return to table of content

Apple Vision Pro review: magic, until it's not

Topfi
109 replies
1d3h

This is a very in-depth, informative and factual review. My hats off to the Verge; great job.

I have racked up hours upon hours of actual, productive work in my Quest 2 and 3, so to say that I am a big proponent of the ideas that Apple is trying to advance would be an understatement. This makes me all the more disheartened to read that, for all their efforts, this release is mired by the same drawbacks that I have encountered across numerous headsets over the last decade:

[..] there’s a little bit of distortion and vignetting around the edges of the lenses, and you’ll see some green and pink color fringing at the edges as well, especially in bright environments. [..] If you’re looking at something bright or otherwise high contrast [..] you’ll see highlights reflecting in the lenses.

Prior to this review, I was actually willing to understand certain seemingly odd decisions, such as the concept of putting an OLED display on the outside, the potential for weight distribution issues, and an external battery, as I was hopeful that, similar to the iPhone, there'd be a cohesive whole in the end that wasn't fully understandable until reviewers got to use it.

I also was, somewhat naive, I admit that, under the impression that their handling of vignetting, etc. would be less noticable then what seems to be the case and, again naively following their marketing videos, had higher FOV expectations.

To draw a parallel, the initial iPhone made some major tradeoffs and at the time odd choices, to say the least, many of which were laughed at for arguably justifiable reasons at the time, but I could see something in that that went beyond then-available touch-only smartphones and PDAs in terms of usability and cohesiveness.

I fail to see the same in this review. Neither as an actual user nor as an enthusiast, do I see anything here that has not been done before. While your then-PDA may have supported 3G and came with many other capabilities the first iPhone lacked, there were certain things in regard to build, design, usability and intuitiveness that were unparalleled in the products at the time. Comparing an iPhone and an iPAQ Pocket PC made the latter seem ancient, even though it could do a lot the iPhone couldn't. Compare a Vision Pro to a Quest 3, I am saddened to say I don't see the same.

bombcar
76 replies
1d3h

The whole thing feels very ... "original xbox" to me. Hear me out.

It was argued that a big part of the original xbox for Microsoft was making sure they had a toehold in the gaming console market because that market had a change of disrupting the personal computer - and if that happened, they wanted to be there for it and have something ready to go.

They did something similar with phones, and we can see how it spectacularly failed - they have zero say or relevance in the massive smartphone market.

I almost feel the Vision Pro is Apple's attempt to put a toe in the water just in case this VR stuff takes off and destroys the smartphone market.

PaulHoule
26 replies
1d2h

Good analysis.

Part of it too is that Apple feels pressure to do something innovative. They made some big bets in the 2000s that paid off very well but a company that has a hit like the iPhone becomes profoundly conservative. The trouble is that there aren't many market opportunities bigger than smartphones, there's a possible iCar and an iHouse and that's about it.

Apple's worst fear might be being successful as a niche product: what if every seat of Dassault 3Dexperience ends up with an Apple Vision Pro? Apple might be left with the maintenance burden forever but no real prospects for a mainstream product.

nox101
20 replies
1d2h

I wonder if an iTV would sell. All mondern smart tvs are covered in ads and spying. monitors of similar sizes cost 3x to 4x. so to me there might be a market for a non spying iTV with bultin Apple TV for say 1.5x. Or not, not sure enough people care about those issues.

smaccona
6 replies
1d

What I do is buy a smart TV, never connect it to the network (thus making it a dumb TV), and plug an Apple TV (or other devices) into it. So far, this has worked - I haven't seen any ads from the TV itself (the apps running on the Apple TV are another story), and it can't phone home about what I'm watching or otherwise doing with the TV.

TeMPOraL
5 replies
19h2m

and it can't phone home about what I'm watching or otherwise doing with the TV

Are you sure?

The old idea of giving TVs built-in cellular backup connection is probably still too risky/expensive - dealing with people extracting and repurposing the SIM card with a free (for them) data plan is a hassle. But what about eSIM?

fzzzy
1 replies
16h49m

put a faraday cage around your house lol

TeMPOraL
0 replies
9h43m

Mark my words: one of these days, there will be a huge national security scandal involving data stolen from a SCIF, possibly with loss of life as a consequence, and it'll turn out there wasn't any intelligence op or treason involved - just adtech fuckery getting out of hand. Think disposable microphone and eSIM in a popcorn bag, sending telemetry to a publicly-readable S3 bucket, or something, because it's superbowl and they HAVE TO know if you're watching.

dangus
0 replies
4h6m

Honestly the privacy stuff isn’t even the value proposition, it’s that Apple TVs have great processors that run fast.

Using a typical smart TV or Chromecast is astoundingly slow in comparison. I have no idea how people tolerate it.

Let’s not forget that Apple and apps on the App Store gather plenty of information about you, especially if you aren’t vigilant about settings.

bigbabybuckman
0 replies
18h20m

Intriguing and possible I suppose; Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. However, I imagine the numbers would show it's unnecessary these days. My humble estimation is that most people, at least in the developed world, connect the TV to wifi for the convenience if available.

badwolf
0 replies
18h6m

Why bother with an esim, when you can use something like Amazon Sidewalk, just use whatever nearby Echo or other device to send whatever small data packets

throw0101d
3 replies
1d1h

I wonder if an iTV would sell. All mondern smart tvs are covered in ads and spying.

Probably best to just connect TVs to some box (Apple TV, Roku, etc) via plain HDMI and leave it that. There's no technical reason to connect TVs to an IP directly anymore IMHO: what would that actually provide over and above what you get with some box/stick?

PaulHoule
1 replies
1d

I like wall-mounting TVs but it sure is a mess to have a power cable and two or three HDMI cables and a composite cable (got a VCR, rubbish Denon receiver won't convert composite to HDMI) and an Ethernet cable and who knows what else hanging below it.

Now that I think about it it wouldn't be hard to cut a few holes and route the cables through the wall and have them come out in a spot that's not too conspicuous but who's going to do that?

People who believe in aesthetics uber alles (Apple fans?) might appreciate a TV that has just a power cable and connects through WiFi but you could mostly accomplish that with the right kind of stick. You might say in 2024 who needs a cable box or Blu Ray but game consoles are still a reason to have HDMI. (Though somehow I think Apple would think plugging a Playstation into an Apple TV is as unthinkable as plugging a phonograph into an iPod.)

lotsofpulp
0 replies
3h11m

With drywall, it is pretty simple to move a wall outlet up the wall.

bombcar
0 replies
1d1h

Ethernet over HDMI exists, luckily it hasn't taken off ...

bombcar
3 replies
1d1h

Apple TV already exists as a set-top box.

And even something similar embedded in some TVs.

What I could see Apple doing is some kind of "Made for Apple TV" feature that combines eArc, HDMI, etc, and makes the TV turn into a "dumb TV" for the Apple TV when it is connected and detected.

nox101
1 replies
1h45m

That's not the point. That is what I have now and my tv starts up in a big ugly display with an ad for Google TV and an admonition to enable it.

I've read online some smart tvs will complain, often, to please connect them.

I'd like a tv that works for me, not for the tv manufacturer.

It's also got a remote with way too many buttons like "Netflix" "Disney+" etc. Touch them by accident and it immediately goes to "setup your tv account"

nox101
0 replies
1h42m

to be honest, even AppleTV has per app ads I wish I could turn off. Whatever app is highlighted gets to show ads on the top half of the screen. I'd prefer no ads unless I launch the app

mynameisvlad
0 replies
20h33m

And even something similar embedded in some TVs.

I don't believe there is an "tvOS Embedded". "Apple TV+" is just an app within the OS; there isn't really any similarity between the embedded app and tvOS.

Someone
1 replies
1d1h

I think a problem with TVs for Apple is that they’d be under pressure to build them in a zillion different sizes. That’s not in their DNA.

A good beamer might be more fitting for them; they would only have to build them in ‘small’, ‘medium’ and ‘large’.

In either case, like you I’m not sure the market is large enough for a company of Apple’s size and DNA (it’s unlikely that they’ll try to find not one huge next big hit, but lots and lots of smaller ones. They’re not Ikea)

Aaronmacaron
0 replies
20h56m

Not really. The vast majority of modern TVs are 43, 55 or 65 inch sizes. That's three sizes.

hbn
0 replies
1d1h

Apple won't even make a consumer-targeted dedicated monitor, I can't see them doing a TV.

SR2Z
0 replies
2h3m

Definitely not if Apple takes a 30% cut lol

PaulHoule
0 replies
1d2h

10 years ago I thought Apple would fail if they tried it because they'd have a chauvinistic attitude about having HDMI or any other ports that aren't Ethernet. (You can't plug your phonograph into an iPod) For that matter I'd expect them to have a chauvinistic attitude about connecting to my home theater.

Back then you were just going to have to deal with the rubbish cable box but I think Apple wasn't going to stand for it.

Today Blu Ray seems to be on the way out and so is the cable box (now we have the spectacle of seemingly competitive vMVPDs that are all priced the same within a few dollars), it now is going to be a fight over game consoles.

TVs though have a serious race to the bottom and the TV with an Amazon Fire TV built in is going to be attractive to a lot of people.

(Also already Apple makes a "TV" removes the tuner and replaces the HDMI ports w/ something else and calls it a "monitor" and charges 5x. No way are they going to cannibalize that market to sell something that only costs 1.5x)

timcederman
2 replies
22h55m

Do you not feel Apple has been successful with the Watch and AirPods? Their wearables revenue dwarfs the revnue of most top tech companies.

PaulHoule
1 replies
22h51m

Both of those are accessories to the phone.

bakje
0 replies
19h50m

Actually, I find airpods to be very usable as bluetooth earbuds for all kinds of devices, these days I mostly use them behind my desktop PC when playing games and they work just fine. When I pop them out of the case they automatically connect to my PC just like they would an iPhone or other apple device. They won't automatically switch to the PC like they would for apple devices but they also won't just switch from the PC so I don't mind. Taking them out doesn't pause media but the play/pause controls do work.

I do think that most people without an iPhone won't buy them so they're essentially still bought as iPhone accessories, but they don't have to be!

I agree about the watch though, that's definitely an iPhone accessory.

kogepathic
1 replies
1d2h

> Apple might be left with the maintenance burden forever but no real prospects for a mainstream product.

This seems unlikely. Apple has not hesitated in the past to exit market segments they felt did not suit them. To name a few: servers, displays, routers.

bombcar
0 replies
1d1h

And to be fair to Apple, on those sunsetted products, they supported them quite well during the sunset and even after, especially the Xserve.

monkeynotes
19 replies
1d2h

No way will this tech destroy phones as you know them today. What is going to destroy phones is natural language. Maybe, maybe in the distant future this tech will be mature enough to provide the visual support to a natural language first device.

xBox addressed a very well defined product sector with a couple of big players doing stuff that is well understood. xBox wasn't a toe in the water, they planned a whole strategy around it using known facts about the industry, how people play, what kind of games work, they didn't break much new ground with the xBox. All they had to do was make a compelling, affordable gaming device that had amazing games on it. The rest takes care of itself. Apple Vision Pro is nothing like that. There is no existing market to put your toe in, there are no real competitors, we haven't even found a killer use case for these devices.

No one really knows how these AR/VR devices can fit into everyday life. Currently Apple is working on finding the water to put their toe in. Right now they are at an exclusive oasis when they really need an ocean.

mostlysimilar
2 replies
1d2h

Hard disagree. Phones and computers do text/images/video. Voice input and audio output is a poor substitute for text and not at all a replacement for images/video.

orangecat
0 replies
1d2h

Right. And there are too many scenarios where audio I/O isn't usable (quiet libraries, loud streets) so you always need an alternative.

monkeynotes
0 replies
1d

I didn't say there wouldn't be a screen. But natural conversations will be much more fluid and efficient than a keyboard and google search. Having a conversation is so much better for all sorts of applications.

Today's smartphones have to evolve this way, imo. I don't know what the most efficient hardware realization would look like but I imagine it's something that isn't in your pocket most of the time, more of a sleek wearable. It will need to be able to hear and see what you do.

vel0city
1 replies
1d2h

they didn't break much new ground with the xBox

I kind of disagree with this. They made networking and online gaming on consoles finally a thing most home consumers were interested in. Sure, there were some earlier forays into online gaming/networking on previous consoles (SegaNet, for example), but those were generally pretty niche. Sega only included a dial-up adapter by default, while the Xbox shipped with an Ethernet adapter. Shipping the Xbox with Ethernet made networking on the box pretty simple right at the time when people started buying home routers and broadband internet and opened up the console to easy LAN gaming.

Microsoft made Xbox Live a pretty massive feature of the console a year after launch. While Xbox Live launched a year after the console shipped, I'd still say the planning of it and including the Ethernet port was something nobody else in the console gaming world was doing and ended up defining the console gaming future.

bombcar
0 replies
1d

A big part of the success of the Xbox (and maybe it's not the Japan destroyer the fanboys wanted it to be) was that they really really let it be its own product, and develop an ecosystem. They not only made it a "PC for your TV" which was widely what it was held as on release, but also expanded the capabilities of what a console was expected to do.

Sadly they also popularized and solidified the "pay to play games online" feature of consoles, vs the "online play is free except for MMOs" that PCs normally have.

tverbeure
1 replies
1d2h

Natural language is even worse than video for quick content consumption: you can’t quickly skip through content that way the can fast scroll through a blog post.

monkeynotes
0 replies
1d

Natural language in place of other inputs, the command can result in summoning up a video for you, or a blog post to view.

If I am cooking and can hold a whole conversation with my virtual chef,that beats a video though. Talking through ideas at my desk would be great. Talking for navigation while I drive, yes please. Shopping with my headphones on and the device seeing everything I see and making suggestions about deals, recipe options, what's low in your pantry, and so on. I'll take that. I see technology becoming more and more transparent in our life. User interfaces will feel awkward when all you need to do is say "show me a video of cats" and it serves it to your companion screen without ever needing to touch tap any UI. No need to even have a web UI for youtube. Just an API and your device does the rest. It can show you a list of related videos without YouTube themselves providing anything more than the data model.

The cost cutting of not needing sophisticated front ends will be a big driving factor if this is as effective as I think it could be.

Anyways, my head is full of ideas like this.

chrischen
1 replies
1d2h

Making interfaces natural language is like making all buttons touch screen. Versatile, yea, but in practice it can be less efficient than dedicated controls or more tactile interfaces.

monkeynotes
0 replies
1d

Bare in mind I am not anticipating the Google Home level of interaction, I am talking full sophisticated natural language. And there is no reason touch cannot play a role, I'm just saying these devices will be unlike our current phones. I've listed some use cases that I think beat out touch easily elsewhere in the comments.

JKCalhoun
1 replies
1d2h

What is going to destroy phones is natural language.

Then the Watch is the future.

bombcar
0 replies
1d

Dick Tracy will have his revenge, in this model or the next.

Ancapistani
1 replies
1d1h

No way will this tech destroy phones as you know them today.

This device? No, absolutely not. I see it as a speculative play by Apple: release a very capable device with a bare-bones ecosystem at a high price.

"Early adopters" will buy it because that's what they do.

"Influencers" will buy it, because that's what they do. Their social media posts about it will give Apple all the data they need to nail down the size of the potential market.

Finally, developers will buy it, because it's cool tech. We'll tell ourselves that it's an emerging market, and we can get it early. The launch of the iOS App Store spawned a gold rush for app developers; I expect that the launch of the AVP and its visionOS App Store will do the same. The size and profitability of that opportunity will be determined by how well Apple develops and popularizes the product.

This is where I'm at on it. I expect the AVP to be best-in-class in terms of hardware and OS-level integration (though, to be fair, I expect the latter will be limited at first in odd ways, in the grand Apple tradition).

I'll get one. I plan to use it for productivity, and as long as that justifies the cost I'll be happy with it. I'll also work on some minimal apps for visionOS. The purpose there will be to "skill up". If Apple releases a more consumer-focus headset that gains adoption, I'll be in a good position to take advantage of that by selling paid apps that are already mature by the time the general public are getting on the bandwagon.

What is going to destroy phones is natural language.

Maybe?

We've heard about "wearable computing" and "personal area networks" for decades at this point. While it still feels like something in the near future, the truth of the matter is that for a large segment of the population, it's already here. I already have an iPhone with me whenever I'm away from home, and usually an iPad as well. If I'm going to be away from home for a while, I've got an MBP in my backpack. All of those devices can hand off tasks between each other to an increasingly large degree - it's not uncommon for me to pull out my phone to show someone a website I had open on my laptop before I left home, then pull out my iPad if they're interested in it so they can interact with it more easily. Until recently, I had an Apple Watch surfacing an integrated notification stream from all of the above.

Today, smartphones are the central "wearable computing" device that ties everything together. They act as a hub for a computing experience. There's no guarantee in my mind that it will continue in that role forever. Maybe the hub will end up being the descendant of the AVP. Maybe it will be something more akin to a Humane AI Pin, or a Rabbit R1.

In other words... phones have already destroyed phones. Smartphones are really wearable computing hubs that we just happen to still _call_ "phones", because that's what they used to be. They're very rarely used for telephony, and many other devices are capable of doing so.

Maybe, maybe in the distant future this tech will be mature enough to provide the visual support to a natural language first device.

My hope is that it ends up being a "spatial" interface that provides a generic interface so it can be used by pretty much anything.

bombcar
0 replies
1d

They're very rarely used for telephony, and many other devices are capable of doing so.

This is a really important distinction. And if you calculate your phone bill by actual minutes used for talking, it's an insane number of dollars per minute.

I'd be completely unsurprised if the amount of "talking on Zoom/Teams/voice chat" is soon to surpass the total number of minutes talking on phones.

tim333
0 replies
3h55m

You can talk today to your phone in natural language. They don't seem very destroyed.

There seems something fairly fundamental about smartphone like devices at the moment in that people want a screen where they can see pictures, text messages and so on. A smartphone is a fairly minimal implementation of that. I don't think people want goggles / glasses stuck on their heads especially, at least I don't, regardless of how advanced the tech is. I mean looking around the cafe I'm in it's roughly 100% of people have smartphones, zero have google glass like things. Although the tech has been with us longer than you might think. I first tried a wearable computer with a small eye level display in the 90s and thought hey cool but they never caught on. https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-pc-goes-readytowear

throwuwu
0 replies
1d2h

Mobile phones and VR are different non competing markets. AR might eventually compete with phones once you can wear an AR device all day everywhere you go. AR and VR should be treated as distinct; a good VR headset is bad for most AR usecases and vice versa. Maybe at some distant time there will be hardware capable of doing both really well but not for many years. VR fits into daily life as a social experience and will be obvious once eye, face and full body tracking are included with the headset. Even before that if someone solves the network problems with concurrent users and delivers an experience that handles audio well enough to work with multiple people having conversations within earshot of each other. AR is really just putting screens and overlays everywhere, conversational interfaces will have more and better impact than that.

nottorp
0 replies
1h42m

What is going to destroy phones is natural language.

So when a group of people meet, instead of all sitting quiet and typing in their phones, they will all talk to their phones at the same time?

m3kw9
0 replies
1d2h

Natural language really sucks as a UI because a lot of things can be done faster than when you speak it. Like volume control as a tip of the iceberg example

kemayo
0 replies
20h10m

No way will this tech destroy phones as you know them today. What is going to destroy phones is natural language.

I'm extremely skeptical of this, just because of the vast number of situations where speaking-out-loud isn't going to be desirable. It'll have a place, for sure, but I think it'll be more of a supplement to our current phone paradigm.

HDThoreaun
0 replies
1d2h

Natural language wont work as the main control until we have a nueralink type product. I dont want to be talking at my computer constantly.

mhh__
15 replies
1d3h

I could imagine that might have been why it came about originally but that line of thinking doesn't seem to justify the R&D spend alone. I'd imagine they have some belief in it being able to make new business of its own.

If I'm not mistaken this is the first properly post-Steve product?

ketzo
7 replies
1d2h

I think AirPods were post-Steve? And they were both widely mocked at launch and wildly successful.

wharvle
6 replies
1d2h

Like so many Apple things, I thought AirPods were dumb until I got some (as a gift). I'd tried some Logitech wireless earbuds just a couple months before first trying AirPods. Those were dumb. God they sucked.

I've avoided the Watch for that reason. The little conveniences of various Apple-thingies are the sort of stuff you can't un-experience, and then you're stuck buying the damn things forever.

jes5199
3 replies
20h35m

I got an Apple Watch in 2019, and I don't wear it anymore. It was just another thing that needed to get charged every day, and none of the apps are very useful, and most of them are buggy and poorly supported.

cozzyd
1 replies
13h20m

I'm surprised people put up with daily charging in a watch where sleep tracking is a core feature.

dpkonofa
0 replies
2h58m

Why is that surprising? I just charge mine while I’m getting ready in the morning and it last all day and does sleep tracking. My Ultra lasts multiple days on a single charge.

phatskat
0 replies
7m

Mine is used for pretty much only the following:

- controlling Spotify - telling time - monitoring my health stuff - an easy to wear timer - getting filtered notifications of things I want to see without grabbing my phone to check - counting rows for knitting

hbn
0 replies
1d1h

I think about this frequently while using my AirPods. It's annoying that we're all becoming accustomed to spending anywhere from like $130 to $250 on in-ear headphones that aren't guaranteed a particularly long lifespan, to replace wired headphones that an acceptable quality pair can be had for like $15.

But I'll be damned if the AirPods experience isn't far more convenient, and has me using them more than I ever did with wired headphones because they're so quick and easy to use. I can pop one in an ear and immediately I'm listening to a podcast while doing laundry. No cord tethering my head to my pocket, nothing to get snagged on a doorknob, it just works. When I pull one out of my ear it pauses, and resumes when I put it back in. When you only have one AirPod in, it knows and automatically converts the audio stream to mono so you still hear everything.

Still would be nice to have the 3.5mm jack back, but I certainly haven't felt a desire to go back to wired headphones since I got AirPods.

bombcar
0 replies
1d

If it makes you feel any better, I think the watch is more of a "pickup or put down" device, especially if you do not usually use a watch. I sometimes wear it religiously, meaning all the time, and sometimes religiously, meaning only for an hour on Sundays and holy days ;).

ninkendo
2 replies
1d2h

The Apple watch was 100% post-Steve, conception to delivery [0]. This is definitely the first post-Jony Ive product though. (Rumors are that Ive was against the idea of doing a headset from the start, so it happened either without him, or after he left, depending on when it started.)

- [0] https://www.wired.com/2015/04/the-apple-watch/

Ive began dreaming about an Apple watch just after CEO Steve Jobs’ death in October 2011.
sherbondy
0 replies
7h35m

Nah, Ive is cited on a bunch of the patents for Vision Pro core technologies, including the first inventor listed on the EyeSight display patent, filed in 2018, 6 years ago:

https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloa...

Topfi
0 replies
1d2h

This is definitely the first post-Jony Ive product though.

Ironic considering, if there is a product whose design arguably should be driven by an obsession with reducing weight and thickness, the AVP is it.

CharlesW
2 replies
1d1h

If I'm not mistaken this is the first properly post-Steve product?

Jobs publicly bemoaned the lack of, and presumably thought a lot about, "headphones for video". I think it's a safe bet that he set the stage for Apple Vision (and probably sketched out a 50 year plan) with current Apple leaders before his death.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO0OGmNDKVg

"You know, the fundamental problem here is that headphones are a miraculous thing. You put on a pair of headphones, and you get the same experience you get with a great pair of speakers, right?

"There's no such thing as headphones for video, right? There's not something I can carry with me that I can put on, and it gives me the same experience I get when I'm watching my 50-inch plasma display at home."
Topfi
1 replies
1d1h

Yeah, I honestly hadn't thought about those statements in quite a while. Thanks for bringing them back to mind. It makes me ponder whether they had a very rough, early prototype of an FPV display device at that time, and if so, what that looked like. The interviewer briefly mentions what was available at the time, which Steve calls "lousy", so it could also be that he was more fascinated by the inherent concept.

As is often the case, I'd give a lot for companies such as Apple to be more open with their ancient prototypes once a new device gets launched. Sometimes brands, such as Microsoft[0] in the console field showcase iterative prototypes or even produce full-on documentaries of their history, but rarely for new device categories.

I understand why that's not possible, but still, one can dream.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJYsA1jXf60

rylittle
0 replies
21h40m
mcphage
0 replies
1d2h

that line of thinking doesn't seem to justify the R&D spend alone

I'm sure they're also looking to use the technologies they develop for this in other products, too.

renhanxue
2 replies
16h54m

just in case this VR stuff takes off

I think the last few years have pretty conclusively proven that there is no VR train to miss. It remains mainly a novelty (with some niche uses) and none of its fundamental issues have been resolved.

wkat4242
1 replies
13h1m

I think it's pretty great already tbh. I use it almost daily.

phatskat
0 replies
12m

I’m curious to know how long you’ve been using it, and what your primary use cases are

n6242
1 replies
8h54m

But VR has been going on for a while now. I have a VR headset, I use it occasionally and I love it because it allows things that wouldn't be possible in any other platform. But strapping something on my face is not something I'd want to ever use as my main system. It's like a racing wheel, you use it for some games but it doesn't replace a controller so it's just a very niche product.

DSingularity
0 replies
7h18m

It’s not about that. It’s about if some new fundamental discovery shatters all barriers leaving VR in an uncontested position of technological supremacy. You know, the arguable position of the “smartphone” which apple leads in.

The transition from the PC/laptop has been brutal to the prior entrenched players. I’m inclined to agree with OP that this is a play that is about more about creating options now. Might be that Apple executes the winner and happily cannibalizes itself but it does not want to be in a position where it is 5 years behind in terms of R&D if another company breaks through first.

thelastparadise
0 replies
17h15m

Uh I guess you aren't respecting the NDA then?

rewgs
0 replies
10h55m

Apple's approach to both AR/VR and ML/AI is giving me big "Microsoft missing the boat on mobile" vibes.

pjmlp
0 replies
1d2h

Originall XBox was also a money sink for Microsoft, bleeding money, bringing everyone on board to develop for it.

Modern Apple is anything like that.

penjelly
0 replies
20h10m

it feels like theyve been doing RnD on VR/AR, bleeding cash, and theyre making a product to "justify" this cash burn to me. That plus shipping a product is the only way you can iterate, and a common mentality in tech companies is "to ship". IMO theyre late to the game, and excited to see if they can offer anything new

m3kw9
0 replies
1d2h

But it isn’t hard to see that people who are constantly glued to their phones scrolling wouldn’t want to just have the screen on their faces instead of holding it. To me it’s the natural evolution of the way we absorb digital info/entertainment

jspaetzel
0 replies
14h44m

Microsoft failed to disrupt the smartphone market because they tried doing it at a period of all time low Microsoft sentiment, especially in the developer community. If they tried it again today, it might actually work.

Apple putting a toe in the water is roughly equivalent to Microsoft's HoloLens effort. I wouldn't compare it to Xbox or even the Windows Phone. Ironically Apple might fail here because they're developer relations isn't exactly great right now and they might lose this the same way Microsoft lost mobile.

hammyhavoc
0 replies
13h1m

Now do Microsoft and the HoloLens.

H12
0 replies
4h0m

I also wonder whether it's an attempt to normalize certain aspects of the form factor to ease people into what Apple sees as the future of this technology.

Namely, I wonder if the tethered battery and lack of dedicated controller exists to prepare people for a future where their headset plugs into an iPhone (or iPad or Mac), which then serves as a battery, co-processor, and input device.

chris-orgmenta
15 replies
1d2h

Sorry for the slight tangent, but: What's the current state of VR&AR Headset friction / boot time? This is what I expected Apple to solve first.

With VR/AR headsets, the friction to 'boot in' seems to be one of the biggest problems in adoption, and one that I feel Meta et al don't openly talk about. (Note, I am ignorant of this field in general).

How close are we to seamless, quick boot, such that one puts on a headset and are 'immediately' immersed? (Compare to my phone, which unlocks before my eyes even have time to focus on the screen).

(My admittedly poor) web searching of this question just tends to offer webpages on common boot issues (e.g. 'Quest boot time'/'Vive startup time' just leads to complaints and support forums.)

I suspect this also to be a primary issue with the true 'metaverse' taking hold. GTA6 will, in my opinion, be the luxury 'hang-out' metaverse, but will likely take many minutes to access. I feel that Microsoft could have made Minecraft the de facto metaverse (by implementing certain features), but will never quite get there. Perhaps a WebGL game that can take you to a bookmarked 'spacial' lobby within 3000ms can get real traction.

wharvle
4 replies
1d2h

What's booting?

Nothing I use with any frequency gets rebooted except for updates, more or less.

Exception: non-Apple stuff. Because those things tend to die while "sleeping" and unplugged, very quickly (my secondary work Windows laptop, which burns almost half its battery per 12 hours in "sleep mode"; my Steamdeck, which is barely better than that; the Switch though it's almost always on the dock anyway so that's rarely an issue)

chris-orgmenta
3 replies
1d2h

I agree that we should pretend that my question said "from standby" instead of "boot"

wharvle
2 replies
1d2h

If it's like iOS devices, I'd assume less than a second to interactive, potentially so fast that most people don't notice it isn't instant.

If it's like macOS, maybe 2-3 seconds to interactive.

cubefox
0 replies
17h53m

It shuts down completely when the battery is unplugged / swapped. Very different from other Apple products. Boot time is 37 seconds according to https://youtube.com/watch?v=GkPw6ScHyb4&t=40m38s

buffington
0 replies
12h52m

It is an iOS device. It's essentially an iPad Pro (with a lot of obvious other hardware) running a modified iPadOS.

s3p
2 replies
1d1h

Having used a Quest 2 and owning a Quest 3 personally I can tell you the delay is essentially zero. It takes 2-3 sec to get the headset fully secured around your head, and the Quest will wake up the very moment it starts to get moved. That's part of the reason it annoys me so much-- just moving the controllers will wake it up, even if it's sitting on my desk.

sph
0 replies
9h25m

You can turn that feature off, at least on the Quest 3

aranelsurion
0 replies
18h59m

just moving the controllers will wake it up, even if it's sitting on my desk.

Odd that it doesn't work that way for me with controllers, maybe it's a setting you chose? For me no amount of moving the controllers or even pushing the buttons or triggers will wake the headset, it only wakes up if I put it on or through the power button.

jayd16
2 replies
1d2h

This is a pretty strange complaint to me. When you use a VR headset you don't really put it on and take it off frequently during a session. When you take it off you can plug it in and it'll stay in standby, which is similar to phone standby. Its also not any slower than Playstation standby.

chris-orgmenta
1 replies
1d2h

It's not a complaint (from me or my acquaintances), it's something that I thought (possibly incorrectly, but as mentioned I am ignorant hence me asking) was a hindrance to the success of the market. I.e. when I speak to most people re: VR/AR, they say something like "It sounds like a lot of faff", or "I have one gathering dust, I can't be bothered to use it".

I have no skin in the game and no intention of buying anything for another couple of years at least, FWIW.

Anyway: Sibling post says ~5 seconds from standby - Which seems very reasonable to me, so I suppose it's just lack of compelling features (subjectively to the people in question, not regular users) that result in the 'gathering dust'... Which means the people I have spoken to haven't wanted to bother keeping it on standby (thus increasing the barriers further).

kllrnohj
0 replies
19h26m

It takes substantially more effort to put it on than it does to "boot up"

And while it may sound weird that putting it on is such an ordeal, keep in mind that there's a lot of inherently fiddly bits and many have compromises. Like the PSVR2 requires me to go turn the lights on, because it uses inside-out tracking which doesn't work well in a dark room. But also you have to fiddle around with the position of it, get it in a comfortable spot, wiggle it a bit so the lenses line up with your eyes as you had it last configured, etc... Then realize that you smudged the lens with your forehead so take it off and clean it and do it again but more carefully this time.

swozey
0 replies
1d2h

I have a MQ3 I haven't used in a few weeks sitting on the charger. I picked it up, spent 10 seconds finding the power button, hit button, put it on, waited 25 at the meta logo then was in VR. Didn't test opening a game but for a big one it's probably the same 10-45 seconds to start I'd imagine.

It's not something I ever really thought about, you boot it once a session and it goes idle/wake, not hibernate if you just put it on your desk for a minute.

The MQ3 is WAY better than my Vive and better even than the MQ2 at being a "throw on and gun" quick device. It's way lighter, less work to get going with.

The MQ3 is an awesome device, I love it.

spywaregorilla
0 replies
1d2h

boot time is not nearly as relevant as with a phone where you're constantly turning it off.

cubefox
0 replies
17h59m

One Apple Vision review mentioned that there is no "hot swapping" of the battery. Which means the headset shuts down when you swap the battery pack (which lasts 2 to 3 hours). They said booting it up again takes 30 to 40 seconds, if I remember correctly.

Topfi
0 replies
1d2h

Cold boot time on a Quest is roughly half a minute, though most of the time, you'll just wake it up from standby. For testing, I just put my Quest 3 on my head, and without pressing the power button, I counted five mississippis (seconds) before I was fully in their heavily customized version of Android with hand tracking recognizing my digits.

tfandango
5 replies
1d3h

Out of curiosity, what are you using for work on your Quest? I also have a Q2 and have tried, maybe not too seriously, several of the screen sharing apps to do work but couldn't quite get past the resolution and lag. Perhaps that has gotten better since, it's been some time.

Instead now I use it for entertainment and very much like it, but if I could make that next leap it would be great!

Topfi
2 replies
1d2h

For that purpose, the difference between the Q2 and Q3 was so vast that I cannot oversell it. While it's still not perfect due to the resolution, the switch to pancake lenses made screencasting to the Q3 something I could do for many hours at a time and enjoy it, whereas on the Q2 with the limited sweet spot in the center, it was really only for very specific use cases. On the Q2, even slightly off center becomes unreadable; on the Q3, you can move your eyes right to the panel border and still read text at the edge. The main use case is heavy multitasking with Confluence, Jira and an IDE in full-sized windows.

tfandango
1 replies
1d2h

Thank you. Your experience with the Quest 2 mirrors my own. I'm undecided if I will try a Q3 or skip a generation. It definitely seems like things are moving in the right direction and I'm excited about that!

tuscen
0 replies
11h59m

I'd advice you to skip another generation. I can give my experience with it.

I have Q3 and try to use it for work from time to time and it is still not enough to replace an actual monitor, at least for me.

FOV of 110 degress is too narrow, maybe 140 degress would solve it, but I'm not sure. The thing is that apparently I glance to content without turning my head a lot and I discovered it when I tried to use Q3 for actual work. Even though the lenses and POV are much better than on Q2 and other wired VR glasses it's not enough for me still. Also sometimes reflections in the lenses are too bright and distracting and I don't know how to fix this.

Resolution is much much better than Q2 and Quest S that I also have, but it's still not enough. And IPS panel is the biggest downside of it. That should've use OLED instead.

But the main problem that stops me from using it is the smoothness of the whole process of starting to work. You can't just sit behind you desk, put on the glasses and start working. The whole process reminds me of preflight preparation: you need to ensure that the software is running and correctly setup on you PC and that's not always the case. You always need to ensure that you have controllers by your side, because hand tracking often fails, and Q3 often struggles to find my hands at all. Basically, software wise it's not there for a 100% smooth ride like with screens where you just sit at your desk and start to work without a single hitch.

In short, it's like a death by thousand cuts. Some people can tolerate some of them and can use Q3 for work, but in my case I wasn't able to tolerate any of them and that kills it for me for now. I hope for Q4 or maybe Quest Pro 2 after seeing a slim prototype that Mark showed some time ago.

tinyhouse
0 replies
1d2h

Same. I find it useless for work stuff. I have a large screen at home and in the office. I don't need to look at a large screen through a heavy headset on my face that I feel bad after wearing for more than 30 min. I also don't find the VR meeting experience better than a zoom call.

swozey
0 replies
1d2h

Virtual Desktop for desktop work

theNJR
3 replies
1d3h

You captured my feeling perfectly. In particular

> While your then-PDA may have supported 3G and came with many other capabilities the first iPhone lacked, there were certain things in regard to build, design, usability and intuitiveness that were unparalleled in the products at the time. Comparing an iPhone and an iPAQ Pocket PC made the latter seem ancient, even though it could do a lot the iPhone couldn't. Compare a Vision Pro to a Quest 3, I am saddened to say I don't see the same.>>

I too was hoping for the sum of the parts to be something special.

I’m picking my AVP up on Saturday. I’ll give it an honest go but expect to return it within a week. I’ve owned most VR headsets and they sit in a drawer, rarely used. For a few hundred dollars I’m ok with that. For a few thousand I am not.

PaulHoule
1 replies
1d2h

I got a Hololens 1 that turned out to be a white elephant and I read a lot of stories about people buying VR headsets and abandoning them so when I got an MQ3 I was quite deliberate about getting a variety of games and apps and spending enough time with VR to succeed at it.

theNJR
0 replies
1d2h

I co-founded a (failed) vr startup so I’ve got my 100 hours in the Oculus and Vive

al_borland
0 replies
9h27m

What makes you continue to try all the VR headsets if they keep sitting in a drawer at the end of the day (honest question)?

When I see comments like this, and there seem to be many, I can’t help but think VR is a technology in search of a problem. With every platform Apple has launched they show the problem it will solve for customers and I just don’t see that here, and really haven’t seen it with any VR headset, at least not enough to overcome the downsides.

I can’t help but think of this video of Steve Jobs… “you’ve got to start with the customer experience and work backward to the technology. You can’t start with the technology and try to figure out where you’re going to try and sell it.”

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oeqPrUmVz-o

2OEH8eoCRo0
3 replies
1d2h

I have racked up hours upon hours of actual, productive work in my Quest 2 and 3

I have a lot of questions. Would you recommend them? Do you work primarily in VR? I haven't tried VR but the use-case I envision is to put on a VR headset and be "at work".

Topfi
2 replies
1d2h

Would you recommend them?

Yes, no, maybe. Thing is, I've never used a device or software that I haven't found faults with. Overall, the Quest has turned into a solid, though still imperfect, platform, with Meta pushing updates at a consistent, but also breakneck pace, sometimes at the expense of addressing existing issues. Hand tracking from the early days of the Q2 has made massive leaps and has become my preferred method of navigation for its reliability and ease, yet at the same time, the changes in camera placement between the Q2 and Q3 lead to a decrease in controller tracking performance in very specific scenarios. Essentially, they are constantly experimenting, both on the hard- and software front, trying to optimize what they can within their very low price point. Still, if you are interested and have an idea what you'd like to use the headset for, I'd recommend trying one within the return window, though I'd strongly suggest adding a "halo-style" strap (BoboVR is my current favorite) for comfort.

Do you work primarily in VR?

No, a more healthy mix between a single 27" JOLED and the Quest 3 for workloads that require more screen real estate but can go without as much overall resolution. About 60/40 in favor of the regular panel.

jbellis
1 replies
1d2h

I use my xreal air as my airplane display. I would love the Quest 3's higher resolution but my understanding is that compared to the XA the Q3

- Requires controllers - Requires wifi instead of plugging in the cable and it just works* - Has fairly limited battery life

Am I mistaken on these points / do you think it would work on an airplane despite them?

* To be fair, the XA only "just works" in vanilla display mode, the fancy xreal multiple virtual monitors feature called Nebula doesn't work well enough to be worth the hassle.

Topfi
0 replies
1d1h

Tried my hand at a Viture One for two weeks, but the diopters did not work with my specific vision, perhaps I'll give the new XA2 a shot now that they are more available in the EU.

Concerning your question, it's very different. While VR content can be cast both over USB or wireless, for flat-screen casting, wireless is the preferred and most comprehensively supported way, which, whilst tether-free, can be less seamless when out-and-about than just plugging in a cable. Note that wireless does not require a local WiFi router or internet connection but can also be handeled directly from a host device, still, less reliable than a plain cable carrying video signal. Furthermore, as the Quest has its own full on operating system based on Android, rather than receiving an HDMI signal like the Viture or XA, there is an additional point of complexity to consider, and it looks a lot less inconspicuous than the XA. Lastly, tracking via the cameras is a great advantage in general use, though a very inclosed, darkish space such as an aeroplane may push the small sensors to their limit and yes, battery life can be a limit as well, though I do hot-swap BoboVR battery at the back of my skull for that. Still not as convenient as just using your phones power and having that charged.

Quest does not require an controller at this point, hand tracking is currently my prefered way of navigating the system day-to-day.

Overall, I'd agree, on an airplane I'd consider the Quest to be of marginal usability.

treprinum
0 replies
1d2h

Never buy version 1 I guess (unless the company is fighting for survival and has to deliver, with 100% focus).

KronisLV
0 replies
20h11m

I have racked up hours upon hours of actual, productive work in my Quest 2 and 3...

I have a Quest 2 right now and attempting to use it for desktop computing just doesn't work all that well for me (their Quest Link app with desktop windows, or SteamVR desktop feature; might also have to use the Meta Workspace app or whatever it was called in the future). All of the text feels a bit blurry and it's like the resolution just isn't there.

I don't even have that high of a resolution dev setup outside of VR, just four 21.5" monitors running at 1080p. I do catch myself squinting a little bit at them sometimes, but 10, 11 and 12 font sizes (in JetBrains IDEs and VS Code) seem too small in VR and going bigger decreases the lines of code per screen to an annoying degree.

Best I can do in VR for that ends up being one huge monitor in front of me, two on each side, as well as a huge overhead one, but that leads to a lot of turning my head, maybe just a bit more than I'd like to.

I'm not sure whether it's the headset with the lenses that's messed up, whether it's my eyes that are just bad, or the fact that the distance between the lenses should be a little higher than the headset allows for (at least based on what an IPD test I read online suggests), but the end result is that the experience isn't very good... yet.

monkeynotes
30 replies
1d3h

I think this is like a modern example of the Apple Newton in the sense it's impressive, has uses, but it too soon to be widely adopted.

I think this device will flounder, early adopters will struggle to make full use of it because of all the compromises. Take it on the plane? Why? It will run out of power in 1-2 hrs (if you remembered the full charge before you board). Lugging all that bulk just for a movie on the plane while you look like a black mirror drone.

Then there is TV, it's great if you live by yourself, but what couple has $7k to drop so they can watch TV together. For ~2hrs.

Office work? No thanks, I can't wear that all day and actually be productive.

It's an amazing accomplishment, but who is it for? The ~200k wealthy people who mostly live by themselves isn't going to fulfill an AR revolution for Apple.

I wonder what Jobs would have done.

seanmcdirmid
16 replies
1d2h

When all plane seats seem to have power these days, is the battery in a plane really a limitation? Can’t it charge while being used?

zerbinxx
14 replies
1d2h

Doesn’t it have some weird and Very Apple design flaw where it’s hard to charge and use at the same time?

seanmcdirmid
5 replies
1d2h

I don’t know, which is why I’m asking. I can see it not charging as fast as it’s being used.

monkeynotes
4 replies
23h6m

It's basically a laptop on your head, so a meaty 60w charger could be needed to power and charge it.

seanmcdirmid
3 replies
23h3m

Then I guess that is fine, since airlines are typically providing 75 watts per seat.

mrguyorama
1 replies
18h43m

A couple watts of heat dissipating into your face and head the entire flight is.... Not optimal. Heat is a rather important issue for VR hardware. You can't really positively ventilate the actual part that goes over your face, or else you dry out your eyes and that's pretty unenjoyable.

seanmcdirmid
0 replies
14h24m

The battery is not located near your face, it’s lower on your waste. I’ve never experienced heat up on my quest 2, and I’m using it for mostly sweaty things. I just can’t see Apple making something that gets hotter than a quest.

monkeynotes
0 replies
4h19m

This is news to me, I've always had low amp USB-A slow chargers in economy. Those old cigarette outlets can deliver 75 watt, but no idea about the amperage.

I am sure USB-C with PD will be available at some point, but it's not a majority of economy today AFAIK

gr__or
3 replies
1d2h

The battery is external, i.e. already next to you anyway, so plugging in power is rather simple. You could also have multiple batteries with you, though I don't know the price of an additional battery.

jsheard
2 replies
1d2h

It's $200 for an extra battery, all of the accessories have a steep early adopter tax. Besides, has anyone confirmed whether or not the AVP has an internal backup battery so you can hotswap the external battery without rebooting it?

nonfamous
1 replies
1d2h

According to the linked review, hot-swapping is not possible - disconnecting the battery powers down the device.

jsheard
0 replies
1d2h

In that case if you want to use it for many hours without access to wall power you're better off buying a generic USB power bank and plugging that into the Apple battery. Very elegant.

swozey
1 replies
1d2h

That'd be fitting. Maybe the charging port is inside of it right between your eyes so you have to charge it like their old mouse you had to flip over dead.

Toutouxc
0 replies
10h2m

charge it like their old mouse you had to flip over dead

That's not "their old mouse", it's the current mouse. We're still on the 2015 design with the charging port at the bottom. (I have one and I don't mind/care, I just chuckle once a month when I remember to charge it)

naravara
0 replies
22h46m

No. When it's plugged in it just passes the power through.

The annoying Apple limitation is that you can't hot-swap the battery.

bearjaws
0 replies
1d2h

cries in magic mouse

monkeynotes
0 replies
4h23m

Those outlets are usually low amp, slow charge. I mean a majority are still USB-A, and now you have to take an adapter with you. The whole thing is ludacris for a majority of people, they have other priorities for what they pack and how the hassle they are willing to accept for a movie. Parents are a non-starter, AVP is a selfish device for disappearing into your own world, parents have kids to keep an eye on. I personally would not want to be completely closed off from the cabin, first it's fucked up for the cabin crew to interact with, second I am now partially blind AND deaf to my surroundings. FOV is limited, and I doubt those cameras are very capable at low light.

coffeebeqn
9 replies
1d2h

The plane thing is funny. I can’t imagine anyone actually using VR in economy. At best you’ll annoy people next to you and the flight attendants if they need you to move or respond. At worst you’ll hit your head on something or whack someone with the controllers

whynotminot
3 replies
1d2h

There's a lot to question about AVP, but this doesn't make sense. What are you hitting your head on sitting in your seat on an airplane? If you've got the aisle seat and someone needs to move, they do the same thing they do when you're wearing your noise canceling headphone or taking a nap--tap your shoulder. It's not rocket science.

The device has breakthrough--when someone comes near (eg a flight attendant), it breaks through the immersive VR and shows them to you. You can take off the headset at that point if you choose.

Again there's a lot to question about how this headset will practically work for people, but this ain't it. In fact I'd argue airplanes are one of the use-cases for this device that makes the most sense. How many places do I want to completely disappear from my environment and pretend I'm somewhere else? A long haul flight is tops on that list.

LoganDark
2 replies
13h17m

I'd argue airplanes are one of the use-cases for this device that makes the most sense.

It's unfortunate that it can't be used on planes yet, then. I saw a video where someone tried it, and apps were just left behind in space by the airplane's movement. It makes sense why this would be the case, but it also should be obvious that if you're in a sealed room, apps you open into the room shouldn't fall through the room if it's moving.

LeoPanthera
1 replies
11h48m

It can be used on planes, and that was even part of the original demo. It has a "travel mode" specifically for this use case, which I assume just tells it to ignore the motion sensors and use the camera only.

LoganDark
0 replies
7h14m

Ah, so the creator of the video must've just forgotten to turn on the travel mode then?

seanmcdirmid
2 replies
1d2h

I can see it being used on a long haul in economy after dinner service and before breakfast. Most of that doesn’t really apply, except for the occasional bathroom run.

monkeynotes
1 replies
1d2h

And that's my point, it's such a tiny niche usage window, why bother to bring it?

seanmcdirmid
0 replies
1d2h

If you have to take a lot of trans Pacifics in economy, you get desperate quickly. This is only the price of one discounted business class ticket.

whamlastxmas
1 replies
1d1h

Using it in economy is actually a top use case for me. Working on my laptop is miserable for multiple reasons, the biggest of which is that I can’t even tilt the lid open past 90 degrees out of fear the person in front of me will recline and catch my screen in the seat crevice and smash it. Lots of photos of this happening online

monkeynotes
0 replies
1d

I wonder how that will work out. It just looks so clunky and bulky, with limited FOV. I'd feel blinkered and constantly wanting to check my surroundings. For me an iPad is the best thing for movies on a plane. It's small, versatile, and I am aware of my surroundings.

I guess we'll see how people use it, but right now it is too expensive and full of compromises for me to consider.

pmontra
1 replies
1d1h

what couple has $7k to drop so they can watch TV together

Together and alone at the same time. Eye contact and unhindered vision of the face of a partner are important things.

LeafItAlone
0 replies
1d1h

There’s no requirement to wear them 24/7…

You can get an awesome 2-3 hour immersive movie experience and still look at your partner after. A good cinema experience already envelopes me and makes me forget I’m surrounded by a hundred others.

dansalvato
0 replies
16h5m

I wonder what Jobs would have done.

I think every "new paradigm" Apple product had similar growing pains. The Mac launched with only 128kb RAM, the iPhone lacked basic functionality and ditched physical keyboards, and the iPad was "just a big iPod". Also, in all cases, there was no software for them at launch.

Every time, we seem to ask "What is this good for?" or "How will this ever be good when it has these fundamental limitations?" But then, a few years down, it's suddenly commonplace, even indispensable.

I think that like the new paradigms before it, it's hard to imagine a clear future for this product. But they always seem to find their way after Apple gets them out the door. Not saying I'm convinced there will be a headset in every home, but I think the "spatial computing" paradigm is far more likely to find a path forward than it is to die.

pivo
22 replies
1d3h

Oh boy: "Listen to me, do you want to use a computer that is always looking at your hands?" It took a second for that warning to sink in.

bombcar
16 replies
1d3h

Someone at Apple had to design the watch to detect certain hand motions and purposely ignore them. That's a thing that someone had to do, otherwise false positives would be embarrassingly pasted across the Internet for to be laughed at.

Hamuko
9 replies
1d2h

Shouldn't the watch be on your non-dominant hand?

addandsubtract
5 replies
1d2h

Wouldn't your dominant hand be on your mouse?

wharvle
2 replies
1d2h

There's either got to be a big generational gap on preference for this, or a lot of folks out there have developed mousing ambidexterity.

johnnyanmac
0 replies
14h19m

Some lefty's do. I use the mouse right handed and even hold a guitar right handed. Some things you just train yourself to conform to society with. Kind of a shame I'm not an artist because I can have an amazing setup with a drawing tablet, keyboard, and mouse that is all at my beck and call.

(and... that, with my off hand as well. No clue why. I guess I hold a screen with my dominant hand?).

brewdad
0 replies
19h26m

I'm a lefty through and through in my sixth decade going around the sun. Mousing with my left hand is weird. Like completely wrong. Even on a touchpad I tend to "mouse" with my right hand.

Hamuko
1 replies
1d2h
swozey
0 replies
1d2h

lol, it doesn't show in the shortened url. I clicked this and read other things then went to that tab and went "wtf was I looking up here?"

possibly nsfw if you work for the puritans and love kelloggs

Eric_WVGG
1 replies
1d2h

Why? (I switch wrists every six weeks ago because I think the tan line starts to look weird, it's similar usable from either)

Hamuko
0 replies
1d2h

Because it allows you to use your dominant hand to control it, and also your non-dominant hand is more often free than your dominant hand, so it's free to swing around when you walk and better count your steps.

michaelt
0 replies
1d2h

That's all very well for the folks who only need one hand...

brookst
5 replies
1d2h

No, it’s all ML models. It is very unlikely that an ML model trained on wrist motions for walking and running would falsely report steps for… other activities.

nox101
3 replies
1d2h

One of the reasons I got rid of my apple watch is because it would congratulate me for successfuly completing my exercise for the day just from turning over on the sofa. It would also tell me how good I slept when I forgot to wear it to bed. So, at least for me, that ML doesn't work

ThalesX
1 replies
1d2h

I didn't give it up, but I did laugh one morning at 2:30AM, laying in bed, dozing off and getting startled by the watch telling me I've been sitting for awhile and it suggests I get up and move a bit.

bombcar
0 replies
1d1h

It's rare, but I've been woken up at least once by a "congratulations on completing your stand/exercise!".

brookst
0 replies
3h13m

Definitely weird, pretty sure that’s not what most people experience. But such is the statistical nature of ML; your particular movements on that particular sofa fooled it.

planede
0 replies
1d2h

They possibly had to include training data tagged with "inactive" though, including that.

solarkraft
1 replies
1d1h

I think we're past that. Our phones have already seen so many things we could find embarrassing.

One smart thing Apple usually does when using cameras for sensing (see Face ID) is never showing you the image, making it feel a lot less creepy.

gvurrdon
0 replies
6h20m

A good point. Going into a supermarket I know I'll be filmed, but will avoid self-checkouts where I'm shown a live video of my exciting checkout experience as it does make it feel a lot creepier.

chaostheory
0 replies
1d3h

“Hands”

Yeah, but at least Apple focuses on privacy

addandsubtract
0 replies
1d2h

The video also offers a solution. Obscure the view of your hands from the camera(s).

LeafItAlone
0 replies
1d1h

I’d wager most people take their phones in into the bathroom with them and use them on the toilet. I’ve even seen people on video calls in public restrooms!

I honestly don’t think the general public is all that concerned.

(But I am)

igammarays
21 replies
1d1h

This review confirmed this is exactly what I need. I don’t care about my hair messing up, I work from home. I don’t care if the display doesn’t look as good as reality, that was never my expectation anyway. The display just needs to look good enough to work with fine text and hi-res images. I don’t care if it’s too heavy to wear for hours at a time, I always work in 25 minute blocks anyway. Breaks are good. I don’t care if personas look creepy, Zoom virtual backgrounds are also creepy. I don’t care if the eye/hand tracking isn’t up to par for “serious” work, I plan to use it with a keyboard and mouse anyway (at least while working, not in entertainment/writing mode). Every single “fault” which this reviewer mentioned doesn’t matter to me, I was never expecting this device to replace reality for me anyway.

What I want is, the ability to have large displays laid back on my bed/couch, and the ability to walk around the room and place different open Safari windows and apps around my physical space as I think and study some new topic. That’s all. The new virtual world stuff is just a cute addition for me, it’s not what I am buying it for. I am buying this thing to have an infinite number of screens placed anywhere in my space, and that’s all I wanted.

whamlastxmas
8 replies
1d1h

Same for me but there was a single sentence that more than halved my interest in buying this: you can’t have multiple floating windows of MacOS. It’s all in one single floating window. This is by far the biggest flaw for me, and a really stupid one. Hopefully a software update changes this

hbn
3 replies
1d

The 1 monitor cap and the fact that it's only a 1440p resolution makes me think it's a bandwidth/latency limitation, I wouldn't hold my breath on software fixing it.

kllrnohj
0 replies
2h48m

The MacOS compositor already has different buffers for every window. It could stream updates of those buffers and do final composition on the AVP instead. But likely out of simplicity it seems like they just opted to use a generic, preexisting remote desktop solution. I also wouldn't hold my breath on software fixing it as even though it could it's all but certain Apple would certainly rather have you using native AVP apps instead and sees MacOS streaming as a stop-gap solution, not a valuable part of the long term strategy.

janeshchhabra
0 replies
1d

Yeah, you would likely need a hardwired connection over thunderbolt to do more. It's unlikely such a connection is possible with the specs today (only usb-c is on battery, and unsure if that can transfer data).

93po
0 replies
11h3m

Fair point but I wish they’d allow more when I don’t need perfect latency video, just mostly static ide material

HDThoreaun
1 replies
19h10m

VSCode native app when

rpmisms
0 replies
15h52m

If it uses the Mac as a devserver, probably really soon.

janeshchhabra
0 replies
1d

+1, this makes it harder to interop with mac working environments which was my biggest usecase for this device.

Sure, I can do other safari windows for research and stuff, but what I really want is different windows of IDEs, code search, docs, and work artifacts. Many of which may not be accessible through the vision pro (VPN, device certs, etc.), but are through my macbook.

If we could have at least 4 or 5 mac windows, it would be much better, otherwise it's akin to a macbook + external monitor. Hopefully they figure out a way to add it in, but it's hard to buy with such an obvious usecase missing.

igammarays
0 replies
1d1h

But you can have one floating macOS window (for your workhorse app) and then infinite other visionOS and iPadOS windows. For me, that’s good enough, most of my other monitors are just Safari tabs or something that can be replaced with iPad apps anyway. Anyway the fact that you can continue to use your phone with the headset on means you could theoretically use another computer with external monitors for desktop apps while having lots of extra virtual space for iPad/Safari apps.

strunz
5 replies
21h5m

Can you describe the tasks you will actually be doing like this and why this headset is actually helpful?

mynameisvlad
4 replies
18h49m

the ability to walk around the room and place different open Safari windows and apps around my physical space as I think and study some new topic

This seems like a perfectly reasonable task and why it is useful.

kccqzy
3 replies
17h54m

GP has said

I plan to use it with a keyboard and mouse anyway

And judging from reviews this seems required for productivity.

I cannot imagine walking around the room with one hand holding a keyboard and another holding a mouse. Maybe they need to sell a contraption that straps a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse to your body so much you can move around hands free?

mynameisvlad
2 replies
17h12m

Just because you don't see a use case doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

The original comment explained perfectly well how they would use it. If that use case suits them, then its their prerogative. This gatekeeping of use cases is so odd; why does it matter so much how someone else uses the device?

kccqzy
0 replies
16h32m

Just because I don't see a use case doesn't mean I'm unilaterally stating a use case doesn't exist.

I'm simply stating my opinion as to why this device doesn't suit me; to be more precise I'm stating why somebody else's use case is not my use case. Why do you assume my comment is supposed to generalize to everybody's use cases?

eviks
0 replies
11h6m

It's not perfectly explained due to the apparent contradiction

kccqzy
1 replies
20h39m

The hand tracking system is among the faults in the review. I'm not sure whether this will be addressed by having a real keyboard and mouse. The reviewer never tried the device with a real mouse. Do you know how the experience will be when using a mouse rather than the hand-tracking system?

Anyways this sounds infuriating:

you have to be looking at something in order to click on it, and that means you are constantly taking your attention away from whatever you’re working on to specifically look at the button you need to press next. I spent some time playing a lovely little game called Stitch that quickly became maddening because I kept looking away from the piece I wanted to move to the place I wanted to move it, which meant I wasn’t picking it up when I tapped my fingers.

And also:

I talk through writing video scripts to make sure things flow, and I talk with my hands. So as I was writing the video script for this review in the Vision Pro, the system kept catching my hands moving and started scrolling and clicking on things by accident. I cracked up the first time I realized what was happening. But eventually, it meant that I took the Vision Pro off and wrote the rest of the script on my Mac, which only does things when I actually want it to.
elicash
0 replies
19h53m

Brian Tong's review shows use of it with a trackpad, 9:09 in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkPw6ScHyb4&t=549s

This seems, to me, the only possible way to use this as a productivity device and wish more reviews would have tried it to get a better sense of whether it changes things.

Gruber's review also talks about the trackpad a bit:

https://daringfireball.net/2024/01/the_vision_pro

walteweiss
0 replies
1d1h

My train of thought was similar to this, but I’m worried about my eyes. Although I’m not sure whether it’s worse than me looking at a regular screen all day long.

saiya-jin
0 replies
20h40m

There is always an idea what one needs, the idea itself is perfect, flawless. Then there is reality. Those never meet, good luck with getting them at least close

rootusrootus
0 replies
19h52m

the ability to walk around the room and place different open Safari windows and apps around my physical space as I think and study some new topic

That right there might be worth the price of admission.

globular-toast
0 replies
10h10m

So are you going to use a keyboard and mouse or not? It sounds like you're going to buy this regardless. Why are you trying to justify it to us?

GeekyBear
16 replies
1d2h

Some other early reviews that are up:

CNET - Apple Vision Pro Review: A Mind-Blowing Look at an Unfinished Future

https://www.cnet.com/tech/computing/apple-vision-pro-review-...

WSJ - Apple Vision Pro Review: The Best Headset Yet Is Just a Glimpse of the Future

https://www.wsj.com/tech/apple-vision-pro-review-39f2d82e?mo...

Tom's Hardware - Apple Vision Pro review: A revolution in progress

https://www.tomsguide.com/computing/smart-glasses/apple-visi...

CNBC - Apple Vision Pro review: This is the future of computing and entertainment

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/30/apple-vision-pro-review-the-...

htk
14 replies
1d2h

It's interesting to see a common theme of "It's great, but not there yet."

GeekyBear
10 replies
1d1h

Can you think of examples where a company starts making a product in a new category and nails it on the first iteration?

Experience shows that they will keep on iterating on it year after year.

The thing I was most interested in was if they could nail an intuitive UI right from the outset.

browningstreet
7 replies
1d1h

VR headsets have been around for many years now and why does anyone believe a somewhat better version of those things would hit critical mass? It seems like the form factor is as much the problem as any of the implementations. Many people really wanted an Apple version to be a game changer. Maybe this game can’t really be changed?

whamlastxmas
3 replies
1d1h

If this was $500 I’d call it a game changer, and hopefully it gets there in 5 years

rootusrootus
2 replies
19h48m

I wonder what the BOM cost of the device is. At $500 they'd sell 100x as many. Hell, even at $999 they'd sell quite a lot of them. I'd probably give it a try for that price, but I'm hesitant to blow $3500.

pzo
0 replies
12h43m

2x iPad Pro 11 inch cost 2x$800 = $1600 - and they also have big profit margin on those. A lot of tech and sensors are similar if not the same, like: Lidar, TrueDepth, Cameras, IMU, wifi, bluetooth, M2 chip. The only obvious thing not available in iPad Pro is much smaller and higher quality screen.

Hopefully they can reduce price to $1500 in next few generations and increase functionality:

- macOS support (We can only probably dream about it)

- usb-c / hdmi out so this can replace desktop iMac when connected to external monitor (still probably unlikely)

- 3rd party access to cameras stream if given permission - hard to make any innovation with this hardware if you cannot even detect QRCodes because Apple doesn't provide any API and you don't have access to camera feed.

HDThoreaun
0 replies
19h8m

I heard the display alone costs $1000. And thats with apples supply chain know how

GeekyBear
2 replies
1d

This isn't the mass market version of the tech. This iteration is a developer kit that early adopters can also buy.

Apple has always said that they want a version that fits in a glasses style form factor as their mass market product, but the tech wasn't there yet.

Apple CEO Tim Cook said that it will be a while before the technology available for augmented reality glasses rises to Apple’s standards, according to British Vogue.

“There are rumours and gossip about companies working on that, and we obviously don’t talk about what we work on. But today I can tell you that the technology itself doesn’t exist to do that in a quality way,” Cook told Vogue.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/11/apple-ar-glasses-tim-cook-sa...

They keep iterating on it in-house, and keep finding that the tech still isn't ready.

https://www.tomsguide.com/news/apple-glasses

I think the current plans are to focus on a cheaper version of Vision Pro in the short term.

https://www.tomsguide.com/news/apple-glasses-reportedly-dela...

browningstreet
1 replies
22h44m

When they released dev kits, that’s what they called them.

This is a Pro product release. I’m personally inclined to believe that this product is more likely to kill off the entire VR/goggles dream than lead to a $500-$1000 iteration that’s at least as big as iPad.

Glasses? Like the ones I have on my face? Not in my lifetime…

This is Tim Cook’s trash can Mac.

mynameisvlad
0 replies
18h44m

Glasses? Like the ones I have on my face? Not in my lifetime…

Your remaining lifetime must be pretty short.

Technology evolves at a ridiculously fast pace. Just as a reminder, the Nokia 3310 was one of the most popular phones in 2000. We went from tiny, monochrome displays to foldable full-color displays with magnitudes higher resolution in what most call a quarter of a lifetime.

smoldesu
0 replies
1d

The original Oculus Quest was pretty much that. Granted, they had an unrealistic amount of talent on their side and a decent history taking stabs at the whole "consumer VR" thing.

But I mean, look at it - the first Quest was $300-400, fairly comfortable, self-contained and standalone with tethering capability. If you just wanted to watch TV or browse the web in VR, that's what you'd want to buy. Oculus made the Steam Deck of VR, and all the other business models seem kinda extreme by comparison. I doubt we'd be seeing the reservation towards Vision Pro today if there weren't cheaper entertainment-focused headsets already on the market.

dgellow
0 replies
8h7m

Valve with the Steam Deck

chaostheory
2 replies
1d

That’s also a good summary of the 1st iPhone’s reviews.

saiya-jin
1 replies
20h43m

Its not comparable. At that time, phone was already a necessity for most folks and most had one. VR (they are not AR from outside)? Still 90% of folks around me (doctors, IT, rest of reality) think whole concept of VR/AR is for kids and... big old kids lets say.

Also it costs 10x as much with huge drawback above. Inflation makes this a smaller number but the difference is still massive, for a plastic toy soon to be obsolete looking like kids ski googles.

But if they persist, which all reviews seem to hang their overall positive rating on, magic we all hope for might eventually happen

chaostheory
0 replies
19h21m

Its not comparable. At that time, phone was already a necessity for most folks and most had one.

A cell phone was necessary, but a smart phone was not. At the time, most people were still using non-smart cell phones. It’s still a valid comparison.

Still 90% of folks around me (doctors, IT, rest of reality) think whole concept of VR/AR is for kids

This is exactly why Apple insists on only using the term “spatial computing” in order to fight the strange bias people have for something they haven’t even tried yet

But if they persist, which all reviews seem to hang their overall positive rating on, magic we all hope for might eventually happen

Yes, it mirrors the reviews for the original iPhone

oatmeal1
0 replies
1d1h

Joanna Stern is an incredible reviewer.

teeray
15 replies
1d2h

I feel like this will be a spectacular flop. It’s the first major new Apple product announcement that I completely forgot about (and I mean completely) in the time between announcement and ordering. Nobody I know is even talking about it, unlike when the Apple Watch came out, or the iPad. The experience needs to be as life-changing as the iPhone if you’re going to normalize people wearing ski goggles around the house… I’m not convinced that it is.

johnnyanmac
3 replies
14h24m

To be fair, the iphone was subsidized by AT&T back in the day and was sold out for $200 or so, and the earpods and Watch weren't more than $300

we're arguably in a recession right now and this device is priced higher than almost any other apple product in history. Only a top of the line retina macbook pro really comes close. It's not a great time to sell super expensive tech, and not a good time to invest in such tech unless you can fund yourself.

buffington
1 replies
12h31m

Have you even looked at the Apple store? Some of the base Macbook Pro builds cost the same as the Vision Pro. They go up from there.

The Vision Pro is hardly "priced higher than almost any other apple product in history."

johnnyanmac
0 replies
9h21m

I guess it depend on what model we talk about. I considered the M3 the "base" model so we're talking $1600. Then M3 pro is $2000 for the 14" and $2400 for the (which I include because there is no M3 14"}

The Max prices do start to hit $3500 but by that point these are essentially top of the line builds instead of the bare minimum cost of entry.

flutas
0 replies
13h53m

Watch weren't more than $300

The first Apple Watch started at $349 for aluminum/small screen.

Living in LA at the time, I know a lot of people that coughed up the extra ~$250 (so $599 total) because of the implications of having the aluminum ones.

fshbbdssbbgdd
3 replies
23h14m

They don’t need the average consumer to buy it. It’s practically a developer platform. It includes a bunch of parts that have never been manufactured at scale before. Based on rumors, Apple is projected to produce 400k of these and already sold >200k.

gamblor956
2 replies
21h12m

Microsoft sold around the same number of Hololens and that was considered a huge market failure.

hbn
1 replies
3h9m

Since the beginning? So over the span of like 7 years? And I assume a lot of those are repeat buyers since they released a few revisions.

Regardless I don't really think the products are really comparable. Microsoft never really made a good example usecase for what a normal person would use a Hololens for. It was always moonshot, "construction workers will wear them to map out things for work" and "doctors will use it to assist with surgery." Apple at least has a layman utility for the VP. Whether that utility and its tradeoffs are worth the money is yet to be seen.

gamblor956
0 replies
35m

Apple hasn't established any use case for the VP beyond watching a very limited selection of movies.

Anybody who can afford the VP for watching movies can afford the place and equipment to have a far superior movie-watching experience.

And as many reviews have noted: the VP has a worse FOV than the Quest 2 or 3, and the same blurriness and artifact issues that the Quest 3 has. The summary consensus is that the VP is the best VR headset on the market, but not 7x its next competitor.

selimnairb
1 replies
1d2h

Not to mention, there is no chance I would ever wear this at home in front of my family. My guess is that many feel the same; it’s just too anti-social and weird. If it can be used for VR/AR, there might be some industrial applications, but Apple seems to be positioning this more as a replacement for monitors.

randomopining
0 replies
18h55m

These days I feel like when I'm around close friends and family I want to have mutual experiences. We're already on our phones so much, etc that it takes away from that.

I feel like this is for loner people who want experiences

jyunwai
1 replies
1d2h

To provide a contrasting anecdote, I've spoken to a couple of people who are already interested in virtual reality (VR) who have been very much looking forward to the release (we talked about it, and one forwarded me links to news articles).

One has worked with VR for research, and is familiar with the HTC Vive and Meta Quest headsets, but has not used VR for personal use. The other person used the Quest for gaming, and has been curious about Apple's approach.

Outside of people with past experience using VR, though, I haven't personally heard people talking about Apple's version. The price point is likely a major factor: a larger number of people could imagine owning an Apple Watch or iPad shortly after release (even if relatively pricey), in contrast to the Apple Vision Pro upon release.

spacemadness
0 replies
22h52m

People already invested in VR are not a big market at Apple’s scale.

physicsguy
0 replies
6h22m

I think that's at least partly due to most people who've tried a VR headset before saying "that's kinda cool but I don't think I'd buy one"

lhnz
0 replies
1h53m

If I can sit down at any table in my house and get a multi-monitor setup without needing to buy multiple 4K screens then it'll win me over. However, in practice, I do not think the hardware will be high enough quality for me to want this yet.

Levitating
0 replies
18h3m

It is already a success. You're talking about it, I am talking about. I haven't owned an Apple device in 10 years and now I am watching a review of one. With phone tech bottoming out, Apple has got to do something to stay relevant. It also desensitizes us even more to expensive tech.

causal
14 replies
1d2h

Many HN'ers are probably like me, in that hearing about its imperfections is kind of a relief. If it really DID mean a new era of tech, well then frick I need to learn some new skills to keep up, have to buy one for myself, etc. etc.

That being said, it feels like a few small things would make a consumer version of this really take off:

- Cut the weight in half (i.e., use plastic).

- Drop the gimmicky eye TV (save weight, and probably make the whole thing thinner).

- Make it thin/modular enough to collapse into a headphones-sized case.

- And then if its light enough, a magnetic strap might be strong enough, making the transition in/out smoother and less likely to mess up hair.

- Drop the price $1k.

That is, simply paring things down might be enough to take this product out of the awkward-nerd-goggles category and into something more like a cozy-interactive-sleepmask for travelers.

spywaregorilla
8 replies
1d2h

- have worthwhile apps

causal
7 replies
1d2h

Fair. In general I'm assuming the software piece will develop regardless, but you're right that there isn't really any killer app to draw people in yet.

spywaregorilla
6 replies
1d2h

well we're in 2024 now and people still try to suggest Beat Saber (2018) is proof that VR gaming is good.

RockRobotRock
3 replies
21h11m

Why does the age matter? It's a popular game for a reason, but VR gaming is still obviously niche.

I think that HL:A is easily the best VR game that exists, but it doesn't have a lot of replay value and can only be played on desktop.

spywaregorilla
2 replies
20h39m

Platforms with so few noteworthy games in the past 6 years are a red flag of the health of it. Nothing wrong with that, but plenty of folks argue that VR gaming is great.

HL:A, as I said in another comment, is just a case study on why VR won't work. With no disrespect to the devs because I think they really did do a good job with what they had, but it still sucks if you dare to peek under the hood. It coddles you (because it needs to).

RockRobotRock
1 replies
20h14m

The people I know that are heavily into VR all play VRChat. The games might not be that fantastic, but the social immersion is really amazing.

During lockdown, I was playing 8 hours a day. It became a problem.

spywaregorilla
0 replies
19h32m

sure. VR chat is good. Closer to the metaverse and its defining features as described in the actual book than any self proclaimed metaverse fan seem to know.

But yeah, not really game.

jwells89
1 replies
1d2h

The problem with VR gaming is that it’s been hamstrung by requiring either a substantially beefy gaming PC or limited onboard midrange smartphone with underwhelming developer buy-in.

If the rumors are true that Valve is working on a standalone VR headset based around an AMD APU, I think that might be the shot in the arm that VR gaming needs, with hardware more powerful than can be found in the Quest lineup as well as x86/Windows compatibility and greater general openness.

spywaregorilla
0 replies
1d2h

eh. disagree. as someone with a beefy gaming pc there's nothing good.

Alyx is very well made, but its not hard to see that they designed around fundamental limits that make VR suck. they don't overcome them. They perhaps manage to cover it with enough polish to get people to not notice. but its hard for anyone with design or, let's call it "gamer sense"

ramesh31
2 replies
1d2h

Drop the gimmicky eye TV (save weight, and probably make the whole thing thinner).

Strong disagree. This is the single best idea they had with the headset. VR isolation is at the very top of things keeping back mass adoption, and Eyesight is a brilliant solution to that.

causal
1 replies
1d2h

Maybe if done well, but the article makes it seem that sticking googly eyes to the front would work better under most lighting conditions.

oatmeal1
0 replies
1d2h

Sticking googly eyes on the front would be much better than the existing solution because that would be disarming and joyful instead of disturbing and dystopian.

NegativeLatency
0 replies
1d2h

They’ll probably never do this but the idea of not being able to play PC VR games on it is a nonstarter.

I’ve wanted a VR headset for a few years and if it was a bit cheaper and compatible with existing flight sims and stuff I’d be interested but the lack of compatibility is a deal killer for that price.

I know I’m not the target market apparently but I’m all in on the rest of the apple ecosystem.

JeremyNT
0 replies
20h27m

I just don't know if it'll ever happen, at least not until there are truly massive advances in miniaturization and display tech.

I have much lower spec'd VR goggles and they mostly gather dust. There's just something about having a screen pressed up against your eyes that's weird and uncomfortable in a way that is hard to articulate.

No screen door? Cool! Great motion tracking? Awesome! Premium materials? Eh, OK! But as long as I still need to strap a little box around my eyes with screens in it, I'm going to be limiting my exposure time. My eyes like air, and "better than the competition at all the things" doesn't actually make it solve any real problems I have.

For me, such a thing just can't be more than a toy.

Mindwipe
12 replies
1d3h

This strikes me as the best review I've seen if you read the text (I'm not sure x/10 is useful). I learned a lot about it, including quite a few things Apple has been quite coy about.

browningstreet
11 replies
1d3h

Agreed, per their video take.

Didn’t realize how limited the field of view and the color coverage was.

But all the popular reviewers are pretty skeptical. I think when another company offers a less ambitious VR headset they have given them a pass because the market target is more limited. Apple’s not getting a pass. It’s impressive but not magical and there are a lot of unoptimal design characteristics for a general purpose face mask computer.

The travel case is stupid and costly but necessary. Can you imagine buying the travel backpack that can hold it, and then unpacking everything in economy plus, and then having to store it away most of it for a flight, and then repack at landing? Even in business class it’d be conspicuous and bothersome and busy.

polyterative
6 replies
1d3h

I would prefer to bring an iPad on the plane.

akmarinov
3 replies
1d3h

Depends. On a 2 hour flight - yeah. On a 16 hour flight (with power in the seats) - no.

browningstreet
1 replies
1d2h

On a 16 hour flight you can watch the onscreen entertainment, use your wireless laptop, your wireless tablet and your wireless phone. I’ve travelled a bit and usually alternate among them.

But the Vision Pro would need two cables (power brick and battery pack, which is required even when plugged in to the brick) and when you get up to use the bathroom your neighbor will absolutely trip crossing your seat and land their ass on the Vision Pro you left behind.. that you don’t want to wear into the cramped airplane bathroom.

rcarmo
0 replies
23h48m

I just take a Kindle or buy a random analog book in Duty Free.

coffeebeqn
0 replies
1d2h

The Steam deck or Nintendo switch are even better than either. You can get good headphones and play real games for 16 hours. And when you need to move they are easy to stow away

macintux
1 replies
1d3h

One advantage: more privacy with the Vision Pro. Even for innocuous content I feel self-conscious about people seated nearby being bored and watching over my shoulder.

ImPostingOnHN
0 replies
1d2h

Indeed: better to let them think you're viewing pornography, than to remove all doubt.

whycome
2 replies
1d2h

general purpose face mask computer

I hope this term takes off more than "spatial computing device"

GPFMC

vczf
0 replies
22h14m

"Hold up, let me take my face off real quick."

jes5199
0 replies
19h9m

facial computing

PaulHoule
0 replies
1d2h

The really funny thing is that people never notice how bad the color gamut of their displays is. The usual way people draw the color charts make it look like there are all kinds of greens you are missing but they are not the green of money or living plants but rather the green you see when you get hit by a green laser pointer.

https://tftcentral.co.uk/articles/pointers_gamut

The charts obscure it but it is reds/purples/blues you are missing, not the reds and blues that occur in naturally lit scenes but rather colors you might see in fireworks or CGI effects. The "Pointer Gamut" of naturally occurring colors is relatively small compared to the colors you might see hypothetically. There has been a lot of progress in the greens for formats like Display P3 but more saturated red and blue primaries are difficult because the sensitivity of the eye drops off and you need a lot more light to get equivalent perceived brightness.

oatmeal1
11 replies
1d2h

Apple is so incredibly capable, stocked with talent, and loaded with resources that the company simply went out and engineered the hell out of the hardest problems it could think of in order to find a challenge. That’s good!

I think they knew before halfway through that it was not possible to build a practical product, but Apple thinks it's important to stay relevant and appear innovative, so they went along and built it anyway. Maybe that was the intention from the start.

I'm not sure why they created and marketed so many dystopian features though. The part of the demo where the dad played with his kids while wearing the Vision Pro and then watched the playback alone later was disturbing. Same with people talking using the EyeSight feature instead of taking of the goggles and making real eye contact.

npteljes
5 replies
1d1h

The part of the demo where the dad played with his kids while wearing the Vision Pro and then watched the playback alone later was disturbing.

I'm glad I'm not alone who feels the same. To me, that scene is so out of place, so dystopian that it's outright ridiculous that it's presented in a demo like this.

naravara
2 replies
22h48m

Every parent I've talked to has found that pretty appealing.

We're already looking at pictures and videos of our kids on the phone a lot of the time anyway. Which required us to be holding our phones in hand while playing with our kids.

It only seems weird because it's unfamiliar. But it's not more dystopian than trying to capture special moments with a camcorder.

erklik
1 replies
20h16m

We're already looking at pictures and videos of our kids on the phone a lot of the time anyway. Which required us to be holding our phones in hand while playing with our kids.

A phone in the hand is objectively far less intrusive than a full on mask on your eyes that prevents half of your face being seen by your kids.

AnonC
0 replies
13h15m

As said by another commenter above [1], the iPhone 15 Pro can shoot spatial videos that can be viewed on Vision Pro. When the Vision Pro was announced, Apple was its typical self by not revealing anything about another future product (plus, the iPhone is its flagship, and Apple likes to keep the excitement coming from its actual announcement). Shooting spatial videos will be a standard feature on all iPhones in a couple of years. It will stay if the Vision product range continues to do well enough while Apple iterates and figures out the product positioning (Apple is generally good at these things). If it doesn’t work out well enough for Apple’s satisfaction, this will go the way of 3D Touch on some older iPhones. Nevertheless, the technology in it will continue to push its other products — existing and forthcoming, and vice versa.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39195946

saynay
0 replies
21h5m

Everyone I have heard talk about that initial demo mentioned it was weird and creepy.

But I do not think it was ever the plan that you would create spatial videos primarily from the headset. You can also take them with the latest gen of iPhones, but the VisionPro demo predated the iPhone announcement.

kalleboo
0 replies
2h22m

To me it just channeled the 80's/90's dad with his face planted inside a huge camcorder/8mm camera at his kids birthday. Doesn't seem to be anything new under the sun. https://i.redd.it/5o0fv89d69dz.jpg

tsunamifury
2 replies
19h37m

I was told Jony Ive personally quit over this project. He felt it was fundamentally wrong, and the first product Apple made post Jobs that directly contradicted the vision of the company.

And not in a Porsche shouldn't make an SUV sort of way -- rather on the way out he shared some pretty well articulated moral issues with the product and how Jobs would release buggy products, but rarely fundamentally flawed ones.

This IMO is Tim Cooks first totally original product. The Watch was an Ive product. It will mark whether or not he can find original needs in the market, or simply will fall into what Jobs accused every bad CEO of doing -- SKUs for SKUs sake.

iwontberude
1 replies
16h54m

Are you so sure? Have you seen this video where Steve Jobs describes Vision Pro-like capability as inevitable and positive? https://www.reddit.com/r/VisionPro/comments/1acubbl/steve_jo...

tsunamifury
0 replies
15h4m

Yea you saw one video where Steve Jobs said one thing one time. I’ve over the course of a lifelong relationship felt Otherwise.

causal
0 replies
1d2h

Yeah it's interesting how the Quest seems like a less-creepy product by just owning the fact that users will be isolated.

Levitating
0 replies
18h0m

I'm not sure why they created and marketed so many dystopian features though.

Well they're not stupid and know/research their target customer. Apparently this is what people want?

I am confused why they didn't go with something like google glass.

testfrequency
9 replies
1d3h

It’s been pretty disingenuous of Apple to have all their marketing photos with the single strap, when the unanimous opinion is that strap doesn’t work at all for comfortability or longevity.

Similar to AirPods Max, they oddly chose heavy materials just for the sake of finish - rather than functionality. If they truly cared about the user experience of the actual software/hardware, they would have went with better materials.

In general, Vision Pro feels to me like another weird prototype showcase product, released years before they actually had a real viable solution

deadbabe
6 replies
1d3h

It looks like something designed to look good in photos. Something like a Quest 3 with the upgraded head strap is probably way more practical and comfortable.

PaulHoule
4 replies
1d3h

Note the strap that comes with the MQ3 is atrocious and I find it hard to wear for more than 30 minutes. I find Meta's "Elite Strap" is really nice although it's expensive and I know other people have had problems with it.

Current XR headsets are all too big to really be "mobile" devices (you're really going to take it on a plane or use it in a hotel?) but once you add something like the "Elite Strap" you know you aren't taking it anywhere. Still the MQ3 is a nice self-contained package that you can walk around the house with and do activities that involve a lot of motion without having a battery pack to worry about.

deadbabe
2 replies
1d3h

I don’t see myself taking any headset anywhere unless it just looks like a pair of glasses.

soco
1 replies
1d2h

And we did have for a while a few AR glasses, then all seem to have disappeared. No apps for them? No idea why. When I picked on the idea (late, I know) it seemed to me everything was in the stage of "almost there" and shortly after that, nothing was available anymore.

PaulHoule
0 replies
1d2h

It's desirable but really hard. Remember how the Magic Leap put the brains in a really awkward puck like the really awkward battery pack on the AVP?

My understanding is that XReal's displays are really good for a compact device

https://us.shop.xreal.com/

but those devices also tether you with a tail. They are really focused on the "watch TV" angle and even support HDMI at the expense of real spatial computing. (so far)

swozey
0 replies
1d2h

Check out the BoboVR stuff some time I have it on all my quests they make really great stuff even though their name sounds fake.

They're making upgrade parts to my mq2 stuff will work on my mq3 which is really awesome of them so I can drop another $20 not $70.

jwells89
0 replies
1d2h

I wish more headsets would ape the design of the Vive Deluxe Audio Strap.

Have never owned a Vive but have that head strap connected to a Quest 2 with 3D printed adapters (a setup dubbed by the community “frankenquest”) and it works quite nicely.

bitcurious
1 replies
1d3h

It’s been pretty disingenuous of Apple to have all their marketing photos with the single strap, when the unanimous opinion is that strap doesn’t work at all for comfortability or longevity.

"I found the solo loop much more comfortable" - direct quote out of the article you're replying to.

testfrequency
0 replies
1d3h

The solo loop is more comfortable on the head, but it’s not practical for longer than a few minutes.

My point is this band just looks good in marketing photos, but it will not be what the vast majority of people will be using once they’ve put the common dual loop band on

swozey
8 replies
1d3h

Ha, I was downvoted and told "why do we need controllers, the iphone and macbook dont come with controllers" yesterday when I said this is stupid without controllers.

I have a vive, q2 and q3. Look at him trying to type on that keyboard. I have hand gestures on my q3. They're nice for a few certain things, but thankfully I can forget they exist for 99% of what I do, that isn't flinging windows/screens left and right and expanding them in front of me. Or turning wifi on and off, etc..

And.. you can't do multiple screens and it has less resolution than my real life monitor when connecting to a mbp.. hm. I thought that was a super cool feature when I thought you could just add monitors wherever. I hadn't even thought of it before they showed it in the demo.

nickthegreek
3 replies
1d3h

Pains me to think about what this sucker would cost with controllers (which I agree are needed for many VR experiences).

jayd16
1 replies
1d2h

Who knows what Apple would charge but the BOM for a bluetooth controller with LEDs is not a lot when they already have good-enough hand tracking.

jsheard
0 replies
1d2h

Yeah, the way the non-Pro Quest controllers are implemented isn't expensive at all. The tracking hardware is just commodity accelerometers/gyroscopes for high resolution (albeit only relative) motion sensing, and a constellation of IR LEDs to give a clear reference point for the headset cameras to follow in absolute space and correct the IMU drift.

Knowing Apple they would more likely follow the lead of the Quest Pro controllers though, which have their own set of cameras and perform their own inside-out tracking independently of the headset. It's expensive and power hungry but more robust since they work just as well when the headset can't see the controllers.

swozey
0 replies
1d2h

I'm so bummed that this is what they came out with. If it was some insane res better than pancake lense with no screen door effect or color wash out at all and had some amazingly well researched controllers that finally rocket shipped VR AND AR they'd have much more of a market and I'd consider one.

But maybe in my 5 years these will be in every single hospital, school, etc. Who knows.

janeshchhabra
1 replies
1d

And.. you can't do multiple screens and it has less resolution than my real life monitor when connecting to a mbp.. hm. I thought that was a super cool feature when I thought you could just add monitors wherever. I hadn't even thought of it before they showed it in the demo.

That's the main feature I would have bought this device for - seamless window sharing between apple devices/macbooks. Sad to see it isn't the case. Hopefully the immersed visor [0] pans out for work! Excited to try vision pro, but seeming likely that I'll end up returning it by the 2 week period.

[0] - https://www.visor.com/.

Disclaimer, I have a preorder for both Visor and Vision Pro.

gamblor956
0 replies
21h19m

Hopefully the immersed visor [0] pans out for work!.

$40 monthly membership. And that's the cheaper option to get the cool features like multiple work spaces and the extended battery.

I get the feeling that the Visor will not be long for this world if they don't change their business model.

johnnyanmac
0 replies
14h27m

But the iphone and macbook do have controllers. what are people typing on? The problem is that we're even farther away from the whole sci-fi "type of a virtual keyboard projected into space" sort of control, so that's not an option yet.

hbn
0 replies
1d

And.. you can't do multiple screens and it has less resolution than my real life monitor when connecting to a mbp

I think there's still appeal in that you can take this monitor with you and float it in front of you wherever you want. That's worth the reduced resolution imo

ninkendo
6 replies
1d2h

I ordered mine on day one and it'll get here Friday. I work from home and intend to use it at my desk for (1) a bigger display for my mac and (2) native apps for things like Slack/video conferencing/notes/imessage/etc and hopefully I can have a productive environment with it. I figure it'll be cool to work at a national park or on the moon or some such, and to have more real estate to put my apps. I plan to use my physical keyboard and trackpad as much as possible, so I'm not too worried about the inputs sucking.

My thought at this point is that I'm going to decide pretty quickly after using it whether this is actually going to work, and there's about a 50% chance I'm going to return it, because I'm starting to doubt whether it will.

Some things I'm worried about:

- The weight may make it so uncomfortable that the whole experience isn't worth it for 8 hours a day

- FOV and vignetting issues are likely going to be worse than I thought and a distraction

- App compatibility means it's possible that 90% of the work I'm doing is going to be on the mac virtual display anyway, meaning I paid $3500 for a bigger (virtual) screen that I have to put a heavy/uncomfortable headset on my head to see

We'll see what the verdict is. I'm hoping they have a software update at some point that lets you "tear out" macOS app windows into virtual space... that may put it over the edge from not-worth-it to worth-it if it happens.

PKop
3 replies
1d1h

I don't see a virtual screen being as nice or productive as an Apple Pro XDR for actually doing computer work. Too many layers between your eyes and the pixels, and then all the drawbacks like weight and finicky input glitches.

ninkendo
2 replies
1d1h

The vision pro is far cheaper than an Apple Pro XDR, and input glitches shouldn't be a problem as I'm using a physical mouse and keyboard. Plus I get to add additional apps outside the screen if visionOS natively supports them (Slack, email, and iMessage are good examples. Plus the web browser can be a native app. You can seamlessly move your mouse/keyboard between them and copy/paste too.)

The weight is definitely on the "let's see how big of a deal this becomes" list though.

PKop
1 replies
23h50m

Yes but it doesn't hurt your neck or make you sick after a few hours while also having better resolution and easier usability for basic computer interactions. Vision pro as desktop computer replacement sounds like a Rube Goldberg solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Possibly Vision Pro as laptop screen replacement sounds plausible but I still don't think the UX will be comfortable nor do I think the virtual screen will actually hold up as good for typing/reading text.

A mouse, keyboard, and proper monitor/screen work likely work better than a virtual screen without all the well known negatives that come with the latter. We'll see how it plays out though.

ninkendo
0 replies
19h11m

It feels like you’re arguing with me, but I’ve already said twice that the comfort level is still an unknown and that if it’s too uncomfortable I’m going to return it.

Also worth pointing out that the mouse seamlessly moves from your Mac screen to any native Vision Pro apps. So if I do all my web browsing in “native” Vision Pro, then add in Slack and Messages and Mail as native vision pro apps (using the same keyboard and mouse for input, mind you), I will likely only be using the virtual Mac screen for my IDE. Being able to put everything but my IDE in arbitrary virtual space around me is a step up from my single screen today, absent other comfort issues.

madeofpalk
1 replies
1d1h

I can't imagine this being a good computer monitor. Low resolution + pixel scaling issues would make this be a pretty uncomfortable experience.

But, i haven't tried it (nor do I plan to any time soon), so I can only guess.

whamlastxmas
0 replies
1d1h

Review said text was perfectly readable and not blurry and when combined with multiple floating windows it seems like it’d be serviceable

iteratethis
5 replies
18h20m

This product, and every similar headset to follow will never appeal to a mass market for daily hours-long usage.

It's uncomfortable, isolating, constraining, expensive, anti-social and its use cases are at best temporarily impressive but quickly grow old.

The entire product category simply sucks. I'm sure the incidental 3D movie experience is great, but most people don't watch movies every single day for hours on end whilst sitting alone on the couch.

It's slow to operate, can't easily be shared with others and having gigantic screens surrounding you is a useless novelty without utility. Watch people with big monitor setups. They watch the middle one whilst the other 2 are stale and only get the occasional peek. This super-multitasking idea is a myth and not how people work.

Consider how when people own both an iPhone and an iPad, they almost always use the iPhone, even for use cases in which the iPad is superior. It's quicker, more flexible, hassle-free, always ready.

Another issue is that the type of content/experience that would truly shine on such a headset, is impossibly hard/expensive to make. So that leaves out 99% of app developers.

newaccount74
1 replies
9h24m

They watch the middle one whilst the other 2 are stale and only get the occasional peek. This super-multitasking idea is a myth and not how people work.

But.. that's the point. Of course 90% of the time you look right in front of you. Everything else would be tiring.

The advantage of a multi-monitor setup, or spatial computing with Vision Pro, is that for those 10% of times when you need to do something else, that other window is right there. No need to alt-tab through a bunch of apps to find your log file viewer. It's always there, just a glance away, and you can cross-reference multiple windows without them overlapping another.

sixstringtheory
0 replies
7h50m

you can cross-reference multiple windows without them overlapping another

This is what people always say about this, but you can’t look at two different monitors simultaneously.

Your fingers are already on the keyboard. Once you get the two apps together on alt-tab order, they are one kepress away from each other, and you don’t have to move your eyes or head at all if they are overlapping or just next to each other in the same monitor.

I do this as well as using a tiling window manager than can be completely controlled from the keyboard, and I am much faster at getting information between different windows than colleagues who have multiple monitors. They spend a lot of time trying to remember where they put the other window, looking back and forth between many monitors many times, looking for their mouse pointer, and also, they too still have to alt-tab.

The farther apart two windows are, like on two monitors, the harder it is to copy text from one and paste it in the other, etc etc.

quonn
0 replies
17h50m

I can imagine a feature where multiple people using AVP in the same room are linked together so that some content is shared. Such as the TV or a Laptop or anything else.

Everything else seems to be more a question of price.

Maybe it will be useful in 20 years.

mlinsey
0 replies
13h15m

The comfort, cost, and battery issues seem like must-solves before this is a true mass-market success. But they sound like the kind of thing that can be improved over time. As for the anti-social aspect...you'd have done very well for the past 20 years betting on tech that furthers increasingly solo (in the real-world) behavior...it's a trend that might bottom out, but certainly hasn't yet.

johnnyanmac
0 replies
14h31m

You place a lot of emphasis on the social aspect, but we aren't necessarily in the days where we show everyone what's on our phone screens. My phone is pretty much a solo experience unless someone wants to take a picture of me.

Watch people with big monitor setups. They watch the middle one whilst the other 2 are stale and only get the occasional peek.

That makes it sound unviable, but you underestimate how great a passive monitor can be. Something to have some music or video run on, or to view output while one monitor has developmental tools on it. It saves a lot of friction from switching virtual desktops or alt-tabbing (which can ruin certain viewing applications).

That's honestly a big selling point for me, the ability to pack in a portable double/triple monitor setup for travel. Not $3500 selling point, but it does make me consider trying one of them out before the close of the decade

Another issue is that the type of content/experience that would truly shine on such a headset, is impossibly hard/expensive to make.

Yeah I imagine so. Beat Saber is crazy fun and something not easily emulated on a controller, but making that truly killer app in this modern environment is hard. But I guess the App Store encouraged that for mobile, maybe they can capture lightning twice.

asmallcat
5 replies
1d3h

Wonderfully written review. Happy to have read it and disappointed with some of the takeaways. I wish that there were more of a "mac-centric" approach taken for powerusers, rather than barreling forward with visionOS. Once their OS is truly consolidated I may have more use for this device.

samstave
2 replies
1d3h

...more of a "mac-centric" approach taken for powerusers..."

I think this the Apple Business plan in its entirety.

But we shorten it to "Lock-in" for brevity. (or platform, moat, walled garden, etc)\

Not that theres anything wrong with that!

purpleflame1257
1 replies
1d2h

I don't know about that. MacOS remains a general-purpose computing experience in a way that iOS simply hasn't ever.

samstave
0 replies
1d2h

I have this awesome HP Omen AMD Rizen RTX GPU Laptop.

Cant run MacOS.

Lockin, HW.

brookst
1 replies
1d2h

Decent review, but it is Nilay Patel, who sees himself as a kingmaker. I’m interested to read reviews from people just focusing on how it is to use the device.

htk
0 replies
20h47m

Absolutely, he kept trying to coin a phrase, and telling us how it's not an ideal version he imagines.

poulpy123
4 replies
1d2h

I'm sure apple will manage to sell it by the millions, but both the price and the lock-in in the apple ecosystem are a no for me

poulpy123
3 replies
1d2h

well maybe not millions but "a lot"

LeafItAlone
2 replies
1d1h

Supposedly they’ve already sold ~200k. Before release. Before reviews of it.

That’s still a far cry from “millions” (plural), but I wouldn’t be surprised.

asadotzler
0 replies
17h42m

Another way of phrasing that would be "they've already sold to the enthusiast crowd, so who is left" and that who will be people the enthusiasts and Apple marketing can convince. Will those 200K each convince several others to go out and get one? Will Apple commercials do it? I won't be surprised if Apple sells a couple million units. That will pale in comparison to headsets like the Quest which cost what a mid-range phone costs and not what a high end PC costs.

B56b
0 replies
20h31m

Odds are word of mouth is not going to be kind to this though. I can see pre-order statistics being overly optimistic.

SushiHippie
4 replies
1d2h

I'm not really interested in apple and its ecosystem.

But this review got me really hooked, and I didn't even notice that it was 30 minutes long. Easily the best tech review I've ever seen. And it also felt very well-balanced between the good and the not so good things about the vision pro.

TillE
2 replies
1d

The Verge is great, especially Nilay himself. I don't listen to a ton of tech podcasts, but Vergecast and Decoder are some of the best.

AISnakeOil
1 replies
23h58m

I agree, but they tend lean too heavily on Apple as their tech overlords and compare everything to their products.

SushiHippie
0 replies
22h34m

I don't watch/read the verge that often, but I don't find that this the case for this review.

rcarmo
0 replies
1d

Nilay batted it out of the park on this one, for sure. The best video I’ve seen on the Vision Pro yet (and I’ve been watching all the usual suspects in a row).

surfingdino
3 replies
1d1h

I guess Apple had to do Vision Pro to make investors shut up, but I have a feeling it will be the next Pippin or Lisa. Apple does exceedingly well when there already is a growing mass market and they can offer something "better". Home computers (Apple II), PCs (Macintosh), smartphones (iPhone), tablets (iPad). They don't always succeed, e.g. servers, gaming consoles. There isn't a growing mass market for heavy and expensive VR headsets. And as the review states, their AR may be best in class, but it is still lacking. Ultimately, I don't know what question/need does Apple Vision Pro answer? Anyone has an idea?

happyopossum
1 replies
1d1h

tablets (iPad)

There effectively wasn’t a tablet market before the iPad.

You also forgot ‘mp3 player’ - which was a market not created by Apple but there wasn’t really a “growing mass market” - it was niche at best.

surfingdino
0 replies
1d1h

There was a massive portable analog audio player market before MP3 players came along. So Apple could improve on the attempts to offer a digital audio alternative. And they did. This supports what I wrote about the purpose of Apple Vision Pro. There is none. VR has forever been a solution looking for a problem.

s3p
0 replies
1d1h

There isn't a growing mass market for heavy and expensive VR headsets.

According to Statista, there is[0]. The market is expected to grow by about 10% annually for the next half decade. Moreover, if this weren't a growing mass market, I don't think FB would have renamed to Meta and gone all-in on VR headsets. They just dropped the Quest 3 which undercut their 3x as expensive Quest Pro. The tech is rapidly improving and the market is definitely growing so I think it's natural that Apple wants to enter it.

[0]https://www.statista.com/outlook/amo/ar-vr/worldwide

crakhamster01
3 replies
1d

If I'm an executive at Meta, I'm not sure whether I should be happy or sad reading this review.

By all accounts, Apple is at least 5 years ahead of Meta in terms of hardware. With all of Apple's compute/display tech, and at 8-9x the price point of Quest, it still seems like the Vision Pro falls short of delivering the breakthrough experience needed to make AR/VR mass market.

Not to mention that it still doesn't seem like AVP answers the "killer app" question that Meta has been trying to answer. If the value prop at this point is "a big virtual screen", I guess their work over the next few years will be getting the price point down to a level where consumers buy this over a monitor?

dansalvato
1 replies
15h49m

One thing I find with Apple devices is that they have an ecosystem of extremely passionate developers, and all their other "new paradigm" platforms also initially shipped with no software (Mac, iPhone, iPad). The mainstream usage of these devices is really based on what developers built for them in the first couple years after release, not the use cases Apple tried to sell us on.

The shortcomings and skepticism surrounding the AVP is pretty reminiscent of the above examples' own initial releases. Unless AVP is an exception to the rule, I think both the hardware and the software will start to get extremely good over the next few years. But that is unavoidably predicated by a flawed gen 1 being released.

canuckintime
0 replies
4h33m

and all their other "new paradigm" platforms also initially shipped with no software (Mac, iPhone, iPad). The mainstream usage of these devices is really based on what developers built for them in the first couple years after release... Unless AVP is an exception to the rule...

what about Apple Watch, AppleTV and HomePod? Those don't have the app success story of the Mac, iPhone and iPad.

There's two paths that lead to a passionate developer base popularizing your platform via their apps: 1) build a platform that developers love to use i.e. Mac and iPhone to a certain extent 2) offer access to a product with a lot of users i.e. iPhone and iPad

The AVP is more like the first HomePod (quite expensive compared to its 'competition' and irrelevant long before the mini arrived) than the iPhone and iPad which launched at competitive/accessible prices so we're not expecting a product with lots of users.

Could the AVP be a platform that developers love to use? The mostly likely use case from a developer perspective appears to be as a portable big screen monitor for your Mac albeit with limitations*. Would that be compelling enough? Craig Hockenberry https://furbo.org/2024/01/29/the-next-40/ :

"Apple Vision Pro is a technical marvel, but ultimately falls short in ways that satisfy the natural curiosity of developers."

*p.s. there are other headsets with similar display specs to AVP rumored for later this year. It might be worth waiting if you primarily want virtual monitors for your Mac

Atotalnoob
0 replies
19h8m

If their price was 8-9x higher, I’m sure meta could pull off something similar.

The reason they can’t is their target price is much lower.

spywaregorilla
2 replies
1d2h

The goal is for the Vision Pro to be a complete device that can sit right alongside the Mac and the iPad in Apple’s ecosystem of devices and let you get real work done. You can use Excel and Webex and Slack in the Vision Pro, and you can also sit back and watch movies and TV shows on a gigantic virtual 4K HDR display. And you can mirror your Mac’s display and just use the Vision Pro to look at a huge monitor floating in virtual space.

As someone who used a living room tv with a wireless keyboard as a monitor for a while, I felt it sucked. Can't see why this would actually be a plus.

swozey
1 replies
1d2h

That's like when I visit a friend who is an accountant and they're working on a laptop in the kitchen 8 hours a day, and I just.. "that's your whole office? You aren't miserable? You can work like that?"

I would riot without my 49", mouse and kbs, and aeron.

pmontra
0 replies
1d1h

Everybody has very different subjective preferences and is subject to somewhat objective tradeoffs. I worked in two different places of my house today, with the same laptop. One location when the sun heated up an external room with no heating, another location in a heated room before and after then. I couldn't do that if I had to move around a large monitor, a mouse and a keyboard: too much troubles. I didn't move my chair, that stays in the main working location for the period of the year.

shmatt
2 replies
1d3h

This sounds pretty great for a first iteration. My first iPhone was a 4S, but I can definitely see the "buy everything first" crowd enjoying this vs. the first iteration from every other company, as Apple usually succeeds doing

I would bet the version announced in 4 years will be naturally usable all day

monkeynotes
1 replies
1d2h

will be naturally usable all day

What do you imagine that device to look like, and cost?

ThalesX
0 replies
1d1h

Not GP but... thinner, lighter and maybe 1k cheaper?

PaulHoule
2 replies
1d3h

The large carrying case means it is not a "mobile" device. Sure you can take one on an airplane but it is going to be awkward. (What is the stewardess supposed to say? Are you supposed to take it off for takeoff and landing? Are you supposed to stow it? Where?)

I was thinking you might use a device like this as a laptop replacement while traveling. Maybe I would because I'm a notorious overpacker but I think most people wouldn't. The carrying case for my Hololens 1 is crazy big and I know a grad student who sometimes shuttles a Meta Quest Pro to work and it fills his whole backpack.

seydor
0 replies
1d2h

Looks like you can skip the $3500 and buy this instead https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71ceiw0-DxL.jpg

akmarinov
0 replies
1d3h

On the MKBHD video it looks like you can disassemble most things and the only thing you care about is the actual display and glass. So you might get a smaller case from a third party vendor just for that part and then the rest - light seal, spacer thing, band - you can squish those in your bag.

soniman
1 replies
18h31m

Is the DOD buying these? I can see soldiers using these as enhanced night vision goggles. No need to look at a map with a flashlight or bring a computer.

chillacy
0 replies
16h44m

In case anyone else finds this interesting, the DOD has night vision goggles which have nearly-zero latency (all analog), amplify much better than digital cameras, and emit very little external light (hard to spot by adversaries).

This veritasium video at 12:00 shows how these goggles work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAeJHAFjwPM

That said I wouldn't be surprised if someone in the DOD was buying them for general tech exploration though.

rubicon33
1 replies
1d3h

Good points for sure. VR gaming has always had an edge because if you value physical immersion (the feeling of being in the game) then it DOES have a significant leg up over traditional gaming.

Can the same be said for productivity and general computing yet? I don’t think so. Will I prefer a Vision Pro over 2 4K monitors? Highly unlikely. Will I grab my Vision Pro as I head out the door, rather than my laptop? No.

There are some fundamental technology problems that need solving before that becomes a reality. Size and weight need an order of magnitude reduction, and the pass through has to be better which will require advancements in dark scene video processing.

Realistically speaking, if AR does “take off” as a productivity and general computing tool I don’t see it happening for another 7-15 years.

spywaregorilla
0 replies
1d2h

VR gaming has always had an edge because if you value physical immersion (the feeling of being in the game) then it DOES have a significant leg up over traditional gaming.

Good controls on a 2D screen are far more immersive than bad controls on a VR headset. VR makes good controls very hard to do.

mouzogu
1 replies
1d

"it's magic, until it's not"

apple can use this on their next keynote.

VR falls apart for me when you realise there is no tactileness or depth to anything. no touch, no smell, no feeling, nothing.

jsilence
0 replies
22h18m

Was recently kajaking in KayakVR in the Arctic scenery. Wife snuck by and opened the window. Felt real.

moribvndvs
1 replies
18h43m

These products are fundamentally disturbing and depressing. The push by Apple, Meta, et al to normalize long term, general-purpose use of AR/MR is at best an attempt to generate a new iPod/iPhone craze by manipulating people into thinking they need a bulky $3499 gadget (that’s three thousand four hundred ninety-nine, not thirty four ninety nine, Mr Patel) that actually impinges on their ability to interact and integrate with the world rather than augmenting it. At its (much, much) worst, it’s an attempt at an evolutionary leap in corporate surveillance and extending the walled garden further into our perception of reality. Thinking about people going about their daily routine with this ridiculous parasite strapped to their faces, grasping at the air around them like the blind searching for the bathroom at an airport, fills me with more dread and sadness than any episode of Black Mirror. I cannot comprehend the mind of someone who willingly and enthusiastically pays that sort of money to insert a lossy, delayed, artifact-laced layer between themselves and the world directly in front of them. This is the enshittification of reality, processed via a corporate filter and the people around us replaced with clumsy and cringy simulacra.

panarky
0 replies
18h26m

Fifteen years ago, when Facebook was growing exponentially through social pressure and gamification, a few misfits and weirdos made the conscious decision to opt out of the entire ecosystem of surveillance, exploitation and social alienation.

Since then, millions more have quietly joined those misfits and weirdos, and the opt-out trend feels like it's accelerating.

There must be strong demand for products that are actually good and healthy for those who use them, products that don't systematically make their customers ill in order to further enrich a few billionaires.

Ignore for a moment how you might monetize it to make yourself a billionaire. Instead, imagine what would be most useful, most healthy, most beneficial for the customer. Then build that.

The result probably won't make you a billionaire, but you could live pretty well. And the world would be better for it.

erickhill
1 replies
23h32m

200 points in 4 hours, yet someone has flagged it so it isn't on the homepage where more can join the conversation? The anti-Apple reflex by some can be so petty, and so annoying.

apozem
0 replies
23h20m

Right? Even if you don't like Apple, a perfectly valid viewpoint, the Vision Pro is a huge deal. It should be on the homepage.

Also, if you don't like Apple... read the review! Nilay Patel has a lot of really good critiques of the headset. He concludes by basically saying he's not sold.

enson110
1 replies
9h4m

After watching the video, I have two conclusions:

1. Vision Pro will definitely replace all kind of monitors, such as TV, projectors, etc., because it provides a completely immersive watching experience

2. Besides that, due to the limitations of latency and noise issues in the low light situations, it will still be an entertainment toy instead of a productive tool

M4v3R
0 replies
9h1m

Re 1. It would but it has a fatal flaw for this use case - only you see the content, so it only works when solo watching. In the review they note that the experience is “lonely”, even if you and your spouse both had Vision Pro you would still watch content separately as there is no way (at least right now) to sync your experience. This most probably will be addressed in a software update, but the first point still stands - you will need to buy as many headsets as you have people in your house that want to watch content together.

alexawarrior3
1 replies
1d2h

The only wearable headset so far has been Google Glass. It was great for wearing around 24x7 with only pauses to recharge. I even had mine in prescription glasses so I could wear them as my primary.

Then, as Google does, they dropped it, and no one took it up again. I'd have to imagine that in 10+ years of display and battery improvements an even better Glass is waiting to hit the market. It seems more a social issue rather than a technological one: we as a society are not ready for universal AR.

whycome
0 replies
1d1h

It seems more a social issue rather than a technological one: we as a society are not ready for universal AR.

At one point talking on the phone in public (video chats, bluetooth earpieces, etc) would have been weird. Now it's annoyingly common.

Maybe this release is a longer term play at "culture/social change" rather than a true non-just-prototype device. Soften up the market and make "spatial computing" more acceptable. And then integrate a "non pro" version for general consumers.

wkat4242
0 replies
13h5m

Pretty good and well balanced review that shows the limitations of the technology. Much more balanced than the initial hands-ons after apple's presentation where people like John Gruber were saying it's the best thing ever. I already doubted they were fair.

Only thing that annoys me about this review that he has to mention constantly that it messes up his precious hair :/

seydor
0 replies
1d2h

Glad i got an oculus before they spike the price

schmorptron
0 replies
1d2h

Honestly, as someone who isn't an apple fan and uses a quest 3, this is still very cool. Obviously a first-gen hardware product, but the software and UX seems on point. eye-tracking and hand tracking combined for UX seems like a very good idea.

one thing I'm super surprised about is that it doesn't use their stage manager window management. When they introduced that to the mac os, it seemed like it was designed for this, and introducing it on the mac would get their users ready to already know how to use the vision pro before it even releases.

pornel
0 replies
1d3h

According to the review Mac is limited to one screen at 1440p.

megous
0 replies
15h29m

So pretty much absolutely useless/harmful for any use case shown in the video, except maybe for solitary watching of movies. What a review. :)

maximus-decimus
0 replies
18h35m

Those Personas^TM are REALLY creepy.

lukev
0 replies
1d1h

Interesting that almost all his critiques relate to the concept of a head-mounted VR-passthrough device itself, not the Vision Pro specifically.

jug
0 replies
20h59m

Basically, I keep asking if I prefer using a computer _in there_ rather than _out here_. And as interesting as the Vision Pro is, there’s a long way to go before it can beat _out here_.

I have to agree with this. We're getting more and more physically lonely as we find ourselves represented by personas on social networks and messaging services. I find the thought of viewing even the real world through a lens an extension of the wrong path we're already onto. Letting technology improve our daily lives and to connect doesn't have to be done this way. It's ironic, because mental health is plummeting in the western world and loneliness has been seen as a major contributing factor. That isn't letting technology help us, but letting technology consume us.

jayd16
0 replies
1d2h

Interesting that gaze-to-focus is panned and not because it doesn't track well. I've worked in VR games for a while and gaze tracking excites designers but I find it a very annoying input mechanism and we usually don't ship it. Maybe it's still the right call for the AVP but being able to interact with things you aren't looking at is important.

dang
0 replies
21h46m

Related video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdwaWxY11jQ

Related ongoing thread: Apple Vision Pro review - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39190468

boringg
0 replies
1d2h

Having used the meta 3 and having been blown away by the step function in capability. I have to imagine that even if this product itself isn't a homerun future iterations will be very successful.

As much as I don't love VR - it makes me nauseous, it leaves marks sometimes on my face I can't help but notice how amazing the immersive quality is. It isn't going to replace everything and it won't replace a computer - its a different product vertical and it will certainly be around in the future. It's been around since the 90s and will last a long time.

Early innings still...

aussieguy1234
0 replies
10h58m

This is just the early version of the technology. Once miniaturized to fit into standard size glasses and integrated with a voice controlled LLM assistant/companion that can perform actions and tasks, there's a good chance these things will replace smartphones for alot of people.

annexrichmond
0 replies
1d

I haven't used VR/AR in a while, so I don't know if I should have expected this, but those black borders seem pretty large, and I think Apple made it seem the field of vision is much larger than it really is.

The Verge hit the nail on the head with hand gestures. The input device is critical for a new computing platform. This is too awkward to be something you do all day.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is the most returned Apple product.

Razengan
0 replies
1h57m

@dang: Why was the "The Best Headset Yet" removed from the title of the other review post, but this post still has the "Magic, until it's not" in the title?

PKop
0 replies
1d2h

I stare at screens way too much already. I can't imagine strapping one on my face inches from my eyeballs as substitute for getting real work done on a laptop. My eyes would suffer more than they already do.

This really is an amazing tech "solution" looking for a problem to solve.

LoganDark
0 replies
14h7m

But the Vision Pro is so convincing and so unconcerned with whether you might have any limits that you can easily go too far too fast and get yourself a little queasy.

I think this is a good thing. I don't want to be protected from myself - let me find and push my own limits, and I'll keep myself in my comfort zone if I need to. Attempts to protect me from myself typically result in frustration, since I don't like being confined to what they think is safe.