That was the same objective with the iPhone and by extension Android.
Any consumer device felt a disruption.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Could Vision Pro replace your daily computer?
- Thread starter 1800AirTAG
- Start date
-
- Tags
- apple vision pro
- Sort by reaction score
Any consumer device felt a disruption.
It was? I don’t recall that being in the conversation around iPhone. iPhone is a product of Steve Jobs’ Apple and it shows. AVP is very clearly an animal of different pedigree.
And no, I don’t think this is going to disrupt anything.
VR needs to hit certain thresholds to be comfortable to use for a moderate amount of time (let's say an hour or so)*. It only started to hit those thresholds in the past 10 years.
And for use as a general purpose computer, those thresholds are even higher. The AVP is pretty close to that threshold.
The reason these devices are being pushed now is because technology has started to reach those thresholds.
People like to point out that there were VR headsets in the 90's, but until the last couple of years of the 90's, computers weren't fast enough to even output simple 3D-rendered graphics to low resolution CRTs at 90+ frames per second. Small screens had terrible quality. We didn't have cheap and small IMUs.
Oculus was started by a teenager tinkering in his parent's garage because he couldn't find any good VR options from any existing companies.
*yes, this will be vary from person to person. But I had a dozen family members playing Beat Saber and wanting to play more. If I played a game on one of those 36 degree FOV low framerate headsets from the 90's, I doubt I could have lasted 2 minutes without feeling sick.
Last edited:
- Game consoles: Apple makes more money than the biggest players combined
- Digital Cameras: Last year shipped a little over 8 million
- MP3 players: iPod is dead.. other brands are not worth spending any market research
- PCs: have been stagnant prior to 2020's COVID
- Mobile Phones: Moto, BlackBerry, Palm & Nokia are now doing... what?
People who mocked the iPhone and iPod said it wouldn't work. No physical keyboard? Not gonna work..
AVP can be the platform to develop the OS & apps. Hardware will eventually shrink to Google Glasses or contacts in 1-2 decades.
Rome, as they say, wasn't built in a day.
I'd likely stick to Macs, iPads, iPhone and Watch for the next decade but come 2030s I'd be embolden to replace all my 20s devices wit ha AVP.
The hardware that shrinks to lets say google glasses (it would not be or contacts, you still need external projection for contacts - contacts would be in addition to)... would not be the same functionality as the AVP... it would be strictly AR information based -- and it would mean moving compute down to be external like the battery (we have nothing in development or the drawing board that would not generate too much heat for anything that close to eyes). You are getting into scifi, wishes, etc. Other than the odd scifi technology that becomes reality, most of it is ... laughable in hindsight.
Apple Doesn’t Make Videogames. But It’s the Hottest Player in Gaming.
CEO Tim Cook quietly turned the iPhone company into a superpower in the videogame business. Now he’s fighting rivals in a multiplayer universe.
www.wsj.com
- Game consoles: Apple makes more money than the biggest players combined
- Digital Cameras: Last year shipped a little over 8 million
- MP3 players: iPod is dead.. other brands are not worth spending any market research
- PCs: have been stagnant prior to 2020's COVID
- Mobile Phones: Moto, BlackBerry, Palm & Nokia are now doing... what?
People who mocked the iPhone and iPod said it wouldn't work. No physical keyboard? Not gonna work..
This doesn’t back up your claim.
Loot boxes and in app purchases are like a drug, the little kids don't know any better.
Apple Doesn’t Make Videogames. But It’s the Hottest Player in Gaming.
CEO Tim Cook quietly turned the iPhone company into a superpower in the videogame business. Now he’s fighting rivals in a multiplayer universe.
Revenue is revenue. Why compete in a space that have entrenched players slogging it out. Just make money in the periphery where there is little no competition.
The fact that the tech exists to make this doesn’t magically grant it a purpose or make it less ridiculous looking.
Phones from 4+ decades ago to today.
Give enough time it can be put into contacts.
Phones from 4+ decades ago to today.
Give enough time it can be put into contacts.
There’s this thing called physics.
It will NEVER be contacts. You’ve drifted off into fantasy world.
Crack addicts bought millions of rocks, that don't mean crack is good.
And the disintegrating transporter of death?You lack imagination.
That was >1/2 a century ago.
For every item close, there are > 100s that are never close and as far as physics are concerned are impossible.
Imagination only gets an idea, an idea can be possible or impossible... Ideas are a dime a dozen.
Give it time that tech was developed by humans in the early 22nd century.
The point I am making is that given enough R&D resources any problem can be solved.
Quarter century ago top speed for consumer internet was less than 0.056Mbps and you couldn't use landline.
Fast forward to today and we have Internet on any licensed part of the world via satellites at 200Mbps.
The SoC of your Apple Watch has more raw performance than the computers used by NASA in the 60s.
You lack imagination.
That was >1/2 a century ago.
This doesn’t come anywhere near proving your point.
Where does the battery go in a set of contacts? Where does the heat go?
Seriously. You’re taking about straight up fantasy or magic. Here in the real world it simply isn’t possible to make what you’re describing. Not now, not ever.
Yeah, compare legal with illegal.
Addiction is addiction and the economic methodology behind both are exactly the same.
“Give it time” is not an answer. Scientists and technologists work within the existing laws of physics. They’re not magicians.
Future tech's future tech because they haven't R&D it yet.
Your point of view is hindsight. Before your 1st mobile phone you'd probably ask similar questions.
No, 'any' problem can not be solved... and businesses/universities have to chose between problems that have a possiblility of progress (not even talking about solution) and those that don't. Even then it does not mean a solution is feasible. We have been 30 years away from feasibly producing power from fusion... since I was going to school 35 years ago (and research has been ongoing since before I was born). We are still 30 years away... and that is a problem that we still believe is solveable. Transporters ... no chance... there are 2,700,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms in a typical body, and atoms are made up of quarks, leptons, and bosons of various types (not all we likely know and they could be made up of smaller particles). Assuming you could observe a the state of each of the particles without changing them and then assuming you can scan all of those all at one instance in time and the computer can calculate what is needed to recreate a perfect copy of it... It would then have to take 'energy' of immense amounts and create all of that matter at the same time. etc. etc. etc. The transporter was added to speed up story telling rather than shuttling everyone around... and it has no basis in any possible reality period.
Last edited: