Author has not tried the product, and their main points seem to be:
1. Meta makes VR headsets and failed.
2. Vision has a lot of fancy tech, but I don't understand how that helps Apple.
3. People who are excited about Vision also liked Google Glass, a failed product.
4. Big televisions are cheaper.
5. Apple didn't mention motion sickness, so maybe that's a problem.
Hope this saves at least someone from a very clickbaity article.
Apple's AR/VR headset was not demo-ed by more than one person wearing it; so this makes it so that it remains an isolating experience, as it ever was; not ground breaking social features added that are worth it;
so the target audience who might consider this 4k headset, will be the exact same that Meta is targetting at a fraction of the cost.
They did mention motion sickness. They talked about refresh rates and input lags and how it's important so that people don't get sick. Can't recall their exact words but they definitely did.
I don't think that's accurate. His main point is that there is no market for this, and the points you mentioned are just digs he gets in whilst Apple's on the ground.
Agreed. "There's no obvious market for X" could also mean "all versions of X have sucked so far".
I'm not a VR enthusiast—I don't own any headsets, and will probably not be buying this one—but this is a profoundly lazy article, and not one I'd take seriously as far as judging the merits of Vision.
I believe you ;) I'm just curious about who it is, and what they buy them for.
I can mostly get my head around the iPad. My guess is that it's people who don't want (to get out / have) a laptop. In fact, this is the device the average person should probably have instead of a laptop.
The Apple Watch though? I can't fathom where these sales are coming from. It's been years, so it's no longer novelty of a new Apple product.
Commentary feels a bit lazy. Seems to operate on the assumption that it's not different than previous AR/VR offerings in any way.
If they can find a million people to watch movies on flights and/or use it as a monitor replacement, and if it works well for those use cases, then Apple will net $3.5B of revenue and have a solid foundation to build on. I don't think the first generation needs to do a whole lot more than that.
I’ve heard the flights thing mentioned a few times now. Is that an angle they’re actively pushing?
For what it’s worth, I once brought my Quest on a flight. But when it came time to put it on, I couldn’t bring myself to to do it. The idea of becoming a spectacle while simultaneously shutting myself off from everyone around me felt embarrassing.
Yeah, the one ad they showed at the end of the keynote had someone on a plane using the digital crown to increase the immersion while watching a movie.
I'm talking purely from an emotional perspective. It felt deeply embarrassing to me, and I was wondering about why that was.
Now I think about it, I have no problem wearing an eye mask and headphones, so maybe the shutting-myself-off point isn't accurate after all. Maybe it was more about being different to everyone else.
Have you worn a headset on a plane before? Did you feel any aversion to putting it on? Maybe we're just wired differently.
I don't read Vice but a while ago I noticed every article that's been pushed my way from them has been a lazy take on tech, specifically AI.
I had to ban the publisher from one of my news readers because every single day was a new Vice article with a low quality article on AI being the end of the world. I'm fine with that opinion but not a daily new article with no substance.
> Commentary feels a bit lazy. Seems to operate on the assumption that it's not different than previous AR/VR offerings in any way.
Quite typical for vice to be fair. What I find most interesting are the reviews from people who have actually tried it and are really impressed, especially those who would normally be skeptical of VR&AR.
Nobody has said this is a 'game changer' just that they seem to be giving the attention to detail that Apple are known for and for those who HAVE actually tried it, it seems it might actually pay off.
An aside : As for the pricing, it's almost redundant these days to comment on Apple's pricing.
It can be the most technically impressive AR/VR device in existence (and it truly sounds like it is), but that doesn't change the fact that it feels goofy and out-of-touch and has no real long term future.
I really don't think people need to try the device to form the opinion that a future with people walking around with expensive goggles on their face (recording 3D videos of their kids during birthday parties) isn't really a good one.
Agreed. It's like they could have written this before the device was announced.
The first iPhone wasn't the first touchscreen smart phone, but it was the first one that was truly appealing to the masses. We've seen the impressive sales numbers for the quest, now we just have to see if Apple can beat them. My money is on Apple beating Meta for multiple reasons.
> Nobody will use this except super rich bored people and tech bros. It's expensive.
Funny how we are so used to groundbreaking tech being so "cheap" now. Remember when the Apple II launched at about $6,200 for the base model after inflation? Heck, the Atari 2600 cost almost $1,000 today after inflation.
Also, if you want to know how scary the inflation is, here's why your Nintendo Switch still costs $299 new: $299 in 2017 is about $369 today. You had a $70 price cut you didn't even notice.
Adjusted for inflation: the original iPhone cost $720 in 2007, the average cell phone cost in 2007 was around $130... When the iPhone came out it was insanely expensive for "normal people"
The Federal Reserve: Don't worry my friend, its all just transitory due to <insert latest event>. *Slaps side of money printer* These babies can print us out of any hole!
Is the flight use case real? Are people going to feel comfortable playing sound from an un-enclosed speaker with people sitting an inch away? The battery life is only 2 hours, so any flight longer than New York to Charlotte is going to require you to have multiple batteries or some other entertainment device. 2 hours isn't even long enough to watch movies.
I keep seeing people mention the battery life as the total blocker for the flight use case, but I honestly don’t remember the last flight I was on > 2 hours that didn’t have outlets available.
It's not sure though if you will be able to to charge device while using simultaneously. On all pictures I have seen cable was using priopertary connector and on the other end soldered to battery. Battery though has extra Usb-c port for charging.
Very dump design in my opinion. They finally learned the lesson with macbook chargers that those cables used to break after a while and started producing this days detachable usbc cable with braided coating.
This vision pro battery looks like has similar low quality white cable that is not braided and cannot be removed from battery or even rolled for storage like in old macbook chargers
Hope they will change it and allow to use any power bank or charge from power outlet or macbook.
Would be nice also their power bank has Magsafe port for charging iphone as emergency
> It's not sure though if you will be able to to charge device while using simultaneously.
At least MKBHD said in his video that this is possible.
And I'm like 99% sure that they'll come up with a Vision -> USB-C cable later on, so you can either plug it in to your computer, a bigger power bank or directly to a charger.
AC power is becoming more common on flights, and I speculate that you will be able to use Bluetooth headphones.
Otherwise, yeah probably a multiple battery solution.
I don't really see myself caring about the movies during a flight use case.
For working during a flight, I'd greatly prefer the Vision Pro, as I am easily distracted by my surroundings and would value the improved ergonomics over being hunched over a laptop (I'm flying in coach). And for reading PDFs and web browsing, ergonomics again seem superior to a smartphone or tablet.
1. This really depends on how much sound leaks out. The original earpods were designed to leak a little bit of sound but were still used in airplanes.
2. I take a lot of 4 hour flights. I see people use steam decks on them all the time, even though their batteries don't hold for the whole flight.
3. I don't know the answer, but I wonder what the largest battery you could bring onto a flight is, and how long that would extend the Vision Pro's battery life.
The thing is, people already use their laptops to watch movies... or they use the in-flight entertainment. Why bother strapping on a headset when you have a solution already?
>If they can find a million people to watch movies on flights and/or use it as a monitor replacement
A million people who are willing to pay ~12 times more than a Quest 2 and 7 times more than a Quest 3 when those devices also can let you watch movies or use them as a monitor replacement.
This idea assumes that the Vision Pro offers the same experience as those devices.
My iPhone can let me watch movies and can be a monitor replacement, but it's bad at those things, so I don't do it.
I snooped around a bit online for something along the lines of "VR headset as a monitor replacement" - I'm not seeing any kind of consensus that these devices are up to the job.
If Apple's product is, then it's a game changer. It seems like they've put serious effort into some of the core problems: headset weight, refresh rates, AR concerns, pixelation. If that all sums up to be something that can be worn all day, then maybe people will see it as 7 times more valuable than a Quest 3.
A little under two-thirds of Americans have one Apple product, how good is the Quest at integrating into that ecosystem?
>the Vision Pro offers the same experience as those devices.
It doesn't have to be the same it just has to be good enough that the increased price of the Vision Pro isn't worth it.
>I'm not seeing any kind of consensus that these devices are up to the job.
You are not going to get a consensus even with the Vision Pro. There will be people who find wearing a headset to be inconvenient. I have used Immersed to use a Quest Pro as a screen replacement and I found it fine. Most people who work in VR use either Immersed or Horizon Workrooms from what I've seen and you will be able to find testimonials from proper who successfully use them as screen replacements.
>A little under two-thirds of Americans have one Apple product, how good is the Quest at integrating into that ecosystem?
It depends on what you mean. There is a Quest app that you can use to control your headset, cast your headset to, and sync notifications from your phone to your headset.
>headset weight
The headset weight doesn't sound special.
>refresh rates
90/96 Hz. The Quest Pro is at 90 Hz and the Quest 2 supports up to 120 Hz
>AR concerns
The Quest 3 will be improving the MR capabilities on the Quest side.
>pixelation
Pixelation isn't really a problem in VR. There is SDE which means your optics are too sharp and there is blur which means your optics are too blurry or the displays are too low resolution.
A non-lazy rebuttal would include a description of the hypothetical killer app that Vision could support. Apple's got nuthin'. I got nuthin'. Nobody else has anything convincing either.
It doesn't need to have killer app - Apple watch doesn't have killer but still sells well. Playststion or any other console also doesn't have killer app - they are just for entertainment. Oculus mostly focuses on entertainment right now.
For people who are blind the whole device is a killer app, can help reading book or newspaper, help with navigation on the street and warn about danger. Easier for them to find just this goggle computer than phone or computer, eye tracking as mouse probsbly easier to use than mouse.
Even Steven Hawking wouldnt mind using such a device.
I dunno, did anyone talk about a hypothetical Uber or Shazam the day after the iPhone launch?
That said, I think that if I can wear this for 8-10 hours, it would be an amazing monitor. That's the killer app. I sit by myself at home so the weird social interaction stuff isn't a part of the mix there. (I don't want to pay $3500 for it, but I'm not exactly an early adopter in general.)
It's significant in that it takes a very different approach to AR (passthrough camera) as opposed to products like Hololens and Magic Leap which are physics-challenged.
Apple Vision can do things optical AR cannot, such as blocking out objects in the real world. My first take is that you won't get perfect visual acuity for the real world, but optical AR systems definitely waste a lot of light and introduce distortion in the optics. Sufficiently developed, computational AR might improve on your vision, particularly if you are older and presbyopic.
Apple Vision has many of the challenges other AR/VR platforms have had but it is sufficiently different that Hololens and Magic Leap don't imply an automatic death sentence.
I think it's critical that "metaverse" adjacent experiences are available cross-platform, I make these cards
that have QR codes to point to the web. I'd admit that the "web side" is the weakest link in my 3-sided cards right now but really that code should take AR headset users to a "land" or bring some object into the space but there still has to be an experience for phone users which could very much be of an AR nature as you can overlay images from the camera. As dreary as it is Decentraland has a workable experience with a web browser and something like Horizon Worlds would need one to make it worth the effort for individuals and brands to invest in the platform.
Battle field applications would be like sensor fusion (overhead drone cameras, thermal, radar, lidar) combined with the gamer experience of hacked graphics drivers and aimbot kits.
I'm sure there will be lots of similar applications but for the civilian space, where the price of a Vision Pro is just peanuts.
Previously such applications would have to create their own custom kit or modify existing. Now they have a trusted partner which can (hopefully) be trusted to iterate over and improve their product.
Immersive FaceTime? How is this going to work well? The person you're talking to will be using their phone/tablet and where is your camera? If you use the continuity camera feature with an iphone, you're going to see their entire face without the headset and they're looking at someone with these goggles on. Not a good user experience IMO.
You scan your face with the headset and the other person sees an avatar that is a scan of your face. Kinda defeats the purpose of "Face"time but I have not used it yet but with the speed of development I could see it improving to the point that the distinction between the avatar and your real face will be hard to tell apart.
All started with a high priced offering and introduced lower priced options over time, at least accounting for inflation.
Individual Apple product lines trend upwards, seemingly faster than inflation although I'm not actually sure that's the case. However they regularly introduce cheaper product lines to open up to new markets.
iPad, iPod, iPhone, etc were affordable for average joe without much hassle if they want to buy. It's not the Vision Pro case.
I think only Macintosh is the case but it's too old days. It was quite expensive but price declined. Newton is another case for expensive but it was dead end.
They do it by introducing lower-cost models rather than lowering the price of their flagship models. e.g. iPhone SE, Macbook Air, iPad. Right out of the gate they've signaled that they're going to do this by calling this the "Vision Pro"--expect a non-Pro later.
There were some Apple events in the '10s that featured significant price cuts, often alongside an improved product. Better iPad, $100 cheaper, better MacBook, $200 cheaper, that kind of thing.
I keep thinking about the Newton as a distant ancestor of the iPhone. The germ of the idea was there, but the use cases and tech (specifically networking) weren't even close.
How close to prime time is AR?
It's hard to judge that without hands on experience.
Close or not, unlike the mid-90s, Apple can likely afford to burn money for a while on a big gamble. Trying to open up a new product category that plays to Apple's strengths is probably the correct strategy, so long as there isn't a better viable product.
I doubt this will storm the world the same way the iPhone did, so it'll likely be a while before it can be judged as a success or failure.
I don't think MixedReality will ever go mainstream, but I think it will have a long tail of niches that it is extremely successful in (Training, 3D Design, Gaming, exercise, etc).
For general productivity, I feel that the laptop and external monitor is the sweet spot for the peak of computing. All other optimizations have given diminishing returns.
For consumption, the mobile phone is the sweet spot.
I put up with a lot of jank and discomfort with my VR headset, because the feeling of Presence is so transformative in gaming, exercise, and entertainment for me. I don't think the majority of people will choose that trade-off on a regular basis, especially in social environments.
This is a pretty lazy analogy. Mobile phones were already carried by a large majority of adults when the iPhone came out. The iPhone didn't prove that everyone needed a cell phone, or even that smart phones / camera phones were a valid market (remember Blackberry? Palm Treo? Windows Mobile? Sidekick?) it just made a much better phone and mobile OS than anyone else had up to that point.
And it introduced a number of killer features that were immediately apparent:
-GPS for navigation (almost immediately made Tom Toms in cars obsolete) with Google Maps
-Pinch to zoom for the pre-responsive mobile web, with full HTML websites on device
-Glass touch haptics with gestures: pinch, double tap, swipe up/down/right/left, etc
-Unlimited data back when it was unheard of
-Unlimited text messaging back when it was rare
-Solid camera experience with both front and back facing camera
-Complete iPod replacement with built-in iTunes, a killer app at the time with no peer
-Visual voicemail
-A usable touch screen keyboard, with intuitive multi-touch controls
-HTML email
-YouTube app built-in
-Accelerometer for orientation-based controls
-Proximity and ambient light sensors
-Apps, apps, apps. Although App Store wasn't immediately ready for 1st gen iPhone, it was apparent that apps were coming and that they would be amazing, with plenty of built-in 1st and 3rd party apps at launch. Every other mobile phone that implemented apps up to that point did so with a ton of red tape and licensing fees
When the iPhone was announced by Jobs in 2007, it was 5 years ahead of any other phone on the market.
The Vision Pro, on the other hand, pitches itself as a $3500 monitor replacement, I guess? It doesn't even have one killer app. You could feel the hype and excitement for the original iPhone on day one.
Maybe Vision Pro will evolve into something killer in the 2nd or 3rd generation offering. But as it stands, I'm not seeing the vision.
The Varjo VR headset is the leader in Enterprise training and design. The headset cost more than $6,000 per unit plus it has an annual subscription fee more than $1500.
The Vision Pro is a direct competitor to the Varjo. Early reports are that it is better. It comes in at half the price and no subscription fees.
The Vario is what some Apple employees used as devkits during the software development phase.
Apple is masterful at bringing the public along slowly with an easy to digest narrative. They don't tell the whole story right up front, because people need the breadcrumbs and onboarding.
Got to be honest, I have never even heard of the Varjo. Nor have I ever even heard of anyone needing or using a VR headset in an enterprise setting, except for gimicky demos.
I spent too long tracking down a figure and didn't come up with anything definitive, but
> smart phones / camera phones were a valid market
feels revisionist. Something like 70% of Americans had a feature phone in 2007 but smartphone market share was probably in the single digits before the iPhone launched. I had a Palm m100 back in the day; PDAs and early smartphones weren't all that great, and it wasn't obvious to laymen that the hardware and software would scale down enough and be combined with a compelling enough interaction model to create something useful for the masses.
You're right that the iPhone demo had some killer features apparent. Jobs had three tentpoles: better iPod, a phone, a good internet machine. Cook mimicked this for the Watch keynote: a timepiece, a new way to communicate, a health and fitness device. But for the latter, it wasn't apparent just how much the health and fitness stuff would become a part of the story, nor was it apparent that people ended up liking the Watch for keeping their phone out of their hands or being able to accessorize.
I don't think the Vision Pro reveal was as effective, but the tentpoles seem to be immersive media consumption (with movies and photos as a 1a and 1b), monitor replacement, and better FaceTime meetings. The last one seems particularly suspect, but the first two are pretty strong.
>> smart phones / camera phones were a valid market
> feels revisionist.
Not revisionist. I worked in mobile phone retail from 2002-2007. There were popular, successful camera phones and smart phones even then. However, in the early 2000s, the U.S. wireless market was much slower to deploy 3G than Japan and many European markets.
There were a number of powerful handsets that couldn't even be practically offered in the U.S. as a result of the splintered TDMA/CDMA/GSM protocols and the dizzying array of licensing deals between regional carriers who owned significant amounts of spectrum at the time, making data and roaming plans very expensive and impractical for most retail users. Smart phone adoption was much broader in markets that had full 3G support earlier on.
In 2004, NBC covered the Japanese mobile market, mentioning: "The Japanese use cell phones to surf the net, watch TV, navigate city streets with built-in GPS, download music, take and transmit home movies, get e-coupons, pay bills, play games, and even program karaoke machines." By 2004, 70 million Japanese had internet access on their phones, a threefold increase from 2000 [3].
Okay, you're making a good enough case that the phone was a more proven segment in 2007 than VR is in 2023. I could nitpick some details (most notably that "[t]here were popular, successful camera phones and smart phones even then" would probably have been on a scale similar to what Apple is hoping to accomplish with the Vision launch) but that NBC News article is a great citation.
My interest in this vein of discussion is to make sure people realize just how game-changing the iPhone was; so much of what it accomplished looks obvious and inevitable in hindsight but really was new and magical in that keynote.
Anyways, I think that if the Vision succeeds it'll take a path more like the Watch:
- Expectations were sky high. People talked about how the iPhone cannibalized the iPod and were speculating how a watch might do the same, while noting that the iPhone was one of the most successful products of all time (in terms of revenue) and it was going to be a tough act to follow, particularly as the first big Tim Cook launch.
- There wasn't a super obvious smartwatch market either. Everyone knew that health and fitness was a reason to get a Fitbit or Garmin but they were either specialized for limited use or cheap-looking.
Apple shipped, figured out how people were using it, and iterated. The biggest difference is that their first-gen price was pretty reasonable, so it was easier to buy one impulsively. That won't be the case with Vision.
First iphone didn't have gps, didn't have selfie camera it event didn't have a flashlight, gyroscope or compass.
Also only 2g and wifi g
Not to mention app store was launched 1 year later. Based on that first generation wasn't that much useful. Mass appeal was maybe starting with 3rd generation.
The first iPhone not only had GPS, it had Google Maps built in. Here's the timestamp of Jobs's 2007 presentation, showing the feature: https://youtu.be/vN4U5FqrOdQ?t=2207
Selfie camera was out by the following year. Flashlight was implemented as an app very early on after app store came out. The original version most definitely had gyroscope and compass.
Mass appeal was very much already there when iPhone launched. But it was hamstrung a bit by 2.5G and the exclusive deal with AT&T. Remember, mobile phones used to come with 2 year contracts with heavy cancellation penalties, and 3G took a while to roll out to the U.S. market. Still, it was a smashing success in its first year with 10 million units sold. Remember, back then the mobile market was very fragmented. Devices not only varied dramatically by manufacturer, but some devices could only be found with certain carriers (ie T-Mobile Sidekick). Any model that sold more than 1 million units in a year was considered to be a smashing success.
It was already very obvious what the killer features were or would be on the iPhone at launch.
Check wiki regarding iphone history and specs. Flashlight sensor was added in 3rd generation, gyroscope was in iphone 4 or 3gs - Steve Jobs was showing it off. Selfie camera definitely not yet in second generation. App store was launched with 2nd generation, gps and compass added with second generation. Google maps maybe was in gen 1 but without gps and compass - only for manually browsing maps. First gen iphone camera didnt even record video, or didn't have voice recorder, copy paste didn't work and couldn't send files via Bluetooth as other phones could back then.
My point is many people could see that iphone is gonna be game changer in next year or two but I wasn't that much useful with first generation. In similar way some people also see vision pro will be a game changer in next few years.
The LED flash feature was great, but it was never a make or break feature for a phone. And as mentioned, the earliest LED flash equipped iPhones just used this as a camera flash for night photography, not as a flashlight. You would have to download a special app to leave the light turned on.
The original iPhone had accelerometer for orientation based UI, you're correct that it didn't have gyroscope (or I guess GPS, although it looks like from Jobs's presentation that it was planned). Another great feature. Still doesn't change the fact that the original iPhone had a dozen or so killer features. Everyone of course wanted the iPhone to keep getting better, and from 2.5G to 3G to 3GS to iPhone 4, there was a rapid succession of progress.
You're criticizing the 2007 iPhone for features that virtually no phone had in 2007 (and certainly none did all the things that iPhone did well). I can't name one that had a gyroscope or selfie cam. The top models back then were things like the Motorola Razr and the LG Chocolate:
People often forget how quickly the 3G version of the iPhone was launched after the 2.5G. It took them less than one year to come out with the 3G version.
The iPhone was jaw dropping when it first came out. A lot of sales were held back in first year merely due to the lack of 3G support and high pricepoint (along with AT&T exclusivity).
> So if not for awkwardly embodying legless avatars, what—and who—is Vision Pro for?
I'm not going to buy gen 1 or even gen 2 of this headset due to cost. But by gen 3 I could see it being a strong device for working from home. I picture having multiple windows of safari open around me full of documentation as I code in VScode via the connection to my mac.
The price is going to be too much for most people right now. Apple knows that. Comparing this to a quest is like comparing an iPhone to an Android. But in this case the specs far exceed the other headsets out there. There's a freaking wrap-around display on the outside of the device!
The vision pro version 1 is big, heavy, and kinda clunky. But imagining what Vision Pro 5 will be gets me really excited.
Pretty sure this is just gasoline for everyone to have a flame war over. Right down to the ever so slightly incorrect facts and emotionally charged language.
Only thing that’s in anyway correct is the bit about the type of people excited by these devices - I feel seen. But is that so bad?
Also, there really are markets for these devices - they’re just often not that visible for the average consumer. I work in medical simulation training for instance.
> repeatedly failed to make a compelling use case for VR over the past decade
Well, including me - I'v never wanted to try one as I associated them with games or some meta world I'm not interested. But I haven't been a target for their ads, so I may not know feature set for those.
Seeing Apple device, I want to try it out as I immediately see the value in having a nice workspace :)
I think everything will depend on execution. If we compare 1 feature between pre-iPhone and iPhone era: touch. The touch was based on resistive technology and you had to physically push the screen for it to feel. It was unreliable. It was disgusting to work with. Saying that some pre-iPhone touch phone and iPhone touch phone has same feature set or even iPhone was lacking... sure. But the ease of use.
If this actually works reliably - no lags, no artifacts, no pixels, controls (eyes/fingers/voice) works as advertised - I think it will be ticket to somewhere, even if it was only extension to your pc/tablet. But this has the potential to be more than an extension.
Agreed. This week began the first decade of modern AR.
I think all the optimism is confidence that Apple will be developing this product on the way to achieving high volume sales. Then they own yet another new major platform.
10 years may not be too long a slog if you OWN another major platform on the other side.
Most articles I've seen have echoed this sentiment, often conflating VR and AR as they go off about Meta and such. I guess with regards to the average consumer they are right about it being overpriced for what it does, but that feels shortsighted.
My view is that this Vision Pro is aimed at exactly that - pros who are going to find and develop creative uses for it. Those people will spend the money just to experience next-gen technology. I know I will. If that produces a big ecosystem of new apps and products then Apple can continue developing the cheaper Vision Air or whatever and sell that to consumers.
It seems to me Apple has made a nice step forwards in making this technology something I'd want to use. That might put me in the minority, but I don't think a lot of people got the Mac right away either.
I know I'm not that good at predictions, I didn't really understand the Watch at first, the iPhone I knew was cool right away but still didn't think it deserved the massive hype the first version got... still I have to say if I had the Vision Pro sitting next to me right now I probably wouldn't be using it, that's the difference. It's not even about the price, I'd have used the 1st gen Watch and iPhone or pretty much anything else Apple ever made if didn't cost anything, I'd wear it or carry it around even if they didn't do much. I wouldn't want to wear this thing even if it were incredibly useful, it would be a chore.
But this article is at the "Old Man Yelling at Clouds" level of analysis.
Many new platforms, form-factors, gadgets, categories of devices , etc. start as "expensive novelty bullshit for rich people". Yet some move past that (and some don't). The author might want to think, for a few seconds at least, about why some do and some don't and whether this one could.
The comparison to Google Glass is particularly lazy. The approach and tech is so different I don't think there's really anything to learn.
Any why even write something like this: "no matter how much they boost it, no normal human being wants to wear goofy-ass goggles so they can attend work meetings in Minecraft."
Hur dur! I think this refers to Meta's clunky/crappy VR meeting software. Apple's approach is obviously different, right? And perhaps Apple will figure out how to make it less clunky and crappy? (Meta may too eventually, but doesn't have that track record). BTW, nobody wants to attend work meetings. Neither VR goggles nor other tech are really the reason.
I guess this is just a long way to say this is a thoughtless throwaway article.
This is how some commentary on anything new starts, shallow opinionated "bullshit" to use the author's language. Time will tell if the audience trends to be rich people, even when the presumably non-Pro version launches. But I think there might be use cases the author isn't aware of, like people with disabilities who might flock to a device that let's them experience computing in a different way. The fact that you can insert prescription lenses, detect nearby objects & people, and possibly improve your vision is compelling to some people who might think of this in a different way. There might be other use cases that help people, like maybe a doctor in one country getting realtime feedback in an operating room from a doctor who remotely can advise during an operation by seeing what local doctor sees (hopefully that's under dire circumstances).
But Vision Pro probably won't give you an open mind or a good imagination.
I’ve been in tech and business media for over 15 years.
These articles appear, identical and similarly framed, every time Apple launches a product in a new category.
They’ve always been rubbish, written mostly by people who haven’t tried the product.
This piece pertains exactly to that sub-genre of punditry.
Wasted bytes is all.
Your observation is certainly true, but it is also based on the premise that Apple never makes a wrong move, which seems statistically unlikely.
I think this could be considered the first major post-Jobs product launch. We are coming up on 13 years since Jobs' death, and what truly major things have Apple released in that time? Mostly we have seen new phones, tablets, computers, and some smaller things like Airpods. The Apple Watch is maybe the best example of an all-new product, but in a category (watches and wearables) that was already kind of a "thing".
As of right now, I'm on the side of VR/AR glasses being more like 3D TVs than smart watches. I think it doesn't solve enough problems (and creates new ones in terms of an uncomfortable wearable thing people aren't generally used to).
Time will certainly tell, but this thing is going to need a TON of ecosystem support to break through into a major product line for Apple IMO.
Apple makes wrong moves all the time. However, post jobs return, they are one of the few companies that stick with their core products long enough to course correct.
Emphasis on core because someone will send me a list of ancillary stuff that got cut as part of the course corrections.
Imho this doesn’t have to be an Apple only thing, but other companies tend to throw in the towel much quicker. That’s why people remember Apple products as successful and defunct competitors as not. The competitors often got out at the low instead of iterating another few generations.
I’m actually really impressed at Meta sticking through with their devices for so long despite the heavy losses they’re incurring YoY.
That wasn’t my point. Apple makes wrong moves like any other company, and I’ve written my share of criticism, but always only after being briefed, or touching first hand. What I was lamenting is the custom of writing long pensive pieces of punditry with absolutely no previous expertise on Apple, not knowing the company well enough to go past the marketing smoke screen, and, above all else, with no direct experience whatsoever of the product you’re criticizing.
Edit: by the way, it’s maybe not a product per se, but the switch to Arm with Apple Silicon is a feat no other company has ever achieved with this degree of complexity and with this degree of success. If I had to pick a move defining the legacy of post-Jobs Apple, the transition is certainly up there.
It's considered cool and edgy to hate on Apple, so of course this is going to get clicks which is all Vice cares about. I don't even need to click on this to know it's not a real review and that it's just about clickbaiting people.
> Perhaps if companies stopped releasing useless crap set to become obsolete within months we wouldn't see such articles over and over again, no?
Is that what happened all previous times Apple released a new product category in the past decade, and such articles about it came out?
For how much inevitable near-future death people forecasted on Apple's new product categories, they all seemed to have avoided the "useless crap that will become obsolete in a month" trap (iphone, ipad, airpods, apple watch come to mind). Am I missing something?
The "become obsolete within months" part is especially inane, given iPhone 5s received a security update earlier this January, and it is a phone from 2013.
One way is to look at the series of products Apple has produced, and they've been successful.
The other way to look at it is the series of 3d vision devices (both tv and goggles) and view how successful those have been.
So, is this the time an Apple product fails big, or is this the time that immersive 3d takes off? It seems a lot easier to say that VR has largely been rejected and it will continue to be rejected, even if Apple is doing it.
No wonder Vice is on the rocks. To say it is too early to tell is a ridiculous understatement. Comparing this to Oculus and the rest is just lazy.
The Harvard guy who ran Grace Hopper's lab in 1941 famously said, "Only six electronic digital computers would be required to satisfy the computing needs of the entire United States." Had Vice been published then, they would have praised his perspicacity. I imagine few people today would agree.
Vision is a new platform. I can think of plenty of uses for it. Helping physically limited people and replacing my painfully small video screen are only the most obvious. Add travel and you have a market. Add industrial use and, well, the world is a pretty succulent oyster.
I don't know if it will win but I do know that declaring it DOA is stupid.
I felt bad giving this dope a click. The article a waste of time and the whole Apple Vision is bullshit crowd are idiots.
I think it's really too early too tell. If this article turns out to be wrong, we'll deride it and put it in the same bin as Steve Ballmer's iPhone bashing moment (or 'less storage than a Nomad'), if fails we'll laud it for cutting through the hype.
Apple has the integration and hardware expertise to have a good shot at this. But only time can tell if people want it if it is good enough, or whether it turns out to be silly. Which depends not only on technological factors, but also social (eg. will it get the same 'glasshole' perception that killed the Google Glasses), do people actually want to sit with goggles at home/work, etc.
If it does succeed, it also has large implications. Like, can open alternatives get a good chunk out of the market this time, or will we have another duopoly like smartphones.
The Newton was no iPhone but what killed the Newton was Apple killing it. Apple killed it by zeroing out the budget. Vision will be around as long as their’s budget.
A subtle irony that a company filing for bankruptcy is nay-saying the business logic of probably one of the most successful businesses.
Not that Vice can’t be right here, they might be. But the writing of the article isn’t very substantive of any real argument, let alone from anyone who’s tried the product.
A giant TV can also be shared with many people. The only use case I see for this thing is if I wanted to watch something on a big (fake) screen when I'm out, even though I didn't see this use case in the commercial maybe it's just a bit awkward using it outside.
Watching videos while laying down without craning your neck or holding the device in an uncomfortable position has always seemed like an obvious VR use case to me. I also spend tons of time reading in bed, a headset could make that much more comfortable. Seems pretty obvious that having an extremely portable monitor is quite valuable.
I haven’t seen anything about whether this is usable for walking or biking around IRL.
The fact that it’s not being demoed like that tells me they still can’t do “everywhere” AR (IR sensors and Sun aren’t friendly) and don’t want to open that can of worms.
Don't things only rich people will buy it e.g. I think it can be very useful for blind people especially those who recently got blind and haven't adapted yet.
I would be happy to hear opinion of any developer here on HN that is blind if they might find this tech appealing and useful.
Now lets hear the writers opinion on an iPhone with no App Store, no copy - paste, no video recording, and no front facing camera. Kind of like the original one, which we now can't imagine a world without
All of those features were implemented within roughly one year of the original iPhone's launch. It even got to the point where jailbroken iPhones already had much of those features before the 3G version. The App Store was announced, just not ready. Meanwhile, there were at least a dozen other killer apps built in to the original iPhone: GPS w/ Google Maps, Wifi, YouTube with widescreen orientation, accelerometers, visual voicemail, unlimited data, multi-touch gestures, full HTML/JS web browser with pinch to zoom for pre-responsive web, full iPod replacement with built-in iTunes, unlimited text, etc.
The killer app for this seems to be: block out the real world entirely, even from your peripheral vision.
Has anyone attempted to estimate the bill of materials for the headset? The amount of tech they pack in is bonkers: multiple processors, multiple screens, cameras, microphones, speakers, etc. etc. etc.
we've been through this commentary all before with the iPod, iPhone, iPad... the people they have write these articles are always too young to remember
in 5 years this thing will be the same price as a mid-range laptop