No matter if you feel the price tag is too high, or feel it’s a gimmick that won’t appeal to many, the Vision Pro will usher in a new era of apps and products.
To me, this is similar to when the iPhone was getting ready to be released. Many said it was expensive, had no keyboard, was too big and wide to be comfortably held, and would never sell. That all started to change once people got their hands on the device.
I feel that the Vision Pro will have the same effect, but this is one device you’ll truly need to test out and experience. Based on those that have been fortunate enough to actually use it, it’s not a gimmick.
I had a phone in my pocket before the iPhone came out. It was quite similar. It replaced an existing item that had room for improvement.
These goggles are not replacing or upgrading anything.
Not saying it’s a bad product but I disagree with your take on it being similar to the iPhone. It’s too niche and too expensive.
This is my issue with the Vision Pro, as well. They’re much better than any other VR/AR headset that’s ever come out in almost every aspect. But, they don’t do the one thing that people have found useful for the hardware category – connect to a powerful gaming computer – and I just don’t have a usecase they fill.
Yeah. Seems ridiculous to imagine buying a headset for $3400 and then needing to buy another headset to actually play games and even if you could find a way to pipe input from a gaming rig, you still have no controllers. Once again we see Apple ignoring established standards at the expense of their customers and selling it as gods gift to the world.
@JiveTurkey @Telodzrum you can connect them to a Mac, wirelessly, and interact with it. And you can use other consoles controllers. PS an XBox controllers are fully compatible. Gaming has not been the focus with the Vision Pro, because the intention is to move beyond that. They can be an amazing working and creative device. But, if you want to play games, iPad games work great in it, and remote play apps too!
Yeah, they don’t need to focus on gaming. Getting everything else established is important.
We’ve had VR for a decade now. And we still don’t have a strong ecosystem of apps outside of games. And even then, only a few titles really stand out.
If we can’t move past just games in VR, it’ll be a bummer and feels like so much wasted potential. So far Meta and Valve ain’t pushing that area. And Microsoft actually shut down their WMR initiative.
VR has only gotten to a certain new plateau of quality and comfort. A level Apple feels is acceptable to begin at.
I hope they can prove the market for VR beyond games and VRChat.
They’re more powerful because with tax they’re almost $4,000. Anyone can make a great headset that sells for $4k, but that’s not going to get adopted.
That’s not really the case. There actually aren’t enough panels of this quality to “just make them.”
They replace monitors.
Not at that price they don’t.
Have you seen how much it costs just to set up mounting for a bunch of monitors? You could DIY it and cut costs a little, but it’s still expensive with decent bit of labor then.
Agreed, at that price point the people buying them already have the best TVs, this would almost be a downgrade strapping to your face. Infact I have vr, but much prefer my tv for watching. I only use it for gaming.
I think you’re forgetting how much the iPhone cost compared to the other phones of the time (and some that were even free with service). Now, no one thinks twice about spending $600 on a smartphone.
I’m not forgetting anything, don’t assume things on my behalf.
Your previous statement would suggest otherwise. It was something that was said verbatim about the iPhone.
The iPhone cost 499$ in 2007. The Motorola RAZR cost 600$ in 2004.
The device wasn’t expensive, the plans were.
The iPhone was $499 with a subsidy from AT&T. The RAZR had no such subsidy and could be bought without a contract or even from eBay. Even the most expensive “smartphones” on the market didn’t need a subsidized price. The device absolutely was expensive. You’re trying to revise history.
You are wrong. Look it up, I already have.
I’m not going to waste any more time arguing with you.
It’s like you said projectors would replace TVs. But projectors are closer to TV than VR is to a monitor, they are more mature and much closer in price to TVs, yet most people own TV, and projectors are not common.
VR is a niche and always will be. It’s not more universal nor more practical than screen, and nothing will change that.
Ding ding. My iPhone is incredibly useful and replaced many other electronics that existed before.
It is the backbone of my social communication, which guarantees usefulness.
My life doesn’t change with the Vision Pro at all.
How can you possibly know that without having tried it? Spatial video alone could be life changing in more ways than one.
Um. Yes they are. Meta Quest, Microsoft HoloLens, etc.
Sure - those might be products you don’t currently use… but I’d argue that’s likely because they’re not very good. A lot of people didn’t use smartphones either before the modern smartphones became a thing.
Yeah I’m sorry to tell you that it’s just not a big thing. Is it cool? Sure. But I don’t need it, won’t buy it, and probably wouldn’t even if it was affordable (which it isn’t).
I’m not going to argue with you about this, so we’ll just have to wait and see who’s more “correct”.
Cheers.
Yeah. I don’t think any of this has been proven out. There is a lot of wait and see still to come in the world of VR/AR.
I’m really curious what the tipping point will end up being. It does not feel like Apple Vision Pro is locked in to be that thing. But it will position Apple well if something does come along that is the tipping point.
That’s a fair take.
As for your other comment in here somewhere… did Suckerberg not spend billions on his metaverse? It’s not that there isn’t money being put into it, it’s just that the interest isn’t there. VR has been a “thing” for decades already, it isn’t new.
He spent billions on a platform for which the primary audience (techie people) is not interested because his privacy and data position is a non-starter.
Most big tech like this takes off because techy people buy it and then show their friends. They help them buy and set up their own version of it to start until these companies eventually make it simple enough for non-techies. That’s how the game works.
Zuck made it completely unpalatable for those early adopters and he tied it to Facebook, a platform that young people despise. It was never going anywhere to begin with.
The metaverse is a whole other ball of wax. Thats virtual social environments.
VRChat is thriving. They hit a new 100k concurrent users record over new years.
Apple is also specifically not worrying about “the metaverse” or “SocialVR” either. Yes, they have video calls. And group calls. But, they don’t have full on Memoji Land Social VR Or anything like it.
SocialVR/VRChat is actually the most popular use for people who are VR enthusiasts. AFAIK.
It’s yet to be seen if VRChat, or similar will make it to Vision Pro. The lack of vr controllers may be an awkward situation there.
Oh, and to your point about Metaverse failing. That’s a hard one to crack unless you are open to allowing everything to be totally free form like VRChat. Making a safe metaverse with clean public spaces that people also want to use is difficult.
Oh, and for me, “Metaverse” is only framed as SocialVR. Not the expansive all-inclusive omni thing definition. The whole word has been muddied.
A big part of the reason it’s not a big thing is because of how fucking disgustingly bad the hardware is.
You can ignore the fact that you can see pixels on other headsets a lot of the time, but pretty much only for games. You can’t for very many of the use cases Apple has been showing. They kill text clarity, and they (and latency, and smashing the color space) kill passthrough.
Apple waited until they could make something over the bare minimum threshold for actually using it for things that aren’t games.
But what need or use does it fulfill? Other than being a neat piece of technology, what use does the average person have for it?
There are plenty of people with several physical monitors, because having information immediately accessible in a concrete location is simply easier and more efficient than toggling virtual work spaces on one desktop. Our brains work in 3D physical space. Presenting information and work spaces the same way has loads of value before the actual objects are also 3D.
And they are not filling a void. The beautiful part of the iPhone was that it made it possible for someone to have a full fledged computer in your pocket with access to the internet. This is tethering you more to your space. The applications are limited. Do I need to see an avatar in my FaceTime call? No. It’s hard to see a scenario where this has utility outside of the things that a new iPhone can do.
I know it’s pie in the sky but in my most optimistic dreams I can see building virtual offices and having the benefits of in person interaction with coworkers while still having the benefits of a work from home situation (commute, bathrooms, comfort, etc…).
Some companies, like Nabu Casa, are already using Quest headsets in this way to conduct their meetings since they’re an entirely remote company.
I already have zoom/teams. I don’t know what a virtual office gets me other than more monitoring tools for my employer. I’m already fully remote. Besides. I do not want to wear a headset for 8-10 hours. I’d go insane.
There’s a void in how geeky you can be playing Pokémon Go …. Although seriously …. I wouldn’t buy them for that purpose but I really want to try that
It’s a nice to have. But it’s not a $3.5k nice to have.