Apple's Vision Pro lacks any real vision

I think a lens worth looking at that suggests this is a misstep is:
Apple has only ever convinced people to bring a new device with them once, with the iPod.
They realized that a wallet sized device that could playback your entire music collection would be a huge hit, and convinced people to effectively carry around a second wallet (plus headphones). This was the first and only time they convinced people to carry around a new device on a daily basis, and it was relatively easy since jeans had two front pockets anyways.
Around the same time, cell phones started also filling the role of second wallet, for a period, some of us even carried around 3 wallet sized devices. Then the iPhone just combined two of them (eventually all 3 kinda).
Macbooks / laptops, are basically just the equivalent of textbooks in our bookbag, iPads are just a fancier version of that book that can also work with a pencil. Apple Watch just replaced our regular watches. No other Apple product (or anyone else's for that matter) have convinced us to carry a wholly new form factor of device around with us.
The Vision Pro replaces .... nothing ... like the iPod it's a wholly new device to carry with you, but unlike the iPod the form factor is not a natural extension or replacement of an existing form factor. The closest they come is glasses, and this is what I think Google Glass got right, they aimed at a form factor that could be worn like glasses all day without too much distinction, whereas the vision pro is more like a pair of heavy ski goggles. It's a hard and uncomfortable ask to get people to wear it in almost any scenario.
- Even the iPod was entering an already established market (consider the Sony Walkman).
  Although that is interesting… I found some stats and 385 million walkmans were sold over 30 years. About 10. Million per year. Another report claims 51 million VR headsets in the last 5 years or about 10 million per year… (I started this comment planing to be negative, but now I wonder if Apple is not hitting the market at just the right time…)
- wait… why would you want to carry it with you??
  
  Why do you carry your laptop with you?
  What is the purpose of the Vision Pro? Is it just a VR Headset? Then sure, it sits at home like your video game console. But paying $3500 for that is insane when you could buy a Quest and a gaming PC.
  Or is it a work focused AR device like Apple is pitching, in which case, it should go everywhere your Macbook does, at home, at the office, on trips, etc. Hard to imagine people wanting to lug a bulky headset with them for those purposes.
  I'm also getting at the idea that the true revolutionary moment for AR will be when we can use them and carry them with us everywhere, like watches / phones / wallets / glasses. Unlike the iPod / iPhone / Apple Wallet, Apple is releasing this well before that point.
  
  A heads up display that could overlay useful information onto the world around you would be amazing.
  Provide directions.
  Point out businesses that are hard to find in a crowded city.
  Give real-time measurements and placements for construction (this is already a thing).
  Pokemon Go
  The problem is that the apple vision is huge and bulky. They need to shrink it down to the size of big nerd eyeglasses. Microsoft did the same thing with their whatever it was called. I played with it a few times at different tech demos. It was garbage from the start because it was heavy, uncomfortable, and the refresh rate was intolerably slow. Apple's is a slight improvement in a few categories but it still completely misses the point of what AR should be.
- Why in the world do you think this is supposed to be a mobile product? Just because it can run on a battery doesn't mean they intend for consumers to wear it around town.
  My impression is that it's for use in the home and/or office. I wouldn't walk around town with anything worth thousands of dollars out on display and I think most people are similarly minded.
  
  What purpose does it serve in an office that your MacBook doesn't?
- They've only (in this century) produced a new product people take with them once, iPod. Except for the iPhone. MacBook Air. iPad. Apple Watch. AirPods.
  So you're 16% correct, and falling.
  
  You clearly didn't understand the same point that everyone else did. Maybe reflect on that rather than assume you're the only one able to do percentages.
  
  It's not about the product, but the kind of device. Before the iPod, people didn't really carry around computer like devices with them in the pockets, did they?

I keep remembering the Apple Watch release in parallel to the vision pro’s release. The first Apple Watch was so awkward and had no real purpose other than an extra notification display. But over the years the Apple Watch found its footing through iteration and iteration and is now a great health tracker with a bunch of cool uses.
In 6 or so years the Apple vision headsets will be awesome… but so should competing VR/AR.
- The difference is that the Apple Watch was not that awkward compared to actual watches.
  It was the size of a mid to large sized normal watch, and it's battery lasted roughly a day and could be charged overnight next to your phone.
  The Vision Pro is not the size of a pair of glasses, you can't wear it nearly as long, nor can you use it like them. It's not asking people to replace an existing device with a smart one, it's asking them to use a whole new thing.
  
  @masterspace @Crow 🤷
- Competing VR/AR is and was awesome already. No need for a massively overpriced spying device to "innovate" on a working concept.

I love the idea of having one of these to toy around with here and there, maybe watch a movie or browse spatial photos, but not for $3500. Fuck no.
- They have a new commercial out. The dude falls back on his couch and makes the movie that’s sitting on his ceiling, bigger.
  I was like ok that would be cool. Being able to watch something without having to face it, it faces you. But maybe in 10 years when it’s the size of eye glasses and lasts all day and we can have spatial cinema where you can move in between things. Then. Fuck yeah.
  
  Honestly, this is why I’m hoping the Vsuon Pro doesn't flop. It really feels like it could open the door to a new era. Of course, that’s still years away, but you’ve got to start somewhere. Better now than never.

Man that is one vapid piece of writing. VR is definitely a thing - there’s a whole market of devices, accessories and apps and experiences made for it. If your articles hinges on the idea of dismissing something that exists because you think it’s pointless then your article is reductive. Reductive posts on forums are thing but paragraphs of reductive reasoning is proof that some people need to touch grass now and then. I have no interest in Vision Pro but complaining that VR is pointless isn’t what I need to do to justify my lack of interest.
- Only a billionaire would think people would pay $3500 to watch a VR representation of a TV. They seem to be promoting as a bulkier version of Google glass.
  VR is an expensive product that causes nausea in a significant number of people. It's something that can damage the eyesight of young people, so it's not for children. Who knows if extended use can damage the eyesight in adults. Guess we'll wait and see.
  Metaverse was a failure because people aren't going to pay to chat with people in a world of legless cartoon characters that looks like it was designed to run on a PS1. One of the big requirements for a social media platform is that it's accessible for most of the day. I'm sure Mark Zuckerberg can throw on a headset when in his limo or when he's on his yacht, or even when he's in a meeting, because who's going to tell him he can't use that in the workplace? But for most people it means it's a social media platform that's only accessible at home and only if it doesn't make you nauseous. And one that looks like ass.
  They're trying to pivot to it being a gaming platform, which it should have been from the beginning. But now were talking the video game business. How many AAA titles are going to be ported? Is a gaming platform that young people aren't going to be allowed to use going to be successful?
  There isn't really a solid business case for these products. Sure maybe when the tech improves, costs come down, and they can get buy-in from video game studios for it, it might be a thing. But for now it is just another future-tech grift that impresses shareholders.
  
  Sounds like you don't know much about the VR market in general. It is actually a popular segment of technology that has been growing and improving for decades.
  It's not going away, and Apple may have the next level of the technology already on the market. IDK but I'm not buying one. I already have 2 other VR headsets that do all that I need. I play VR games on my Index system about 5 times per week. It has superseded my interest in almost all 2D games.
  I also know several other people from young to middle aged who have VR systems and we all quite enjoy being able to make use of the tech.

To me, this seems like a big misstep for Apple. Granted I'm no fanboy, but I've appreciated Apple's design and products over the last few decades. This to me just seems half baked. And that's not something I expected from Apple's hardware. I personally don't think I'll ever wear a computer on my face for more than 30 minutes at a time. Even if the weight goes down dramatically, it's just not a convenient experience. The last thing I need with my technology is more inconvenience.
- Well less than 30 minutes at a time is good because the Vision Pro battery only lasts around two hours and you can't swap batteries without turning it off.
  You can do a lot of things with the Vision Pro that you can't do with other headsets, but I don't understand why anybody would want to manage their calendar events in VR, and it seems like there are a lot more things that you would want to do with the Vision Pro that you can't. If it were really an AR device like a modern Google Glass it would make sense, but with that form factor and a battery life of two hours it can't really become part of you like that.
  
  I think it really comes down to what developers do with it in the next couple of years. If they don’t devise some really interesting and meaningful experiences unique to the headset hardware I think it’s a dead end product no matter how much Apple pours into it.
  
  Are you aware that you can plug the battery into a power source and use the headset for as long as you want while the battery charges at the same time?
- Apple products were never really ergonomic, so having over half a kilo dragging down your face seems to be a normal continuation of their design language. The battery on a cable however and the outside-facing screen seem like obvious bad design decisions that just contribute to the unpleasant weight distribution.
  And it tries to sell a VR device as an AR device without any real killer use case other than integrating it nicely into their other products. Alone from the tech it's impressive. Their new R1 and M2 chips do great work and the price reflects how much effort was put into it. But that alone doesn't sell the device.
  Even the positive reviews were mixed and pointed out grave flaws.
  In my opinion, for this to take off it actually needs to provide significant advantages for people to accept wearing a comfortable sensor suite plus computer on their head in front of their eyes. We haven't seen any of this yet... from any product in the space.
- I think something with this, too (and that you sorta hinted at), is that it doesn’t seem to provide any additional benefit to what we already get with the iPhone, iPad, Mac ecosystem. That’s an ecosystem with a huge and established user base. Obviously this could change as developers step in to do the heavy lifting, but… Will they want to? Is it a good investment to spend thousands of hours on an app that a fraction of users of an already niche product will use? I think it’s very telling that some of the biggest developers (like Spotify and Netflix) opted out of Vision Pro.
  It’s going to take some very talented, very risk-tolerant developers to make a $3,500+ headset go anywhere. And as of now, Apple is providing very little incentive.
- It feels extremely brute forced.
  I would have assumed that they had waited until they had transparent displays that were better than everyone's, or had some unique way of combining passthrough and normal cameras that were better than others, but they really just announced basically a Quest Pro with some 3DS displays slapped to the outside. I'm pretty sure everyone at Meta's reality Labs division sighed a pretty big sigh of relief, I suspect they were all worried that it was going to be an iPhone launch where everyone at Blackberry realized they were working on completely the wrong tech, and instead they just witnessed them launch a fancy and expensive version of what they're already making for the mass market.

oh god, where do I even start?
first of all, the whole article reeks of bias and entitlement. “I don’t like VR so other people shouldn’t have it!!”
then, it all sounds like this guy never even tried any VR headset, or maybe he puked copiously after his first test.
and he’s constantly baiting and switching: “tim cook only interest is in squeezing money from us rather than releasing new products!!”, and right after “tim cook released a new product and it SUCKS!! even my mother said it!”
I bought a Rift CV1 in 2016, I’ve been waiting for some real VR since the first time I tested a rudimentary headset at a tech convention in 1996 playing Doom and some other VR game. it’s sick. I love it. I spent 10 hours a day in the headset during the first month, then I discovered simracing and it was an absolute blast. But the CV1 suffered the lack of direction outside of gaming. the screens were way too low resolution, it needed a powerful PC, it needed cameras, it needed joysticks, had no pass through so all of this stuff really didn’t make it for an optimal experience outside of gaming. I’ve ever since dreamed a way to use VR to work, and it seems like apple did it… or at least is in the process to.
Apple is not Google, so the Vision Pro is not going away. they’ll keep on refining it and bring it forward because that’s the future. you can’t judge it by now, we’re 5-10 years ahead of mass adoption of this tech, but we can already see what’s going to become.
unfortunately the tech suffered a big, big blowback caused by the boom of cryptocurrencies… we’ve all been waiting for more powerful graphic cards in order to cheaply manage VR, but nVidia was more concerned about making easy bucks selling to bitcoin farms rather than serving their loyal customers… and so VR took a hit around 2020 due to lack of cheap availability.
Facebook created the quest in order to detach their product from the whims of a terrible company like Nvidia, and that has somehow helped. but the Quest is and remains an entertainment product, not something that you can rely on for working.
I think the Vision Pro will be a revolution for those doing 3D modeling, or even programming. When the guy in the article says “you’ll get isolated in your tech!!” I think he knows he’s full of bullshit, because cubicles DO exist and people working at a PC screen is now more isolated than ever.
maybe his job is typing rants from the couch of a hotel on his iphone?
- Good or not, it'll always be a walled garden, so supporting them just promotes their bullshit.
  
  That and the price is the problem, in my opinion at least. What it can do looks quite impressive I think and has some nice ideas not really done commercially at the consumer level before.
  But, I suspect it'll be another iPhone. It will rule the roost for a short time and then someone will come out with a comparable product, for noticeably less that will work with other hardware too and connect with other non-apple software.
  But, I guess for those in the ecosystem (who already have big pockets already for this kind of thing) it looks really good.
  
  You people crack me up. Such a small little bubble you live in while pointing fingers about being in a bubble.
  If you can’t see the purpose of an eco system that sucks.
  
  It’s crazy to me how many of you people don’t understand this - most people like the walled garden. It’s fine if it’s not for us techies. That’s not who it’s for.
- Facebook created the quest in order to detach their product from the whims of a terrible company like Nvidia, and that has somehow helped.
  Facebook didn't create shit. They bought the Quest. They bought hyper-evolved, time-traveling 4th dimensional being, actual fucking rocket scientist, benevolent hyperintelligent architect of the post-singularity simulation we all live in, John Carmack, and then he got sick of the Meta bullshit and left.
  
  Yeah that’s not correct. Facebook bought into the oculus project in a share swap/cash deal with Lucky Palmer. Carmack joined the project later because he believes in VR in a big way and he contributed very important parts of the rendering methods to greatly improve performance.
  
  Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
  hyper-evolved, time-traveling 4th dimensional being, actual fucking rocket scientist John Carmack
  Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
  I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
- Exactly this. What a terrible exercise in reductionism.

I forgot this thing exists.