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).
> You're criticizing the 2007 iPhone for features that virtually no phone had in 2007
Accelerometers were pretty common, and quite a few phones had GPS and selfie cams back then. Nokia N95 from early 2007 had all those things, for example - it even supported 3.5G already. Not sure about gyroscopes though, I believe they only started getting popular in phones later, but even then I doubt iPhone was the first.
iPhone did not get popular because of its features. It rode the iPod's fame and did some interesting (from 2007 perspective) UI choices, that's pretty much it. It didn't even start gaining significant traction outside of the US (where iPods weren't that popular either) until much later.
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.