment device, but as a computer that can also do some light gaming. And it seems like they really don’t intend to make it for sharing, just like an iPhone. That may make it not for everyone, but at that price point it doesn’t look like they are aiming for everyone - at least not yet.
I simply see this as the early stages for the tech. Almost all your questions will be answered in some decades' worth of time once the size of the device shrinks down more to the size you'd see in your favorite Sci-Fi work. You want to start work on that before you're too late, though. Similar to the current "cloud gaming" wars.
Don't know about Apple, but I do in fact carry a BT mouse and a small keyboard in my backpack for outside studying. I imagine any VR headset I invest in would be able to connect such alternate inputs.
I can't speak for you personally, but I see so many people disengaged in group gatherings on their phones. I see a portable XR future as an extension of that.
The evidence just continues to pile up which suggests that Apple has totally jumped the shark with the Vision Pro. I'm a huge fan of iOS and it's devices, but man, the Vision Pro is absolutely going to be dead on arrival.
I wish tech companies would stop trying to make AR and VR a thing. It ain't gonna happen. The smart money is holding out until we reach the holodeck level. Until then, who cares?
Facebook has sold 20 million Quest headsets already. That's comparable in number to the latest Playstation and Xbox generations. By many metrics, VR is already here and successful.
Not by the metric of capitalism. Most if not all of those Quest headsets were sold at a loss. I got at least four nieces and nephews that each got their own... and guess what? After the novelty wore off three to six months after they received em, fuckers ended up in a corner gathering dust. Meanwhile those ass old Nintendo Switches are still going strong.
The only people winning in VR land is whomever is making bank off Beat Sabre.
Coincidentally, that's Facebook/Meta.
This is true for almost all consoles and major platforms. The money is in licensing or game/app sales and those Switches have a long lineage based on exactly that.
Nintendo is one of the few companies who actually sells their hardware at a profit from day 1. They manage this because they use older technologies that are cheaper to get and better known so they can squeeze more performance out of them with fewer surprises/headaches.
Personalized headsets seem to be increasing in popularity. You lose the ability to pass it to friends or resell, but gain improved comfort and reduced weight (no IPD slider or slots for prescriptions). For a lot of people - especially the kinds of enthusiasts this device is aimed that - that trade off will be worth it.
Apple still doesn't go as far as the BigScreen Beyond though, which takes a 3D facial scan (ironically, using an iPhone camera). Apple is aiming for a more full featured AR/VR device, whereas Big Screen is trying to create the lightest device possible, by shaving off every gram of material they can.
I'm excited to see this type of innovation in the VR space, anyway. After pancake lenses and microOLED, personalized interfaces seem like the next logical move in making these things smaller and lighter.
For the viewpoint of someone who does use glasses, the concerns are really overdone. With the Quest, while it’s possible to use glasses under the headset, using customised inserts makes it a significantly better experience. As Apple know this, along with knowing that the Apple headset doesn’t have space to fit glasses, it means that they’re going to need to cater for a significant proportion of their target audience needing custom lenses, which is what this is.
Now, speculating here, but if you don’t need sight correction, it might well be a off the shelf process, while if you do, they’re probably just bundling the cost into the initial headset cost. As for changes in prescription, I’d expect that it to be possible to purchase later, but you’d expect the vast majority of eyesight prescriptions to remain “good enough” in the mid-range, which is what’s required here, for at least a couple of years.