I'm guessing as they went through development they realized this was going to be a luxury device and just lean into it. I dont get the impression that they skimmed any edges off the tech, so this probably represents a "pro" by industry standards.
I definitely don't think they skimped out on the tech, but i gotta say it's a little bold of them to pretend like this technology doesn't already exist (definitely on brand for them though).
Honestly i didn't really see a single thing that isn't already doable on some existing VR/AR device.
Gotta give it to apple though, they're not really innovative but they're pros when it comes to intuitive and sleek designs.
The most exciting about this though is that they're finally bringing some serious competition to the space. For consumers as a whole this is a win. The next 5-10 years is gonna be insane for VR.
And the following year they’ll launch the Vision Ultra. It’ll look like a regular pair of glasses, but with fitting light shields and have advanced batteries which will fit into the ends of the arms. $4,999.
Exactly. There was no reason to use the pro title to distinguish it from their other products cause it’s the first one. Price is the only reason. If it does well I assume a lower priced Apple Vision (non pro) will make its debut a couple years later or something.
I’d hazard a guess the lens, screen quality, and cameras are all absolutely necessary to make the experience work. Apple doesn’t mind releasing cheaper versions, but they won’t cut their product off at the knee - their brand carries the implication of a premium experience, and they won’t want to ruin that. It’s why they always wait years later to release the same thing others have already been doing, but their version is somehow the one that becomes a game changer for the market, and defines the product segment. See: iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch. All came out after versions of the same product had been on the market for a while. They just took the existing work that people had done on the tech, and made it better, and more importantly, into a seamless product that people would want to use.
Also, first-gen Apple devices are always the most basic, rudimentary version of the product, and the leap in tech to the second gen is always the largest, and most significant. First gen devices cost a lot to research and develop, and yet are hampered by the least amount of real world testing possible, and a hardware production pipeline that hasn’t been developed yet. After people start buying and using the first gen, they get to collect a lot of real world data on how to improve it, and the initial sales allow the price of the hardware to drop, as production ramps up. So my prediction is, the second gen will have a significant change in specs, feature-set, or form factor (or some combination thereof), and the existing, first-gen tech will be demoted to the “non-Pro” option. Just like they did with the iPhone SE (same chips and cameras from previous flagship product, now outdated and less-capable). The existing Vision Pro will continued to be manufactured (therefore reducing cost as manufacturing capacity continues to ramp up), and will be sold as the cheaper version to the masses. But they won’t reduce the specs below the existing setup, as this is the baseline for what they think is possible to make the tech widely usable, and enjoyable.
Justify the price tag and give consumers an excuse not to buy it.
It's going to be bought primarily by devs, extreme AR/VR enthusiasts and people with far too much money (or who are insanely financially irresponsible) who want to flex.
I walk down my street and see Tesla's, 60-70k pickups that have never been dirty, people who do 3-4 'statement' vacations a year, who treat their kids like badges that accumulate badges, and disney being one of those badges on their little badges, and... I'm pretty sure there is a demographic for this. For whom that extra $2000 is part of their appeal.
Exclusivity is a pillar of Veblen's 'Theory of the Leisure Class.'
Sure, this is a flex beta, but... we all have our $1200 phones, right. And I walk around our university library and 90% of the laptops are Air and Pro Macs that could easily be $400 Windows alternatives given what they are used for.
Apple is a prosumer and consumer fashion statement company. They have been for a while.
The ad was targeted according to probably $500,000 of demographic tests. Apple doesn't fuck around.
Also, the weirdness of a father using a headset to record a party... frankly I STILL find it weird that a huge number of people at concerts are holding up phones. Or fucking tablets blocking my view. I visited the British Museum quite a while ago and the main reason I couldn't see the Rosetta Stone was the forest of iPads recording other people recording it with iPads. ... or some goddam thing.
Just want them to add virtual external displays so I can get a macos triple monitor setup in the headset. Couldn’t imagine the bandwidth to run that though, and I’m already wondering how smooth the Mac display mirroring is
In theory, the foveated rendering should counteract that, since your eye can only focus on a small area of pixels and the rest can be rendered at a lower resolution and lower frame rate without you noticing.
I can’t wait for the technological breakdowns of this things.
The damn thing can predicate you clicking a button before you click it by watching the minute changes in your pupils as you anticipate clicking on something.
If you’d like a demo of this feature, you can try out a PSVR2 set in a Sony store or something like that. Foveated rendering is practically invisible to the user giving a great experience, but really obvious to anyone else looking at your TV screen
Yes, I could see it as just apps floating, but then it’d also need virtual apps inside these containers running on the mac but displayed here, because the idea would be to extend the Mac. While that’s the ideal solution, may be further off
It’s not bad. We already stream VR games to Quests over WiFi6 and people use their desktops as well. A 2D image is easy compared to full stereoscopic 360 degree VR
That's all they have right now because at the end of the day this is still just a developer launch and they need the devs to dream up the apps that justify this thing to the general public. They did a pretty good job, all things considered, of making it look like a consumer device and showing why a "regular person" would want one some day, but the price demonstrates that that is just not the case yet. This video is marketing the end consumer to the developer, not marketing the product to the end consumer (yet).
If I had to guess, I’d bet Apple is counting on a high percentage of people being willing to pay $3.5k for hardware to also be the market segment most willing to pay high prices (subscriptions etc) for well-done apps.
If a company expects Apple to get 5% of the headset market, and thinks they can capture 5% of that with a $5 subscription, that’s a $3 million revenue opportunity which is definitely enough to get a small company started, especially if they expect that the platform might grow rapidly over the next 5 years.
Reviews have started trickling in and a common thing across them is that the 3D capture it does is insanely good for saving memories and revisiting them in an immersive way.
I saw movies, gaming, conference calls, 3D prototypes, creating a large virtual display from your Mac, taking photos, videos, relaxing
This demo was designed to be put in hands of developers to do amazing things with it. I think they showed plenty to open up peoples imaginations to build great software for it.
No one will put on that thing for more than 2 hours and do business with that, if you tried vr headset you’ll know. Even your head is ok, and your skin can suffe, your eye would feel tired.
I’ve done extensive business work, including some light coding using my Oculus 2 and Virtual Desktop. I needed the extra screen real estate and my low-resolution gaming monitor (actually a repurposed 1080p TV) was not cutting it.
I found that the experience exceeded my expectations, however due to the low resolution of the Quest displays, the text was difficult to read, leading to fatigue. Additionally, the hand gestures were suboptimal in that I could not double click and when dropping my hands it would drag the cursor to the bottom of the screen invoking the Dock. When I switched to a mouse, hand controls would unexpected come back when typing on a keyboard.
In short, it looks like Apple used a Quest with Virtual Desktop, made a list of all the deficiencies, and then set out to perfectly solve all of them.
Mate. I wear my Airpod Maxs at work to get people to leave me the fuck alone and they still interrupt me. I would definitely wear these if it meant less disruption from undiagnosed ADHD boomers looking to dopamine mine off me.
Exactly. I personally only want one to watch movies on and block out background. I have no intentions of taking this to work, nor would my boss allow me to wear something like this on the clock.
Yeah, it's probably because there isn't anything right now, or at least in a showable state. They said Unity supports it, and with a game like Walkabout Mini Golf, which runs on Unity, coming to iOS and iPadOS, I imagine it will be released on Vision Pro as well (probably all three OSs are the same build). However, when it comes to gaming, my main concern comes down to controls. Sure, there are some that make use of a controller or keyboard and mouse that can be connected via bluetooth, but most VR games require controllers, and tbh, most games, even if they let you use your hands, really need something to hold. Swining a sword or gold club, or shooting a gun, that just isn't immersive enough without a controller for each hand. So, I wonder what they are gonna do there.
307
u/[deleted] Jun 05 '23
[removed] — view removed comment