[GenerocUsername]

It's really not a 1.0 though. Yes the vision pro itself is 1.0, but 99% of people's complaints are not with the vision pro directly, but more about the entire concept of AR headsets. These issues have been known since at least the hololense era of 2017 and despite incremental improvements to software and hardware, the firm Factor can never escape these issues without massive leaps like eye glass or contact lense sizes hardware ... which is sci Fi for at least 20 more years

[kybernetikos]

> which is sci Fi for at least 20 more years

Or possibly forever if nobody is trying (and often failing) to advance the state of the art.

[freetinker]

You are correct.

But it’s also fair to say (imo) that AVP has made massive leaps. Are we now taking for granted the major leaps in nailing the interaction model (look and finger-tap), and delivering display tech that makes watching movies on it unlike any other movie experience just 85 days after release?

Yes, it needs to be lighter. Yes it needs more software/apps/content to fit greater use cases. Yes it needs to be less expensive to broaden its appeal, etc. Apple has a decent track record of patiently iterating YoY, polishing products to their mature, stable design state (thus giving rise to a new cycle of complaints about stagnation and not being bold and innovative).

[taeric]

Wait, who is actually defending look and finger tap as primary interface?

Psvr2 can do look, and it is largely best used as a rendering optimization, not as input detection. For controls, haptic is so important that the most emersive game is driving, but only if you have a good steering setup. Indeed, driving doesn't even need vr to be emersive with a good steering setup.

[talldayo]

> Are we now taking for granted the major leaps in nailing the interaction model (look and finger-tap)

I guess so, considering the first time I used that feature was in 2020 on the Oculus Quest 1.

[fnordpiglet]

Ok - fine - but unless people keep working and innovating for those 20 years, then it never happens right ? and the fact is Vision Pro is science fiction compared to HoloLens (which is an era that’s only 7 years ago)

The issue with Vision Pro IMO is that it costs so much and includes price boosting features like the creepy eye see through that are interesting in a prototype release like this but can be cut to reduce cost weight and other factors. If it had cost 1/2 as much it would have sold more than twice as much, and while it might not become the next iPhone, it would have a much more established user and developer base to build on over the next 5 years as they iterate. Then I think by 2030 we would have both the social understanding of where headsets and AR fit and Apple will have had the chance to iterate designs, software, supply chain, materials, etc and we would have a practical device for a much larger addressable market. But even so, the die has been cast and things will improve.

All that said, the point isn’t this - it’s that the tech critic authors are the worst type of people - the people who make their living nit picking great achievements in the goal of tearing them down and regarding investment and purchase for no other reason than “engagement.” Their points are only right from the narrow view of some people, cherry picked and mixed together, into a giant breathless fallacy. It’s lazy and slimy.

[manderley]

The issue with Vision Pro is that it's a fundamentally unappealing product and wouldn't sell in enough volume for Apple at any price.