14 Days to Return: Will I or Won't I?

[B S Magnet]

I go by the if I was a millionaire test to determine if ill keep a device Ive purchased. I want retirns to be about the functionality plus my experience using the device and not about the money spent.

I find ill return products I like only to repurchase them later anyway.

If one goes by the “if I was a millionaire test” (there’s a test like this? really?), then it means one is already a millionaire or has an expectation they’ll be one soon (whether or not they’ll actually be one, ever).

It’s also not the question which a prudent corporation making shareholder promises of future profit should be relying on as rationale for their marketing and production of a product unless the only/principal intended market for the product are millionaires, multi-millionaires, billionaires, and multi-billionaires.

Moreover, one whose net worth is already in that realm anyway isn’t going to bother with returning stuff so much as boxing it back up and shoving it into storage somewhere, as that takes much less energy, time, and effort than the steps of going back to the seller, waiting in a queue (or hopping through multiple steps within an app or browser), and returning the product, such as a Vision Pro. Money here is, to them, not so much an object of concern as the other three are.

 

[cardfan]

If one goes by the “if I was a millionaire test” (there’s a test like this? really?), then it means one is already a millionaire or has an expectation they’ll be one soon (whether or not they’ll actually be one, ever).

It’s also not the question which a prudent corporation making shareholder promises of future profit should be relying on as rationale for their marketing and production of a product unless the only/principal intended market for the product are millionaires, multi-millionaires, billionaires, and multi-billionaires.

Moreover, one whose net worth is already in that realm anyway isn’t going to bother with returning stuff so much as boxing it back up and shoving it into storage somewhere, as that takes much less energy, time, and effort than the steps of going back to the seller, waiting in a queue (or hopping through multiple steps within an app or browser), and returning the product, such as a Vision Pro. Money here is, to them, not so much an object of concern as the other three are.

Doesn’t take much to be a millionaire (well ok it does take a million). Add your house up with retirement savings and investments and I’m one. Multi even. What you’re missing is what it took to get there. Mainly not buying stuff like this too often. lol. That behavior doesn’t change later too much.

I’ll definitely return avp if I don’t like it. I’m definitely leaning that way. I dont ever plan on working with a headset on. And don’t think I’d really use this a lot past the curiosity stage. It’s more of a hassle to use imo if that makes any sense.

 

[B S Magnet]

Doesn’t take much to be a millionaire (well ok it does take a million). Add your house up with retirement savings and investments and I’m one. Multi even. What you’re missing is what it took to get there. Mainly not buying stuff like this too often. lol. That behavior doesn’t change later too much.

If we’re going to discuss bootstrap morality (which, last I observed, is off-topic and, frankly, we really shouldn’t go there), it always helps to make those kinds of remarks when one was born on first, second, or third base and not at the batting plate — if one even gets to the batting plate. 🙋‍♀️

I’ll definitely return avp if I don’t like it. I’m definitely leaning that way. I dont ever plan on working with a headset on. And don’t think I’d really use this a lot past the curiosity stage. It’s more of a hassle to use imo if that makes any sense.

It does. It requires setup and adjustment. Throwing on earbuds, picking up a glass device, or plopping a laptop on a desk, table, or lap, is a lot less effort for the same ends in general productivity.

 

[Jamacfer]

Luxury designer like Chanel has basically kept up with inflation and even outperformed. They raise price every year to account for increase in both labor and material cost, and it is a much better 'investment' than any technology item, which follows by a complete inverse curve.

Understanding the Latest 2024 Chanel Bag Price Hikes and the Resale Market

Shop Chanel Bags at Sotheby's, Available for Immediate Shipping

www.sothebys.com

In any case, I'm happy that you are able to afford and satisfied with the purchase. But I think for majority of people it's much better and wise to wait for V2/V3...etc.

I know of no luxury handbags (clothes etc) being purchased as a form of investment. We are talking about voluptuous purchases exactly like (at least for now) AVP.

 

[robgreene]

Having a bit of a last-minute epiphany, folks. Will be back to share tomorrow.

 

[B S Magnet]

I know of no luxury handbags (clothes etc) being purchased as a form of investment. We are talking about voluptuous purchases exactly like (at least for now) AVP.

I’m guessing you’re a guy.

The best kind of investment is the kind one can actually use whilst possessing it. That is: use-value as a companion to exchange-value.

The Chanel example cited earlier supports a general consensus how investing in, say, a Chanel handbag, a Balenciaga dress, or a Prada purse is a high-end purchase with a high probability of retaining their exchange-value — much in the vein of, say, supercars hand-assembled by Italian marques, whilst also offering exceptional use-value during the interim.

Few areas of merchandise — and tech is definitely not part of that rarefied group — are able to achieve this, and for good reason. There is a premium on timelessness in design, assembled by hand and backed by those brands, which serves an ongoing purpose, function, and adaptability as time marches on. They also function as historical markers in culture, further bolstering their exchange-value. OF course, few people can afford the buy-in for these items.

The Vision Pro will never be in that realm. In fact, very few, if any, Apple products have held their value steady over time absent novel factors decades later, such as nostalgia-driven demand for product which have a niche or limited use-value long after they’re been obsoleted.

 

[Jamacfer]

Well, it is my fault for bringing up driverless cars as a solution in search for a problem, and I know your reaction to that was of anger (see your reaction to my post earlier). But “more powerful gasoline engine with manual gears” is a paradigm stuck inside a box of thinking I reject and not where I was going with that.
Rather, a tested, tried solution to a problem in this case starts with robust funding for public transit infrastructure. It continues with (re)-developing for proximal (nearby) access to the everyday go-tos (like groceries, dining, work, your kids’ schools). Silicon Valley technologists thinking they’re doing an end-run around trained, specialized experts in urban planning by pouring billions into R&D and testing for driverless cars as an answer to human-operated cars is a marque of hubris wrought by a surprising case of the Dunning-Kruger. It’s also an Occam’s razor scenario: the best answer is probably the most straightforward and obvious. Here, the self-driving car is a Rube Goldberg machine.
This goes for other technology, as well, including the Apple VP. It is a contraption in search for a problem which, widely, doesn’t exist. Is there a purpose for AR goggles? Probably, but only in very specialized, already established applications, such as flight testing or, grimly, piloting a drone with weaponry to strike a target far away from where its goggles-wearing operator is located. Property developers may be one novel area where this tech might be useful, but again, to what end, other than to enrich the property developer’s ends — not to solve extant problems around shortages in housing.
There are, indeed and absolutely, countless innovations yet to be laid down to paper, to patent application, to prototype, and to deployment.
But many, if not most of these innovations don’t come — and won’t be coming — from the minds of folks who cluster in a self-ensconced area like Silicon Valley, whose ideas come principally from a steady diet of stale sci-fi television, cinema, gaming, and lit from forty years ago. This is why dreaming up technological solutions in mad searches for problems is a very cart-before-the-horse approach to coming up with innovation. Put another way, to that bubble: “Stop trying to make ‘fetch’ happen. ‘Fetch’ is never going to happen.”
Try not to mistake bona fide innovation borne out of necessity with the psychology around consumer (and consumption) culture in an aggressively capitalist society.
Moreover, smartphone/glassphone/slabphone makers, to be truly innovative, need to be thinking well beyond a one-year fiscal horizon or the quarterly earnings statement horizon and instead at the generational horizon beyond of the one now filling their coffers with cold, hard cash, as that nascent generation is already signalling, quite loudly in some cases, how they’re less moved or dazzled by all this data-harvesting tech than their elders have been. That’s something tech companies ought to be paying especial notice to right now if they should hope to stay atop the business heap in a decade or more.
Indeed. And luxury brands like Chanel, Louis Vuitton, Rolex, and so on produce products which were designed, from the outset, to last for a very long time and to maintain their value and demand. The same cannot be said of Vision Pro or even early series Apple Watches no longer being supported by Apple.

No anger as it does not seem to me that first-world "problems" like this deserve this kind of feeling. That said, it seems to me that you are grasping at straws. Your naive theoretically acceptable reasoning could apply to literally every aspect of the capitalist society in which we live. Apple is a private company (not public nor does it do charity) as are the companies that make driverless cars. They do research and develop a product by investing a lot of money in order to make a profit. This investment may or may not be as successful as it may or may not benefit the development of society. This will not be decided (only) by you but by consumers who do not behave ethically and rationally as (almost) always do precisely human beings. Better get over it. PS defending brands that produce and sell luxury items at high prices and opposing Apple or other tech companies I think needs no further comment. Anyway if you would rather spend your $4000 on another luxury item like a wallet I can only be pleased but, please, take it easy.

 

[Jamacfer]

I’m guessing you’re a guy.

The best kind of investment is the kind one can actually use whilst possessing it. That is: use-value as a companion to exchange-value.

The Chanel example cited earlier supports a general consensus how investing in, say, a Chanel handbag, a Balenciaga dress, or a Prada purse is a high-end purchase with a high probability of retaining their exchange-value — much in the vein of, say, supercars hand-assembled by Italian marques, whilst also offering exceptional use-value during the interim.

Few areas of merchandise — and tech is definitely not part of that rarefied group — are able to achieve this, and for good reason. There is a premium on timelessness in design, assembled by hand and backed by those brands, which serves an ongoing purpose, function, and adaptability as time marches on. They also function as historical markers in culture, further bolstering their exchange-value. OF course, few people can afford the buy-in for these items.

The Vision Pro will never be in that realm. In fact, very few, if any, Apple products have held their value steady over time absent novel factors decades later, such as nostalgia-driven demand for product which have a niche or limited use-value long after they’re been obsoleted.

Again your argument seems to me a stretch. Those who buy in a luxury boutique (our wives? ) in the vast majority of cases do so certainly not as an investment just as we "guys" buy the latest technological gadget or luxury car.

 

[pugxiwawa]

Again your argument seems to me a stretch. Those who buy in a luxury boutique (our wives? ) in the vast majority of cases do so certainly not as an investment just as we "guys" buy the latest technological gadget or luxury car.

well for the high end luxury items like the Rolexes, the Chanels and the Birkins those can definitely be viewed as investment, and plenty of people view those as such. Go check out 2nd hand designer resell market place you will see plenty of highly appreciated assets.

PS defending brands that produce and sell luxury items at high prices and opposing Apple or other tech companies I think needs no further comment.

There's nothing to defend. That's the way market works. Technologies are commodities, Apple can always make more iPhones, iPad or Vision Pro. Apple can charge 5k, 10k or even 20k for Vision Pro doesn't make it a collector item. There's nothing unique about it. High end luxury items are highly sought after because of their scarcity. The brand and designer limit how many these are made and the color, style and only in the years they are made in, which drives up demands and desirability. You might not care for it, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be treated as an alternative investment.

 

[Carac]

To quote Casey Nystat, "This is the worst version of the Vision Pro Apple will ever ship". Decide whether you want your ~$4k back accordingly. I'm looking forward to v3.

 

[B S Magnet]

No anger

🤔

as it does not seem to me that first-world "problems" like this deserve this kind of feeling.

It’s still unclear why you made an “angry” reaction, but I no longer care.

This is a discussion on the purpose and value of the Vision Pro, a solution in search of a problem, and whether early adopters are keeping or returning the gear within the two-week window. Their findings may be instructive in the future.

That said, it seems to me that you are grasping at straws. Your naive theoretically acceptable reasoning could apply to literally every aspect of the capitalist society in which we live.

I struggle to find anything naïve about holding to task Silicon Valley-based strides toward re-inventing wheels via overly complex inventions when there are other, far more out-of-box ways to approach solving problems which already exist (like the aforementioned self-driving/autopilot cars or, yes, the Vision Pro). Others in this thread have remarked on set-up times to use Vision Pro for tasks they could do much more quickly on extant devices. In other words, yet another minus.

As to whether Apple or others can find problems, ex post facto, for which the Vision Pro can solve uniquely or solely, is to be determined. But sage business practice, as hungry innovators the world over, time and again, can attest, a problem needs to be present, understood, and addressed head-on, while the solution of their innovation can solve that established problem.

There is no naïveté here. There is a pragmatism without a vested interest (whether as an early Vision Pro adopter or company shareholder). There is a case argument to be made around the insular thinking when the best Silicon Valley can churn out for innovation are the above-discussed paradigms/products whose problematics either rely upon thin rationale or don’t exist at all.

Apple is a private company (not public nor does it do charity) as are the companies that make driverless cars.

Apple are a publicly-traded company comprised of shareholders. In the end, shareholders shall not be denied, or else they will dump those shares for better, long-term investments. This is how publicly-traded corporations live and die. Although I don’t believe Apple are anywhere near this, the bigger a corporation gets, the slower they respond. The bigger they get, the more diversified they have to become to maintain growth.

What’s naïve is holding belief — one held tightly by capitalists — that growth is infinite.

They do research and develop a product by investing a lot of money in order to make a profit. This investment may or may not be as successful as it may or may not benefit the development of society. This will not be decided (only) by you but by consumers who do not behave ethically and rationally as (almost) always do precisely human beings.

tl;dr: “Too big to fail, so let’s create products which will bring out the worst in consumers — so long as our shareholders stay happy.”

Is that a world you want to leave for your kids? I certainly don’t.

Better get over it. PS defending brands that produce and sell luxury items at high prices and opposing Apple or other tech companies I think needs no further comment.

I work in an all-Mac workplace and live in an all-Mac household. I used my first Mac in 1990. I sold Newtons in 1993 and 1994. I bought my first Mac in 1999.

Wanna run all that by me again? On second thought, save your breath.

Anyway if you would rather spend your $4000 on another luxury item like a wallet I can only be pleased but, please, take it easy.

I’m sorry you’re only able to misread the point I made around Vision Pro’s raison d’être — the problem(s) it solves — which is what again, exactly?

Again your argument seems to me a stretch. Those who buy in a luxury boutique (our wives? ) in the vast majority of cases do so certainly not as an investment just as we "guys" buy the latest technological gadget or luxury car.

Take a good, hard look at, historically, the “luxury” items which plummet in value and which hold them.

Luxury can be gauche, outré, or timeless. This does mean the consumer, one able to afford luxury products, have a foresight, wherewithal, and prudence to discern between these.

Money — especially from new wealth — is no proxy for foresight, wisdom, or pragmatism, and it never has been. And this doesn’t begin to factor taste into the mix.

 

[Jamacfer]

well for the high end luxury items like the Rolexes, the Chanels and the Birkins those can definitely be viewed as investment, and plenty of people view those as such. Go check out 2nd hand designer resell market place you will see plenty of highly appreciated assets.
There's nothing to defend. That's the way market works. Technologies are commodities, Apple can always make more iPhones, iPad or Vision Pro. Apple can charge 5k, 10k or even 20k for Vision Pro doesn't make it a collector item. There's nothing unique about it. High end luxury items are highly sought after because of their scarcity. The brand and designer limit how many these are made and the color, style and only in the years they are made in, which drives up demands and desirability. You might not care for it, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be treated as an alternative investment.

Again, in my opinion the logic is a stretch. I'd like to know the real percentage of luxury boutique customers who buy as an investment and then resell to make a profit...if for that matter, even the first Mac or iPod has a not indifferent value!

 

[B S Magnet]

Again, in my opinion the logic is a stretch. I'd like to know the real percentage of luxury boutique customers who buy as an investment and then resell to make a profit...if for that matter, even the first Mac or iPod has a not indifferent value!

You know… there is nobody stopping you from finding, collecting, and analyzing that market research data, followed by assembling a report on your findings.

@pugxiwawa ’s observation here holds. That said, one better know that niche collector’s market like few others the world over — you know, not only the dedicated members and devotées over at forums.chanelrumors.com and, especially, forums.ferrariworld.com , but also the dedicated folks whose wheelhouse is in haute couture.

 

[gerald.d]

Luxury designer like Chanel has basically kept up with inflation and even outperformed. They raise price every year to account for increase in both labor and material cost, and it is a much better 'investment' than any technology item, which follows by a complete inverse curve.

Understanding the Latest 2024 Chanel Bag Price Hikes and the Resale Market

Shop Chanel Bags at Sotheby's, Available for Immediate Shipping

www.sothebys.com

In any case, I'm happy that you are able to afford and satisfied with the purchase. But I think for majority of people it's much better and wise to wait for V2/V3...etc.

Complete aside of course, but just because the brand raise the price of a new one does not mean that the true value of the older ones follows in step.

The exact bag you highlight is readily available on the secondary market for around $3500-$4000. You just need to know where to shop (and it certainly isn’t at Sotheby’s!).

My wife has dozens of Louis Vuitton bags/accessories, and not even limited edition ones such as the original black and white graffiti range from the early 2000’s have held their value.

 

[Jony Ive]

DAY 11​

Movies and games mostly, along with a short-lived attempt to edit photos... and I finally tried out the much-celebrated dual strap. Here are my reactions:

PROs:
• Watching Star Wars: Episode VIII with the built in speakers was a joy. For me, the volume was the perfect mix of feeling immersed without damaging hearing.
• The immersive shows tv episodes (I watched one with dinosaurs and one of a tightrope walker) were pretty amazing, though not without drawbacks (more on that in CONs below). When the girl (Spoiler Alert) falls off the rope, I gasped and almost fell over myself, haha!
• Pairing a Nintendo Switch Pro Remote with the AVP was quick and easy.
• The game I played (NBA2K24) seemed to know it was connected to a Switch remote, and displayed the proper buttons for that remote on menu items.
• Finally ran out of battery, and was pleased to see the Vision Pro gives you a 30s timer to plug in before it fully powers off.
• Unpopular opinion, but for me, the Solo band continues to delight. I really believe what most people are referring to as the "weight" of the AVP comes down more to the PRESSURE they feel against their face when using the solo band, which I have not felt bothersome at all.

CONs:
• Knowing how much people have raved about the dual strap, I was excited to try it out for myself. As much as I've enjoyed the solo band, I had high hopes for what the dual strap would feel like. Unfortunately, I found it to be a total bust. I barely felt any difference, and still experienced the same screen shake with every step while walking.
• NBA 2K24 was awful. If I'm hooking up console game controllers to play games, I'm expecting a console level experience. NBA 2K24 felt inferior to the PS5 and even Switch versions of 2K on every level you could evaluate it. If remote-based gameplay is what you're looking for from your AVP, you'll likely want to pass on V1.
• Immersive content available at launch suffers from a few notable limitations. (1) there's not much of it, (2) what IS available is short - 5-10 minutes in most cases, and (3) it's not FULLY immersive. After having spent so much time in Apple and Disney's fully immersive environments, I was disappointed to learn that Immersive shows have a viewing angle more akin to the Panaromas saved in your Photos app than a fully immersive environment.
• After having really sharp view of my virtual desktop in previous editing sessions, today's was very soft focus. For photo editing, that's just a non-starter. Hoping it was user error, and will be better/fixable next time I try.

OVERALL AND WHAT’S NEXT LEFT:
It's hard to overstate how enjoyable it is to watch 3D movies on the Vision Pro... video consumption is the Apple Vision Pro's sweet spot. I fully plan to finish watching the final Star Wars trilogy today after how much I've enjoyed watching the first 2 The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi on the Vision Pro.

Today will likely be my last full day with Apple's glimpse into the future. Tomorrow, I'll document the return proces. To be honest, I'm not looking forward to it... despite realizing that the feature set for the price point is not an investment I'm looking to make at this time, I'm genuinely enjoying using the Vision Pro, and will miss having it around for movies and remote editing sessions (which explains the slight bump below). I'll also include some Final Thoughts, including several overarching sentiments I've been saving for my final review.

WILL I OR WON'T I RETURN IT?
Day 1: 75/25 returning
Day 2: 60/40 returning
Day 3: 65/35 returning
Day 4: 55/45 returning
Day 5: 55/45 keeping
Day 6: 60/40 keeping
Day 7: 55/55 returning
Day 8: 80/20 returning
Day 9: 90/10 returning
Day 10: 95/5 returning
Day 11: 90/10 returning

We knew this would happen and we warned people that this would be the case for the vast majority.
What we predicted is what’s happening, although we will never know for sure as Apple won’t provide return numbers

 

[AdonisSMU]

If one goes by the “if I was a millionaire test” (there’s a test like this? really?), then it means one is already a millionaire or has an expectation they’ll be one soon (whether or not they’ll actually be one, ever).

It’s also not the question which a prudent corporation making shareholder promises of future profit should be relying on as rationale for their marketing and production of a product unless the only/principal intended market for the product are millionaires, multi-millionaires, billionaires, and multi-billionaires.

Moreover, one whose net worth is already in that realm anyway isn’t going to bother with returning stuff so much as boxing it back up and shoving it into storage somewhere, as that takes much less energy, time, and effort than the steps of going back to the seller, waiting in a queue (or hopping through multiple steps within an app or browser), and returning the product, such as a Vision Pro. Money here is, to them, not so much an object of concern as the other three are.

No. That is not implied. All I’m saying is that I try to evaluate useful tools based on how I use them and not solely based on how much money was already spent. You don’t need to over think what was said. My “millionaire test” is simply a name that allows me to focus on the utility of what I already bought instead of what I paid for it more objectively. There is nothing else to glean from what I said explicitly.

 

[B S Magnet]

No. That is not implied. All I’m saying is that I try to evaluate useful tools based on how I use them and not solely based on how much money was already spent. You don’t need to over think what was said. My “millionaire test” is simply a name that allows me to focus on the utility of what I already bought instead of what I paid for it more objectively. There is nothing else to glean from what I said explicitly.

Cheers.

That’s called Gebrauchswert, or “use-value”.

Put another way: “degree of utility” (high or low).

 

[robgreene]

We knew this would happen and we warned people that this would be the case for the vast majority.
What we predicted is what’s happening, although we will never know for sure as Apple won’t provide return numbers

No one "knew this would happen." Plenty of people PREDICTED it, but no one "knew," and I would wager that when the quarterly numbers come out, we will likely see that nowhere close to the "vast majority" (which is usually in the 95% range) returned the device. I would further wager that the returns, while higher than most Apple products (understandable), will probably not exceed 30%.

It's a GREAT device. There's a path forward here. It's not just the FUTURE. It's got a place for a subset of users in the here and now.

 

[Night Spring]

We knew this would happen and we warned people that this would be the case for the vast majority.
What we predicted is what’s happening, although we will never know for sure as Apple won’t provide return numbers

In this, I believe I agree with you. If your main use case for the VP is watching videos, whether 2D, 3D or spatial, you will end up concluding it's not worth the $4000 and return it, or you'll find that it gets used less and less as months pass. But I'm also sure that there will be a number of users who find that VP makes them more productive, or allow them to perform their tasks in a more pleasant way than before. Maybe the number of such users is too small to make this product a success, or maybe there is enough of them to make it worthwhile for Apple to continue developing this product. Time will tell.

 

[robgreene]

I'm also sure that there will be a number of users who find that VP makes them more productive, or allow them to perform their tasks in a more pleasant way than before.

I'm not sure VisionOS 1.0 will prove conducive to an increase in productivity... if anything, entering the 3D world compounds the challenges created by multiple windows in a 2D space. But more pleasant? This is 100% likely to be the case for many users. It's a really enjoyable way to work, particularly if your work necessitates a layer of privacy even while working in public.

 

[robgreene]

DAY 12​

A funny thing happened today. During my remote editing session (posting up at a local Starbucks), I found myself really ENJOYING - maybe even PREFERRING - editing my photos using Vision Pro. It was such a breakthrough work session that it's legitimately reshaping my thoughts on keeping the device. Here are my takeaways:

PROs:
• I was surprised when Apple came out with a very detailed list of ways to posture and position yourself when using the Vision Pro, but as I sat fully upright in a chair Starbucks, my laptop screen projecting virtually at an optimal height for viewing, I absolutely LOVED the wonders it was working for my posture! There's a lot of chatter about the health drawbacks of a device like this, but let's celebrate one of the health benefits: so often working from a laptop leaves me "hunched" over it. Today, I was working with better posture than ever before... and it honestly increased the entire AVP experience. I wonder if my desire for media consumption has left me in more casual, slouched postures... postures which create a suboptimal AVP experience, physically speaking.
• I've found that I prefer working with "People Awarness" set to "Environments Only". Including apps in the People Awareness, especially in public places, results in people you don't care about constantly showing through your screen. "Environments Only" adds a wonderful degree of focus.
• Nearly 2 hours of use. Battery at 50%.
• Ran into some college students from the nearby campus. They were surprised when I saw them looking at me and said hello, but were very excited to ask me about it. They'd just come from the Apple Store, and there were no appointments available to demo the AVP, so they were eager to learn more. There's a real buzz (at least here in DFW) around these devices.
• A couple eye drops pre-session seems to make a world of difference for my eyes. I felt fabulous throughout the session.
• In going through my Purchased apps list, I found several (like Voxer) that are a regular part of my business workflow.
• I've settled in to a working setup that I enjoy: Virtual Mac screen in front of me. Messages to my left. Music to my right. TV above and behind my Mac screen (not terribly different from my living room at home).
• Adding a clock app has proven practical and beneficial. Would love to see an OS level integration in the future.
• In public, I find myself really enjoying the combination of an AVP and AirPods.

CONs:
• One of the most consistently frustrating "bugs" of VisionOS 1.0.x is the disappearing Facetime/call window. When it goes away, there's no (obvious) way to get it back that I've found.
• When you are talking to someone in the room with you, and there's a window on your AVP between you and them, Apple adds a "blue haze" layer over the digital Eyesight eyes. I get what Apple is going for here, but I think the've overthought the idea. People need to see your eyes, and from what people have told me (and what people are saying all over the internet), the blue haze hides them too much.
• There's no way to "minimize" apps/windows. And there's no way to re-open them in their last known position. Hoping this changes with future OS revisions. Would love to ever see the ability to save preset arrangements or "spaces" with a series of apps open in frequently used configurations. Could even be tied to Focus Modes
• The AirPods disconnected from the AVP shortly after connecting initially, and the difference in sound from the built in speakers was not noticeable enough at first to realize I was playing sound to the public. Oops.

OVERALL AND WHAT’S NEXT LEFT:
I'm keeping this thing for another day. I had that much fun with it today. My current thinking is that I'll still return my 512 AVP, then wait a couple months to get a 256 refurbished AVP (more on that to come in my final review), with no prescription lenses (they've been useless in my experience) and a third party case. If that gets me down from $5000 to somewhere in the $3000-3300 range, I think this first version of Apple Vision Pro would be an enjoyable investment that serves my uses well.

WILL I OR WON'T I RETURN IT?
Day 1: 75/25 returning
Day 2: 60/40 returning
Day 3: 65/35 returning
Day 4: 55/45 returning
Day 5: 55/45 keeping
Day 6: 60/40 keeping
Day 7: 55/55 returning
Day 8: 80/20 returning
Day 9: 90/10 returning
Day 10: 95/5 returning
Day 11: 90/10 returning
Day 12: 65/35 returning

 

[Tmelon]

Got mine yesterday and will almost certainly be returning it. I expected that I would dislike the weight and detached battery, but those actually weren’t an issue. This seems to be an uncommon opinion, but the eye tracking is just too finicky and made multitasking difficult. Simple tasks like selecting items in the settings list was dreadful and even after multiple recalibrations I still have difficulty interacting with small UI elements. I think people who haven’t used the AVP yet don’t quite grasp how you truly have to be looking directly at something in order to click on it. Windows in your peripheral are completely off limits unless you turn and face them. The keyboard in its current form is also almost completely unusable for me.

Glad to see others enjoying the experience because it truly is immersive on a whole new level, but I think this whole product line is probably dead for me if eye tracking is going to continue to be their sole input method.

 

[robgreene]

Got mine yesterday and will almost certainly be returning it. I expected that I would dislike the weight and detached battery, but those actually weren’t an issue. This seems to be an uncommon opinion, but the eye tracking is just too finicky and made multitasking difficult. Simple tasks like selecting items in the settings list was dreadful and even after multiple recalibrations I still have difficulty interacting with small UI elements. I think people who haven’t used the AVP yet don’t quite grasp how you truly have to be looking directly at something in order to click on it. Windows in your peripheral are completely off limits unless you turn and face them. The keyboard in its current form is also almost completely unusable for me.

Glad to see others enjoying the experience because it truly is immersive on a whole new level, but I think this whole product line is probably dead for me if eye tracking is going to continue to be their sole input method.

Surprised to hear this @Tmelon - the eye tracking has been one of the most impressive features in my experience! Do you have an Apple Store nearby? If that's your biggest drawback, it'd be worth going in and letting the Apple Store employees check to make sure you've got it all set up properly. If they can help you get it sorted, so you can experience what I've been experiencing, that feature would blow you away.

At the same time, I experience exorbitant amounts of "screen shake" when walking while wearing the AVP, and others have told me they don't experience this at all. I don't know if I've ever experienced a piece of technology that responds so uniquely from person to person, for better or worse.

 

[Night Spring]

I'm not sure VisionOS 1.0 will prove conducive to an increase in productivity... if anything, entering the 3D world compounds the challenges created by multiple windows in a 2D space. But more pleasant? This is 100% likely to be the case for many users. It's a really enjoyable way to work, particularly if your work necessitates a layer of privacy even while working in public.

I can see how managing windows in 3D space can be tricky and possibly create problems, but I still think that if managed wisely, windows in 3D space could improve productivity. Like today, on my iPad, I was downloading files in Safari, then organizing them and moving them to my Mac using an app called FileBrowser. It would have gone much faster if I had both apps open and fully visible at the same time.

I was surprised when Apple came out with a very detailed list of ways to posture and position yourself when using the Vision Pro, but as I sat fully upright in a chair Starbucks, my laptop screen projecting virtually at an optimal height for viewing, I absolutely LOVED the wonders it was working for my posture! There's a lot of chatter about the health drawbacks of a device like this, but let's celebrate one of the health benefits: so often working from a laptop leaves me "hunched" over it. Today, I was working with better posture than ever before... and it honestly increased the entire AVP experience.

I suspected VP might help improve the user's posture by allowing them to do work while sitting upright, rather than hunching over a laptop or iPad. Glad to hear this works as I thought.

I don't know if I've ever experienced a piece of technology that responds so uniquely from person to person, for better or worse.

I suspect it's Apple's most personal device ever, perhaps even more so than the Apple watch. It has to sit on the user's face, which comes in all shapes and sizes, then it has to work with the user's eye sight, which can vary quite a bit from person to person. And then there are so many variables involved in how a user adapts to projected 3D space.

I think Apple really did need to release this to the public to get enough usage data to refine it enough for mass adoption. I've seen people say they should have released it as a developer kit, but I think that wouldn't get them enough users to test it among. Each first gen product is a learning process, but this one is even more beta than most.

 

[robgreene]

I can see how managing windows in 3D space can be tricky and possibly create problems, but I still think that if managed wisely, windows in 3D space could improve productivity. Like today, on my iPad, I was downloading files in Safari, then organizing them and moving them to my Mac using an app called FileBrowser. It would have gone much faster if I had both apps open and fully visible at the same time.

Remind me, do you own a Vision Pro at this point? I ask because I had a similar sentiment about windows and productivity in 3D space based on the promotional images and videos, but in reality it's proven to be chaos, and I think a lot of it comes down to how BIG these windows all have to be... each one takes up a TON of space! I believe future VisionOS updates will seek to rectify this in ways that COULD boost productivity, but for my money, it's initial implementation fell woefully short of expectations that were largely similar to yours going in.

I think Apple really did need to release this to the public to get enough usage data to refine it enough for mass adoption. I've seen people say they should have released it as a developer kit, but I think that wouldn't get them enough users to test it among. Each first gen product is a learning process, but this one is even more beta than most.

100%. I think they did the right thing releasing it. It's a device that will be great for those who choose to keep it, and will serve as a launching point for any future versions more suitable for the masses. It's fascinating: the Vision Pro is by far the most advanced and developed v1 product Apple has released, and yet can simultaneously feel "even more beta than most" at times. Quite the technological paradox.