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.
Kinda doubt about Vision Pros' future.
- Thread starter sunny5
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I guess I should report in… but I came to say that I use the AVP more now than I did when I first received it on February 3rd.
My poor iPad is feeling lonely. I've preferentially gone to the AVP over the iPad for couch internet browsing and such. I do sometimes put my Magic Keyboard in my lap so I can type on various forums like this and Reddit and such -- I find dictating to Siri awkward for things like that and the virtual keyboard is too slow.
Now I'm totally doubt about AVP's future as they keep failing with what AVP is for from the beginning with many issues to deal with. $2000 low-end version wont gonna solve the problem cause it's still expensive and even Meta sold more than 20~40 million devices and yet still admitted a failure due to low usages.
It was too obvious after all.
I use mine weekly, mostly for entertainment. Watched The Wild Robot in 3D the other night, just spectacular. It’s been worth the price of admission to be a Guinea pig for apple. 😀
As someone really interested in this new paradigm since it was announced, I was happy to do the demo in-store recently. I found it a thrilling experience and it validated my feelings that as this market grows and more and better content is created, it will become increasingly ubiquitous.
The two reservations I had are of course the most common ones - price and weight - and while I do understand that Apple wanted to make a premium-quality physical product as a wrapper for all this amazing new technology, I'm struggling to get why they went quite as premium as they did. The aluminium and other high-end materials contribute directly to both the key problems the product has.
I am not quibbling about the price in a broader sense as first-gen new tec is always going to be prohibitive, and perhaps using lighter and lower-quality materials might have only knocked a couple of hundred pounds off its cost, still well outside my budget. But I might have been interested in picking up a reconditioned or a second hand one, however even at the right price point I think I would probably demur as the weight factor is just too prohibitive for me.
I really felt it when putting the thing on and fiddling about with the fit only marginally improved the situation. As I became immersed in the demo then I was not noticing it so much, but I know it would be a problem for any length of time.
Now a lighter and cheaper version around £2,000, that would interest me. I just hope that they can work around reducing spec in any area apart from the quality of screens, though I appreciate this is the biggest expense in construction.
The two reservations I had are of course the most common ones - price and weight - and while I do understand that Apple wanted to make a premium-quality physical product as a wrapper for all this amazing new technology, I'm struggling to get why they went quite as premium as they did. The aluminium and other high-end materials contribute directly to both the key problems the product has.
I am not quibbling about the price in a broader sense as first-gen new tec is always going to be prohibitive, and perhaps using lighter and lower-quality materials might have only knocked a couple of hundred pounds off its cost, still well outside my budget. But I might have been interested in picking up a reconditioned or a second hand one, however even at the right price point I think I would probably demur as the weight factor is just too prohibitive for me.
I really felt it when putting the thing on and fiddling about with the fit only marginally improved the situation. As I became immersed in the demo then I was not noticing it so much, but I know it would be a problem for any length of time.
Now a lighter and cheaper version around £2,000, that would interest me. I just hope that they can work around reducing spec in any area apart from the quality of screens, though I appreciate this is the biggest expense in construction.
Personally I'm okay with the price but only if the field of view was much larger. It surprised me that the Meta Quest VR headsets have a wider field of view than the Apple Vision Pro considering the price disparity.
Epic Fail. Never in a million years would I ever buy one. My dad, who is 96, thinks it is the best thing since sliced bread.
I experienced a compelling VR demo when I was in high school in the 90s and thought by the time I was in college it was going to be ubiquitous. See how that worked out?
Go watch the VR Computer Chronicles episode and see what I mean. It's always been and always will be the new paradigm right around the corner.
Some people like it and use it, sure, but I haven't seen anything to convince me it's ever going to be ubiquitous or commonly used daily by most people.
I think older people might be a demographic that could really appreciate VP. For younger healthy people, walking to their computer is much simpler and easier to do than putting the VP on. But when you are older and/or your mobility is limited, keeping VP with you and putting it on when you want to do computing tasks may be easier than walking to the computer.
Its over. They cant get the price down and there is just not enough interest in an iPad strapped to your face if it cant do anything other than be a Mac Mirror.
Me either
It demo's well and has some hyper niche use cases and users, as has always been true, but that's about it ... still
VR Gaming is the one thing doing "kind of sort of ok" ... and Apple, naturally, didn't even try on that front 🤷♂️
I don't regret buying it, even at >$4K.
And I didn't buy it primarily to play games or watch movies.
I also do work with it, specially when on the road and need to see multiple documents and apps opened at once.
And I didn't buy it primarily to play games or watch movies.
I also do work with it, specially when on the road and need to see multiple documents and apps opened at once.
Ignorance speaking at its best.
Last edited:
Well... I do feel like of all my devices, the one most likely to be replaced by the VP is my iPad. So in that sense, it kind of is an iPad on my face. Well, it'd be like multiple iPads on my face, since we can open multiple windows in the VP.
Anyone who says it’s an iPad strapped to your face hasn’t tried it. That’s just a preposterous statement to make.
I got mine about a month after it came out and I use it weekly. I use it for entertainment only, and that’s just fine. Watching movies in a virtual environment that truly makes you feel like you’re in a full scale theater is truly remarkable. I’ve enjoyed trying out new apps as they come out, watching immersive shows from Apple, and having it as a great accessory for long flights.
I got mine about a month after it came out and I use it weekly. I use it for entertainment only, and that’s just fine. Watching movies in a virtual environment that truly makes you feel like you’re in a full scale theater is truly remarkable. I’ve enjoyed trying out new apps as they come out, watching immersive shows from Apple, and having it as a great accessory for long flights.
This assessment makes the assumption that Apple’s intent is for the VisionPro to be a successful consumer device. This assumption is just wrong as it’s impossible to produce VisionPro at the scale required to match such a goal. Sony is capable of producing less than 1 million of the VisionPro OLED panels per year which at 2 panels per unit equates to a maximum of 500,000 VisionPro units per year. That is not consumer scale production and Apple is too sophisticated to be unaware of this and set ‘successful consumer product‘ as their goal for AVP.
Instead of making the mistake of substituting your opinion for Apple‘s intentions, just listen to what Apple has said about the VisionPro and base your pronouncements of success or failure on that. Apple’s stated intent for the VisionPro is to introduce and build an ecosystem for spatial computing. This is a paradigm change that will require years to build new foundational technologies and an ecosystem of tools and resources required to realize their vision for this computing paradigm.
The AVP is a commercial proof of concept targeted at demonstrating specialized Spatial Computing use cases (both business and consumer) and gaining feedback from early adopters — nothing more. And for that intent, the product is a success. Expecting to see a successful consumer product within one year of the introduction of AVP is not Apple’s intent and is short-sided or wishful thinking at best.
Last edited:
AR/VR markets itself already proven to be not successful and yet not useful for customers. Take a look at Meta's Quest series which sold millions of them and yet they concluded as a failure cause customers weren't using it that often. Think about it, why do we need it for? Whenever you wear a device, it's highly risky to use it around which already defeats and contradict the purpose of AR/VR.
Also, AVP was introduced as a consumer product, not a beta version. Was it intended for professionals? Nope. If they really wanna get feedbacks, then they shouldn't announce this until they ready but they did not. Even then, those early adopters complained a lot. Besides, what makes the spatial computing so special when there are smartphone and computers? What makes it so special to replace them? Apple was NOT able to answer that question instead of ignoring it.
The most important thing is AVP did not solve the fundamental problem for AR/VR: Why do we need it? They didnt solve many problems of AR/VR and yet they made more problems after all such as front heavy design, no hardware controllers, no hot swap battery, poor build quality, lack of uses, and more. Making a cheap version wont gonna solve the problem because it's still expensive and yet, too limited to use.
If you really think that I'm a short sighted, maybe you better check the history of AR/VR devices. They are still far from being useful in real life that a lot of people would use. Even if it's not, Apple didnt' advertise and prepare for professional uses unlike MS's HoloLens 2.
As others kept failing without solving serious issues of AR/VR, I doubt that Apple can fix it. Apple is literally not answering and solving problems instead of making more problems instead. That's why they have to stop making AVP asap which never happened to other Apple products before which is a shame. Besides, their total sales was so poor anyway.
For me, what makes spatial computing special is the possibility of having multiple application windows in any size we want, anywhere we are.
For example, I'm currently working on a translation project for a client, where the client sends me comments on my translation, and I refer to their comments while amending my translation. I have the client's comments in one file, and the text of my translation in another one. When I'm at my computer, I can open the two files in their own windows, though the size of the windows are a bit smaller than I like. And if I want to work in my living room, or work on this project while traveling on a train/airplane, then the windows I can have on my laptop or iPad are even smaller and hard to work in. With the VP, I could have the two windows any size I want. I could even open a 3rd or 4th window for other reference materials, and have all windows fully visible in full size at once.
I do think VP as it currently exists has many drawbacks, so that working on my iPad or laptop while constantly switching among my multiple windows is still easier and more convenient than working on the VP. But if Apple manages to solve those drawbacks (a huge if, I admit), the VP could be my dream computing device.
You are missing the point by fixating on these consumer-oriented arguments against the AVP then extrapolating to conclude that the device has no future.
This is short-sighted because it ignores or is unaware of countless examples of technology deployment and adoption which start with expensive products with obvious deficiencies and limited/specialized use cases .. which ultimately evolve and “cross the chasm” into mainstream adoption.
Apple are not idiots. The business leaders that produced the world’s first Trillion $ business are not going to repeat the failed strategies and tactics of others. And MR forum member opinions are not Apple’s strategies. Believing otherwise is shortsighted in my opinion.
Obviously, not every technology product that starts out expensive and niche cross over into the mainstream, and Apple's past successes don't guarantee future success. The fact is, with VP it's too early to tell, and declarations of abject failure or definitive bright future are both premature and shortsighted.
You are the one missing the point: There is no such thing as fix. AVP is not something new or special as similar products were released a long time ago and yet nothing solved the fundamental problems. Why do you keep ignoring that?
Before you even say short sighted, why dont you tell me what can you do with it? You simply saying that it's a future tech so it will be good. Tell that to 3D TV. Even if they can manage to create a device like a glasses, it still have a lot of problem as you are distracted by AR/VR while using and doesn't really stand out compared to other devices.
"Apple are not idiots"
They are idiots with several products such as Mac Pro 2013 and 2023, Touch Bar, butterfly keyboard, Magic Mouse, and more. How about they are charging tons of money just for a few LPDDR chips? I can highly say they are idiots and fooling customers with their own brand which is not the first time.
After all these, Apple still didnt fix any problems from AR/VR devices and yet they were proud to announce AVP for what? At the end, customers are the one who decide and they chose AVP as a failure. Hell, you cant even play games properly as Apple didnt add a hardware controller.
It’s no secret that the path to technological innovation is paved with individual product failures. That is self-evident. Calling VisionPro and spatial computing a failure at this point based on a contrived standard of consumer market success is premature — especially when examples of VisionPro successes in medicine, manufacturing, design and other use cases are a web search away. We can revisit this thread in 5 years to confirm if your pronouncements were prescient or short-sighted. Peace.
People aren’t necessarily calling Spatial Computing a failure. It’s just not taking in the consumer space. There are commercial applications and it’s not just unique to Apple’s Vision Pro.
Tell that to 3D TV and metaverse despite the technological innovation and your logic already failed. How do you even sure that AR/VR is our future? Besides, your examples are FAR from customer uses as Apple advertised their AVP as consumer products and it lacks a lot of pro features which is quite ironic.
Telling me a short sighted without proper info and evidence is already laughable. You are def not thinking of FAILED technology leading to wrong paths just like 3D TV and how do you even sure wearable AR/VR are our future? If you wish to argue, why dont you tell me how to solve fundamental problems first which you never answered and ignored?