Kinda doubt about Vision Pros' future.

[Pbwallstreet]

AVP and other AR/VR products are fundamentally flawed: they are a cheap imitation of reality. The best reality is… actual reality.

And Spatial Computing is inefficient input compared to traditional forms of computing like mouse and bitmap screen.

AVP and products like it will forever be niche in a consumer space and relegated to mostly being useful in commercial applications.

Microsoft learned this years ago with the HoloLens. And no I’m not saying that was a better product than the AVP but it was pretty groundbreaking.

Regardless, all these AR/VR products rest on a flawed concept of imitating reality and are not really solving any problems for the average consumer: they are creating their own set of problems.

 

[sunny5]

AVP and other AR/VR products are fundamentally flawed: they are a cheap imitation of reality. The best reality is… actual reality.

And Spatial Computing is inefficient input compared to traditional forms of computing like mouse and bitmap screen.

AVP and products like it will forever be niche in a consumer space and relegated to mostly being useful in commercial applications.

Microsoft learned this years ago with the HoloLens. And no I’m not saying that was a better product than the AVP but it was pretty groundbreaking.

Regardless, all these AR/VR products rest on a flawed concept of imitating reality and are not really solving any problems for the average consumer: they are creating their own set of problems.

Fundamentally flawed products can NOT be fixed or improved just like 3D TV. People have no idea what they are talking about which is quite insane.

 

[Abazigal]

AVP and other AR/VR products are fundamentally flawed: they are a cheap imitation of reality. The best reality is… actual reality.

And Spatial Computing is inefficient input compared to traditional forms of computing like mouse and bitmap screen.

AVP and products like it will forever be niche in a consumer space and relegated to mostly being useful in commercial applications.

Microsoft learned this years ago with the HoloLens. And no I’m not saying that was a better product than the AVP but it was pretty groundbreaking.

Regardless, all these AR/VR products rest on a flawed concept of imitating reality and are not really solving any problems for the average consumer: they are creating their own set of problems.

The vision pro feels like the iPad in this case. It's not really a "must have" the same way the smartphone and the laptop are for most people, but people like myself have found a way to integrate it into our daily workflows.

For example, actual reality is only as good as one's ability to actually travel to that physical location. Say a person is housebound (like a certain vtuber who cannot leave her house because she has no immune system), or someone like myself who is an introvert by nature and simply doesn't like to travel. I would mind paying just to view footage of famous landmarks, or a recording of a live concert, and not have to leave the comfort of my own home.

Sure, I can just view on my smartphone or 55" TV, but in the same vein, why do some people use an external monitor when their laptop already comes with a screen? It's the same logic here. Just because you can already do something using an existing piece of technology doesn't mean other people don't value the ability to do it differently (and potentially better) for their unique circumstances.

As for whether spatial computing is more or less efficient than keyboard + mouse also depends on context. In the classroom, I prefer an iPad + stylus over a conventional laptop most of the time, simply because I do a lot of writing. You can also use your AVP as an external display for your Mac, without actually needing to bring one around (useful for travel). It's not impossible to envision a scenario or two where it's not feasible to use a laptop and the ability to walk around with a wide field of view + both hands free will be invaluable.

For example, consuming content while lying down in bed, while not needing to hold up a tablet or smartphone. The days of sitting like a statue on a sofa might become outdated one day. The vision pro rethinks the way we consume content.

Traveling with Apple Vision Pro

The Vision Pro has quickly become an essential item that I take onto every flight. It’s a fantastic device to travel with—Be it by train or by plane, it offers an unparalleled opportunity to …

azadux.blog

This man also details his experiences flying with the vision pro.

Third, what's wrong with being niche? The Mac Pro is probably even more niche. If you ask me, it's a nice piece of tech to have, though I will likely wait till the 2nd or even 3rd iteration before picking one up.

 

[Pbwallstreet]

Fundamentally flawed products can NOT be fixed or improved just like 3D TV. People have no idea what they are talking about which is quite insane.

Agreed.

 

[Night Spring]

AVP and other AR/VR products are fundamentally flawed: they are a cheap imitation of reality. The best reality is… actual reality.

If that is true, why do people spend so much time watching TV/going to movies? Why is Hollywood such a huge industry?

I don't have the time or money to travel to every far-out corner of the world, but I can get a taste of what those places are like through photography and video. It's not reality, but it's an experience I can't otherwise have.

That said, I do agree that if the focus of VR/AR products is on just showing us places we otherwise can't get to in a more immediate way, or in imitating reality as in creating virtual worlds for gaming, then these products will fail. But Tim Cook is trying to focus on augmenting reality, not imitating it. That's why Apple has avoided the use of the term "virtual reality." What most interests me about the VP, and Apple's strategy behind it, is the focus on using it for productivity tasks. That's when products break into the mainstream, when they can actually enhance people's productivity. Will VP get there? We'll have to wait and see.

 

[Pbwallstreet]

The vision pro feels like the iPad in this case. It's not really a "must have" the same way the smartphone and the laptop are for most people, but people like myself have found a way to integrate it into our daily workflows.

For example, actual reality is only as good as one's ability to actually travel to that physical location. Say a person is housebound (like a certain vtuber who cannot leave her house because she has no immune system), or someone like myself who is an introvert by nature and simply doesn't like to travel. I would mind paying just to view footage of famous landmarks, or a recording of a live concert, and not have to leave the comfort of my own home.

Sure, I can just view on my smartphone or 55" TV, but in the same vein, why do some people use an external monitor when their laptop already comes with a screen? It's the same logic here. Just because you can already do something using an existing piece of technology doesn't mean other people don't value the ability to do it differently (and potentially better) for their unique circumstances.

As for whether spatial computing is more or less efficient than keyboard + mouse also depends on context. In the classroom, I prefer an iPad + stylus over a conventional laptop most of the time, simply because I do a lot of writing. You can also use your AVP as an external display for your Mac, without actually needing to bring one around (useful for travel). It's not impossible to envision a scenario or two where it's not feasible to use a laptop and the ability to walk around with a wide field of view + both hands free will be invaluable.

For example, consuming content while lying down in bed, while not needing to hold up a tablet or smartphone. The days of sitting like a statue on a sofa might become outdated one day. The vision pro rethinks the way we consume content.

Traveling with Apple Vision Pro

The Vision Pro has quickly become an essential item that I take onto every flight. It’s a fantastic device to travel with—Be it by train or by plane, it offers an unparalleled opportunity to …

azadux.blog

This man also details his experiences flying with the vision pro.

Third, what's wrong with being niche? The Mac Pro is probably even more niche. If you ask me, it's a nice piece of tech to have, though I will likely wait till the 2nd or even 3rd iteration before picking one up.

I never said there was anything wrong with something being niche. My point is that Apple doesn't make stuff to be niche. They are a global consumer software company and they only do things to get the big swaths of consumers to buy in. This is not happening with the AVP. Not going to make excuses for Apple. They believe in Spatial Computing as the next big computing paradigm. The problem is as I have described and as others have: it is a bag of problems from top to bottom... the hardware and the software.

It doesn't mean there isn't anything good about the AVP or that it can't be a breakthrough device to niche users. I'm not trying to take that away from anyone.

When I talk about reality, I'm not just talking about travel of course. I'm talking about everything in my direct environment, including other devices, people, things, screens, the sky, the sun, the everything... My 8k Samsung TV is obviously better in actual reality then an augmented rendition of it. My LG Ultrafine monitors are better in actual reality for the same reason. My dog is better in actual reality. Everything is, because it's not an imitation of it. And I don't have to have heavy ski goggles strapped to my face.

It's fine to use AR/VR to get experiences of other places, my point is that it's just an imitation of it. It's cool though, that some people will get use out of it that way, including yourself. It's not lost on me these kinds of use cases. In my own case, I found travel in AR/VR mildly interesting for about 10 minutes and didn't bother again.

I use an external monitor with my laptop because I need more screen real estate, and the screen quality is excellent on my pro displays including the colour accuracy. I'm in software development... I lead engineering and design teams and work with large enterprise systems. It's long days on the computer doing ground up software design and coding.

The AVP in my use cases is worse, not better, and therefore it is of no value to people like me, and there are a lot of people like me.

 

[Pbwallstreet]

If that is true, why do people spend so much time watching TV/going to movies? Why is Hollywood such a huge industry?

I don't have the time or money to travel to every far-out corner of the world, but I can get a taste of what those places are like through photography and video. It's not reality, but it's an experience I can't otherwise have.

That said, I do agree that if the focus of VR/AR products is on just showing us places we otherwise can't get to in a more immediate way, or in imitating reality as in creating virtual worlds for gaming, then these products will fail. But Tim Cook is trying to focus on augmenting reality, not imitating it. That's why Apple has avoided the use of the term "virtual reality." What most interests me about the VP, and Apple's strategy behind it, is the focus on using it for productivity tasks. That's when products break into the mainstream, when they can actually enhance people's productivity. Will VP get there? We'll have to wait and see.

You're missing the point: actually having the AVP on, you are imitating all aspects of your reality through Passthrough... a video feed of your reality. Take it off, and then watch your TV or go to a movie theatre, and now you're in actual reality with the highest fidelity rendition of that reality, including your TV, the theatre, the people around you, the food, and everything else around you. My point is that in a lot of cases, the AVP is superfluous and is a lower quality rendition to what it is superfluous to.

If Apple was really focused on AR, then this product is so far off the mark that it makes almost zero sense. AR demands a very low profile and lightweight product, like glasses or contact lenses, etc. with AR that you can be mobile with and interact with all aspects of your environment, not just sitting in a living room. The AVP is basically allergic to water, and it's so big and bulky with a tethered external battery with 2 hour battery life that it's an absurd product as far as applying it as a focused AR device.

Having said all this, I'm not saying the AVP is bad for everyone and it's not lost on me the niche use cases that it can serve.

 

[macfacts]

Third, what's wrong with being niche?

Poor business plan to make money.

 

[Abazigal]

Poor business plan to make money.

Better to sell more at a loss, right?

 

[heretiq]

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.

Agreed. My objection is to the contention that both VisionPro and Spatial computing are failures based on a contrived consumer success standard after only a year of commercial availability. That perspective is short-sighted as it either ignores or is ignorant of the technology adoption process which starts with highly targeted, discrete use cases then progresses to general use cases leading to consumer adoption.

 

[heretiq]

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?

I refuse to speculate on things I have no expertise in such as whether AR/VR are our future. What I do have experience and expertise in is technology adoption cycles after spending nearly 2 decades in technology planning for Fortune 500 companies. And based on that experience I assure you that judging a technology such as Spatial Computing based on less than 2 years of availability of a Proof of Concept device is short-sighted.

The attempt to paint Apple’s Spatial Computing initiative as the same thing as Microsoft’s, Google’s and Meta’s failed attempts at AR/VR is also dismissive and disrespectful of Apple’s efforts to actually build a spatial computing ecosystem by developing a variety of technologies and frameworks to empower others to build spatial computing apps vs just deploying AR/VR products which is all that Google/Microsoft/Meta have done to date.

I’ll leave the technology innovation to professionals who’ve invested their life energies building domain expertise and shipping real, paradigm changing platforms and products vs those just speculating.

 

[macfacts]

Better to sell more at a loss, right?

I never said that, you're the one wanting to do niche things.

 

[Abazigal]

I never said that, you're the one wanting to do niche things.

I am simply acknowledging that the Vision Pro occupies a fairly niche at the moment. I don’t believe it will stay that way forever.

 

[Pbwallstreet]

I refuse to speculate on things I have no expertise in such as whether AR/VR are our future. What I do have experience and expertise in is technology adoption cycles after spending nearly 2 decades in technology planning for Fortune 500 companies. And based on that experience I assure you that judging a technology such as Spatial Computing based on less than 2 years of availability of a Proof of Concept device is short-sighted.

The attempt to paint Apple’s Spatial Computing initiative as the same thing as Microsoft’s, Google’s and Meta’s failed attempts at AR/VR is also dismissive and disrespectful of Apple’s efforts to actually build a spatial computing ecosystem by developing a variety of technologies and frameworks to empower others to build spatial computing apps vs just deploying AR/VR products which is all that Google/Microsoft/Meta have done to date.

I’ll leave the technology innovation to professionals who’ve invested their life energies building domain expertise and shipping real, paradigm changing platforms and products vs those just speculating.

You’re making it seem as though Apple invented Spatial Computing. They didn’t. These kinds of products have been around for years and have not taken with consumers, including in gaming. Meta’s AR/VR for instance offers a lot of what the AVP does for a fraction of the price.

I don’t know the future for certain, but given what I see as fundamental flaws in these products, I don’t see a future in them.

Now, if you ask me if AR contact lenses or something similar have a future, I’d be more apt to say yes.

 

[Night Spring]

You're missing the point: actually having the AVP on, you are imitating all aspects of your reality through Passthrough... a video feed of your reality. Take it off, and then watch your TV or go to a movie theatre, and now you're in actual reality with the highest fidelity rendition of that reality, including your TV, the theatre, the people around you, the food, and everything else around you. My point is that in a lot of cases, the AVP is superfluous and is a lower quality rendition to what it is superfluous to.

If Apple was really focused on AR, then this product is so far off the mark that it makes almost zero sense. AR demands a very low profile and lightweight product, like glasses or contact lenses, etc. with AR that you can be mobile with and interact with all aspects of your environment, not just sitting in a living room. The AVP is basically allergic to water, and it's so big and bulky with a tethered external battery with 2 hour battery life that it's an absurd product as far as applying it as a focused AR device.

Having said all this, I'm not saying the AVP is bad for everyone and it's not lost on me the niche use cases that it can serve.

Well, maybe my use case -- wanting multiple application windows I can have with me, even when away from my desk -- is niche. But I know that when I'm working on my translations, I'm focused on my task, not on my surroundings. I wouldn't care that the "reality" shown through VP's pass through view isn't the actual reality I see with my own eyes. The pass through view is only there to allow me to briefly interact with my surroundings as needed without having to take off the VP. Why would I care if it's not quite as real as when seeing things with my own eyes?

As for TV or movies, I'm not going to watch TV while wearing a VP. I'm either going to take off the VP and watch the TV, or use the VP, most likely in theater mode, to watch TV shows and movies. I haven't actually tried watching videos in the VP, but all the reviews and accounts from people who have suggest that the quality of videos in the VP are as good or perhaps better than a regular TV set. So again, I'm not concerned that the "reality" I'm getting in the VP is less than what I get with my own eyes, as long as it's comparable with what I get from my TV set.

As for AR, yes, the VP isn't focused on the kind of AR you are thinking of, where we walk around with the device on while going through our daily lives, and the device gives us information about our surroundings, such as navigation directions, price comparisons, info about landmarks we visit, etc. The VP's focus is on a more stationary implementation of AR, which, now that I'm thinking about it, could be more of a type of VR than AR. And I need to go run some errands, so I'll leave this here for now, and perhaps I'll have more time later to write out my thoughts.

 

[heretiq]

You’re making it seem as though Apple invented Spatial Computing. They didn’t. These kinds of products have been around for years and have not taken with consumers, including in gaming. Meta’s AR/VR for instance offers a lot of what the AVP does for a fraction of the price.

I don’t know the future for certain, but given what I see as fundamental flaws in these products, I don’t see a future in them.

Now, if you ask me if AR contact lenses or something similar have a future, I’d be more apt to say yes.

I’ve not said that Apple invented Spatial Computing. What I said is Apple is pursuing “their vision for Spatial Computing.”

Apple has not been the inventor of many of the technologies that they’ve had success with. They are a verifiable fast-follower. Their strategy is to improve on what others have attempted and failed or foundered and move it from niche to mainstream.

They did it with personal computers after a decade of attempts by dozens of companies. They mainstreamed the GUI after Xerox Parc invented it and couldn’t get it out of the lab. They did it with Desktop Publishing, digital audio and the MP3 player, streaming media, the smart phone, tablet computing, wearables, and now they are tackling Spatial Computing. In nearly every case their initial attempt was niche, relatively expensive and dismissed as fundamentally flawed by naysayers.

The arguments against VisionPro are very familiar to those who have witnessed this process with multiple products introduced by Apple. These arguments are grounded in real defects and problems in Apple’s products but also reflect a degree of cynicism about Apple’s technological or leadership capacity to solve said problems. This pattern is on full display in this thread.

Time has shown that Apple know how to pick markets and develop technologies, ecosystems and products in a disciplined, iterative manner that incrementally expands utility and realize market potential. I don’t know if they will succeed with Spatial Computing, but I’ve seen them succeed enough times to respect their ability and singular mastery of the complex technology innovation process.

This process is messy at times and progress does not follow a straight line — it requires years of initial investment and iteration that produces slow growth which is then followed by exponential adoption and growth. We’re still in the early phase of Apple’s Spatial Computing technology innovation experiment and it’s too early to draw a firm conclusion in my opinion.

 

[Pbwallstreet]

Well, maybe my use case -- wanting multiple application windows I can have with me, even when away from my desk -- is niche. But I know that when I'm working on my translations, I'm focused on my task, not on my surroundings. I wouldn't care that the "reality" shown through VP's pass through view isn't the actual reality I see with my own eyes. The pass through view is only there to allow me to briefly interact with my surroundings as needed without having to take off the VP. Why would I care if it's not quite as real as when seeing things with my own eyes?

As for TV or movies, I'm not going to watch TV while wearing a VP. I'm either going to take off the VP and watch the TV, or use the VP, most likely in theater mode, to watch TV shows and movies. I haven't actually tried watching videos in the VP, but all the reviews and accounts from people who have suggest that the quality of videos in the VP are as good or perhaps better than a regular TV set. So again, I'm not concerned that the "reality" I'm getting in the VP is less than what I get with my own eyes, as long as it's comparable with what I get from my TV set.

As for AR, yes, the VP isn't focused on the kind of AR you are thinking of, where we walk around with the device on while going through our daily lives, and the device gives us information about our surroundings, such as navigation directions, price comparisons, info about landmarks we visit, etc. The VP's focus is on a more stationary implementation of AR, which, now that I'm thinking about it, could be more of a type of VR than AR. And I need to go run some errands, so I'll leave this here for now, and perhaps I'll have more time later to write out my thoughts.

I’m not taking away things you like about the AVP.

My point is that it is an imitation of reality. It’s worse and it’s a fact. That has to compete with actual reality that people live in and one where people do not have to wear a pair of heavy ski goggles hanging off their face.

So a person has a choice: do I enter into that imitation world, or do I not and experience the highest fidelity of reality which is actual reality. And that actual reality has 5 and 8k monitors and TVs with 99%+ colour accuracy, iPads with OLED screens, and everything else in it. Do I fumble around with Spatial Computing or get to the point with a mouse and bitmap screen precise to the level of 1 pixel.

My point is the AVP and devices like it are superfluous, and therefore in many ways useless and senseless in a lot of ways. Again, I am not taking away from those who like it and acknowledge some niche applications. But I don’t see a large number of people buying into this technology, no matter the price, and so far stats support what I’m saying.

Many smartphone users (there are over 1 billion) could jump and buy a Meta, which is quite comparable to the AVP and these AR/VR products have been around for many years. I used to own one as well. It’s way cheaper than an iPhone 16, but they don’t. Because it doesn’t add value to their life.

 

[sunny5]

I am simply acknowledging that the Vision Pro occupies a fairly niche at the moment. I don’t believe it will stay that way forever.

And 3D TV never left the niche market instead of disappeared.

 

[XboxEvolved]

It's difficult to say. If you look at smartphones for example they were things that were interesting to someone but no one ever really bought one because they were expensive, and two the main thing that most people would have used them for is as a MP3 player and we all had iPods for that.

Then the iPhone came and it was actually more expensive than the other smartphones but was just far more useful. I really don't think that moment will ever come for AR/VR devices in their current form, but they all have to take the steps they are now to get to where it is going to get, which ultimately I believe will be something similar to a Holodeck in Star Trek but that is at least two decades out.

I think once the power, fidelity, possible subsidization (through phone carriers and cable companies) and miniaturization is there along with the right price these things will at least do iPad numbers, but even that is three years out. Apple has the patience though and they didn't invest billions into this just to drop it.

 

[sunny5]

If that is true, why do people spend so much time watching TV/going to movies? Why is Hollywood such a huge industry?

I don't have the time or money to travel to every far-out corner of the world, but I can get a taste of what those places are like through photography and video. It's not reality, but it's an experience I can't otherwise have.

That said, I do agree that if the focus of VR/AR products is on just showing us places we otherwise can't get to in a more immediate way, or in imitating reality as in creating virtual worlds for gaming, then these products will fail. But Tim Cook is trying to focus on augmenting reality, not imitating it. That's why Apple has avoided the use of the term "virtual reality." What most interests me about the VP, and Apple's strategy behind it, is the focus on using it for productivity tasks. That's when products break into the mainstream, when they can actually enhance people's productivity. Will VP get there? We'll have to wait and see.

Unfortunately, AVP seriously lacks AR features instead of VR. Because most of features that you can mention are actually VR.

 

[Night Spring]

Many smartphone users (there are over 1 billion) could jump and buy a Meta, which is quite comparable to the AVP and these AR/VR products have been around for many years. I used to own one as well. It’s way cheaper than an iPhone 16, but they don’t. Because it doesn’t add value to their life.

True enough, and Meta's strategy for trying to add value seems to be to, as you say, imitate reality, what with their avatars holding virtual meet ups. The way Apple presented the VP, it suddenly dawned on me that I could use this to have the equivalent of multiple monitors without having to find space for them on my desktop. I suppose that capability was there with Meta's VR device for a while, but they hadn't marketed that. That's what I meant when I said Apple is focused on AR rather than VR. Meta seems focused on gaming and virtual meet ups -- that is VR. Apple is like, need another monitor? Here, place as many as you want in your view! It's augmenting my reality, by giving me more monitors.

Yes, the UI is very clunky at the moment, but you know, it reminds me of the first Macs. We got them in my college computer lab, I tried it for a bit, thought, "my god, it's way faster to type on the mainframe terminal, why would anyone bother with this GUI thing?" I never tried GUI again until I was forced to because PCs moved to Windows, and it became too difficult to stick with DOS. By that time, of course, GUI was a lot smoother, and I quickly got used to it.

Again, it's not guaranteed the past will repeat itself, but the possibility is there.

 

[Pbwallstreet]

I’ve not said that Apple invented Spatial Computing. What I said is Apple is pursuing “their vision for Spatial Computing.”

Apple has not been the inventor of many of the technologies that they’ve had success with. They are a verifiable fast-follower. Their strategy is to improve on what others have attempted and failed or foundered and move it from niche to mainstream.

They did it with personal computers after a decade of attempts by dozens of companies. They mainstreamed the GUI after Xerox Parc invented it and couldn’t get it out of the lab. They did it with Desktop Publishing, digital audio and the MP3 player, streaming media, the smart phone, tablet computing, wearables, and now they are tackling Spatial Computing. In nearly every case their initial attempt was niche, relatively expensive and dismissed as fundamentally flawed by naysayers.

The arguments against VisionPro are very familiar to those who have witnessed this process with multiple products introduced by Apple. These arguments are grounded in real defects and problems in Apple’s products but also reflect a degree of cynicism about Apple’s technological or leadership capacity to solve said problems. This pattern is on full display in this thread.

Time has shown that Apple know how to pick markets and develop technologies, ecosystems and products in a disciplined, iterative manner that incrementally expands utility and realize market potential. I don’t know if they will succeed with Spatial Computing, but I’ve seen them succeed enough times to respect their ability and singular mastery of the complex technology innovation process.

This process is messy at times and progress does not follow a straight line — it requires years of initial investment and iteration that produces slow growth which is then followed by exponential adoption and growth. We’re still in the early phase of Apple’s Spatial Computing technology innovation experiment and it’s too early to draw a firm conclusion in my opinion.

I didn't say you said Apple invented Spatial Computing. I took everything you said and stated that you are making it seem like Apple invented Spatial Computing.

Where you're wrong is that in nearly every single case Apple has come in with what we can call breakthrough products and services, they have not been niche. They have appealed to a very wide swath of consumers. 1. The first generation of the Personal Computers, the Macintosh, sold 280,000 units in its first 2 years. That is remarkable given lower populations, less globalization to easily sell into other countries (its sales were constrained in many ways to the US), lack of Internet to spread the word and personal computing which was new to everyone. 2. iPods and MP3s with iTunes. First generation iPods saw 600,000 units sold over its initial run and 10 million songs sold in iTunes within the first few months it launched. 3. Apple's initial movie rentals which played a part in putting physical movie rental stores out of business: quickly grew to millions of rentals after launch. 4. Smartphones: first generation iPhones and by the end of 2009 saw ~18 million units sold. First year units sold were 6.1 million (at a very high price) and that was constrained to just the United States in the first several months it went on sale. 5. Tablets: first year iPad sales hit 15 million units sold, constrained to certain countries. 6. Wearables: Apple Watch in the first year sold 12 million units.

Apple has sold perhaps around 200,000 AVP units to date. It's one thing to point out a pattern like people criticizing a new Apple product, but what you are doing is engaging in a fallacy. Just because some people may have criticized new Apple products in the past that then went on to be successful, doesn't mean the AVP will be successful. You are not addressing the actual criticisms of the AVP and products like it, but distracting away from that with your discourse.

When you look at actual reviewers that review Meta vs. AVP, there are a lot of people out there who go for the Meta because it offers a lot of features that are available on the AVP and some things are better on the Meta at a fraction of the price. It doesn't mean that the Meta is better than the AVP, it's just that the value is there for those into AR/VR.

Time will tell what happens, and my position is that the AVP and products like it will fail in the consumer space.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Guys the feature set doesn’t matter for mainstream adoption here.

People don’t wanna put a huge thing on their face

The form factor needs another decade plus of development

If one steps outside the tech sphere we are standing in here, this point is so clearly obvious.

 

[heretiq]

I didn't say you said Apple invented Spatial Computing. I took everything you said and stated that you are making it seem like Apple invented Spatial Computing.

Where you're wrong is that in nearly every single case Apple has come in with what we can call breakthrough products and services, they have not been niche. They have appealed to a very wide swath of consumers. 1. The first generation of the Personal Computers, the Macintosh, sold 280,000 units in its first 2 years. That is remarkable given lower populations, less globalization to easily sell into other countries (its sales were constrained in many ways to the US), lack of Internet to spread the word and personal computing which was new to everyone. 2. iPods and MP3s with iTunes. First generation iPods saw 600,000 units sold over its initial run and 10 million songs sold in iTunes within the first few months it launched. 3. Apple's initial movie rentals which played a part in putting physical movie rental stores out of business: quickly grew to millions of rentals after launch. 4. Smartphones: first generation iPhones and by the end of 2009 saw ~18 million units sold. First year units sold were 6.1 million (at a very high price) and that was constrained to just the United States in the first several months it went on sale. 5. Tablets: first year iPad sales hit 15 million units sold, constrained to certain countries. 6. Wearables: Apple Watch in the first year sold 12 million units.

Apple has sold perhaps around 200,000 AVP units to date. It's one thing to point out a pattern like people criticizing a new Apple product, but what you are doing is engaging in a fallacy. Just because some people may have criticized new Apple products in the past that then went on to be successful, doesn't mean the AVP will be successful. You are not addressing the actual criticisms of the AVP and products like it, but distracting away from that with your discourse.

When you look at actual reviewers that review Meta vs. AVP, there are a lot of people out there who go for the Meta because it offers a lot of features that are available on the AVP and some things are better on the Meta at a fraction of the price. It doesn't mean that the Meta is better than the AVP, it's just that the value is there for those into AR/VR.

Time will tell what happens, and my position is that the AVP and products like it will fail in the consumer space.

How is my position that it’s too soon to draw firm conclusions about AVP and Spatial Computing and highlighting the process of technology innovation distracting from the discourse in a thread titled “Kinda doubt about Vision Pros' future” ??

Doesn’t incorrect and selective quoting of facts to support a premature conclusion actually qualify as distracting from informed discourse? For example:

1. The first generation of the Personal Computers, the Macintosh, sold 280,000 units in its first 2 years.

Fact check:

1. Four generations of Apple Computers were introduced before the Macintosh
2. None of these Apple products were the first generation of the personal computer

Here are some of the first personal computers:

• Kenbak-1: Released in 1971, considered the first personal computer, with only about 44 units sold.
• IBM SCAMP: A prototype developed in 1973, and recognized as a revolutionary concept for personal computing.
• Xerox Alto: Developed in 1973, featuring a graphical user interface but was not commercialized due to high costs.
• S-100 bus computers such as the Sol-20 which was released in 1976 and sold 12,000 units were among the pioneering personal computers before Apple's offerings.

Here is the Apple Personal Computer timeline:

• Apple I: Introduced in 1976, around 200 units sold.
• Apple II: Introduced in 1977, millions of units sold.
• Apple III: Introduced in 1980, about 65,000 units sold.
• Lisa: Introduced in 1983, approximately 10,000 units sold.
• Macintosh (128K): Introduced in 1984, approximately 372,000 units sold in the first year.
• Macintosh Plus: Introduced in 1986, over 1 million units sold.

Sources:

• History of personal computers - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_personal_computers
• Personal computer - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_computer
• A Visual History of the Apple Computer - PCMag https://www.pcmag.com/articles/a-visual-history-of-the-apple-computer
• Fit at 40: the revolutionary Apple Mac in numbers https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...pple-mac-in-numbers/articleshow/107047120.cms

The point is that the Macintosh was introduced 13 years after the first Personal Computer and 8 years after the first Apple Personal Computer. When it was introduced, like its predecessors, it was niche, incomplete, criticized for its flaws and pronounced by some as having no future, and required years of iteration to improve and become mainstream.

AVP which is Apple’s first generation Spatial Computer is no different .. its first year sales are estimated to be three orders of magnitude higher than the Apple 1 — the true first generation Apple personal computer and approximately the same number of units as the first Macintosh (128K) — Apple’s fifth generation personal computer.

Now we are all participating in the current version of this timeless debate on technology innovation. You have your opinion that the product will fail in the consumer space and that’s ok. I have mine (which I have not stated in this thread because I think it’s too early to make a definitive claim about Apple’s approach to this technology and product less than two years after launch).

But we both agree that time will tell.

 

[Pbwallstreet]

How is my position that it’s too soon to draw firm conclusions about AVP and Spatial Computing and highlighting the process of technology innovation distracting from the discourse in a thread titled “Kinda doubt about Vision Pros' future” ??

Doesn’t incorrect and selective quoting of facts to support a premature conclusion actually qualify as distracting from informed discourse? For example:



Fact check:

1. Four generations of Apple Computers were introduced before the Macintosh
2. None of these Apple products were the first generation of the personal computer

Here are some of the first personal computers:

• Kenbak-1: Released in 1971, considered the first personal computer, with only about 44 units sold.
• IBM SCAMP: A prototype developed in 1973, and recognized as a revolutionary concept for personal computing.
• Xerox Alto: Developed in 1973, featuring a graphical user interface but was not commercialized due to high costs.
• S-100 bus computers such as the Sol-20 which was released in 1976 and sold 12,000 units were among the pioneering personal computers before Apple's offerings.

Here is the Apple Personal Computer timeline:

• Apple I: Introduced in 1976, around 200 units sold.
• Apple II: Introduced in 1977, millions of units sold.
• Apple III: Introduced in 1980, about 65,000 units sold.
• Lisa: Introduced in 1983, approximately 10,000 units sold.
• Macintosh (128K): Introduced in 1984, around 70,000 units sold in the first few months.
• Macintosh Plus: Introduced in 1986, over 1 million units sold.

Sources:

• History of personal computers - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_personal_computers
• Personal computer - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_computer
• A Visual History of the Apple Computer - PCMag https://www.pcmag.com/articles/a-visual-history-of-the-apple-computer

The point is that the Macintosh was introduced 13 years after the first Personal Computer and 8 years after the first Apple Personal Computer. When it was introduced, like its predecessors, it was incomplete, criticized for its flaws and pronounced by some as having no future, and required years of iteration to improve and become mainstream.

AVP is no different .. and we are all participating in the current version of this timeless debate on technology innovation. You have your opinion that the product will fail in the consumer space and that’s ok. I have mine (which I have not stated in this thread because I think it’s too early to make a definitive claim about Apple’s approach to this technology and product less than two years after launch).

But we both agree that time will tell.

Erroneous. The Macintosh was the first mainstream GUI PC.