Kinda doubt about Vision Pros' future.

[Night Spring]

Erroneous. The Macintosh was the first mainstream GUI PC.

Oh, so now you add the "mainstream GUI" after you've been proven wrong.

I think we've been spoiled by Apple's series of almost immediate successes, starting with the iPod, iPhone, iPad, and finally the Apple watch. These all either took off immediately on release or took at most several years to become mainstream. So the prospect of a product that may take more than 5 years and possibly closer to 10 to mature into mainstream seems like abject failure.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Oh, so now you add the "mainstream GUI" after you've been proven wrong.

I think we've been spoiled by Apple's series of almost immediate successes, starting with the iPod, iPhone, iPad, and finally the Apple watch. These all either took off immediately on release or took at most several years to become mainstream. So the prospect of a product that may take more than 5 years and possibly closer to 10 to mature into mainstream seems like abject failure.

AVP could also just be a Butterfly keyboard, TouchBar, Apple Car, AirPower mat or G4 Cube

Just because Apple has poured money into something doesn't in any way mean it's going to be a success

 

[Night Spring]

AVP could also just be a Butterfly keyboard, TouchBar, Apple Car, AirPower mat or G4 Cube

Just because Apple has poured money into something doesn't in any way mean it's going to be a success

Sure, that's also a distinct possibility, as I've said before.

 

[Pbwallstreet]

Oh, so now you add the "mainstream GUI" after you've been proven wrong.

I think we've been spoiled by Apple's series of almost immediate successes, starting with the iPod, iPhone, iPad, and finally the Apple watch. These all either took off immediately on release or took at most several years to become mainstream. So the prospect of a product that may take more than 5 years and possibly closer to 10 to mature into mainstream seems like abject failure.

No I have not been proven wrong. My point is that a lot of Apple products have been successful early on. But the main point is… you and others are not addressing the fundamental flaws in AR/VR products like the AVP.

My point is that it doesn’t solve problems for people to the point where they need it or even want it. And on this point, it’s not better than the current crop of computing products like smartphones, tablets, laptops, desktops…

It turns out that people don’t need or want to strap a pair of heavy ski goggles to their face to then get an imitation of reality (a video feed of reality) and to fumble with Spatial input.

Steve Jobs opined on AR/VR as well and noted that people wouldn’t want to wear these things on their face. And Apple started their R&D into the Hollodeck way back.

At this time, stats are on my side for the entire category of AR/VR. Including companies like Sony in the gaming space where these products aren’t taking after years of trying. And this isn’t a situation where all AR/VR headsets suck compared to Apple. There are some other products that blow the AVR away in terms of resolution, computing power, etc.

It’s about whether it adds value to a person’s life and part of that is some problems it may solve for people.

Steve Jobs famously stated at the first iPad launch event that for a tablet to have a reason to exist, it has to be better at certain things than a smartphone or desktop/laptop. And he listed those things.

The AVP fails in terms of its form factor for starters. That right there is part of why consumers will not buy it and/or use it, no matter its price. I would bet my farm that if Apple gave 1 million random people an AVP, most wouldn’t use it past the 2 week mark and would sell it.

Its fundamentally flawed form factor, as well as the inefficient spatial computing, and the imitation of reality all converge into a failed approach. Nothing will change this and we are probably 10-20 years away from something that people will “wear” to augment their life (e.g., AR contact lenses or very lightweight glasses).

 

[Night Spring]

The AVP fails in terms of its form factor for starters. That right there is part of why consumers will not buy it and/or use it, no matter its price. I would bet my farm that if Apple gave 1 million random people an AVP, most wouldn’t use it past the 2 week mark and would sell it.

This made me laugh, because I was basically given access to the first Mac computers for free -- they were just sitting in the college computer lab, and I could use them anytime I wanted. And I didn't use them.

But I do agree with you that in its current state, if Apple gave away the VP for free, a majority of people would stop using it after the first few weeks. Where we disagree, is that you say therefore this product is a failure and dead end. I think it may be a precursor to future products that people *will* use. Like how Lisa eventually led to the modern day Macs. Below, you say 10-20 years before AR devices achieve mass adoption. And you know what? I don't disagree. How long did it take from Lisa to iMac? That's the kind of time frame I'm contemplating.

Its fundamentally flawed form factor, as well as the inefficient spatial computing, and the imitation of reality all converge into a failed approach. Nothing will change this and we are probably 10-20 years away from something that people will “wear” to augment their life (e.g., AR contact lenses or very lightweight glasses).

 

[Pbwallstreet]

This made me laugh, because I was basically given access to the first Mac computers for free -- they were just sitting in the college computer lab, and I could use them anytime I wanted. And I didn't use them.

But I do agree with you that in its current state, if Apple gave away the VP for free, a majority of people would stop using it after the first few weeks. Where we disagree, is that you say therefore this product is a failure and dead end. I think it may be a precursor to future products that people *will* use. Like how Lisa eventually led to the modern day Macs. Below, you say 10-20 years before AR devices achieve mass adoption. And you know what? I don't disagree. How long did it take from Lisa to iMac? That's the kind of time frame I'm contemplating.

We are saying the same kind of thing. The whole AR/VR thing in its current form is in my opinion a dead-end for many consumers for the reasons I have stated.

Where it would make more sense is when it becomes deviceless or something very low profile and lightweight like contact lenses that draw power from a person’s cells through a biochemical interface or lightweight glasses.

Deviceless being digital objects, screens, and interfaces that can be seen and interacted with by the naked eye.

Apple and Microsoft both have had advanced research into deviceless AR/VR for many years. With a fully working setup, you can just display screens and software and information in your environment and interact with it unencumbered.

However, even in that future its adoption may be limited given other problems with the paradigm of AR/VR I have already discussed.

 

[heretiq]

Erroneous. The Macintosh was the first mainstream GUI PC.

Thank you for confirming that the following direct quote was indeed erroneous:

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

Most people in these forums are aware that the Macintosh was definitely not amongst the first generation of personal computers. It was Apple's sixth personal computer. And it also was not Apple's first computer with a GUI. That distinction belongs to the Apple Lisa. These facts support the following assertions:

1. The Macintosh is in no way comparable to the AVP which is undeniably Apple's first Spatial Computer.
2. The progression from the Apple 1 to the Macintosh took at least 8 years and 5 product iterations to achieve anything that can credibly be called mainstream adoption.
3. Judging the viability of a new platform by the first generation product is premature and short-sighted at best.

 

[Pbwallstreet]

Thank you for confirming that the following direct quote was indeed erroneous:



Most people in these forums are aware that the Macintosh was definitely not amongst the first generation of personal computers. It was Apple's sixth personal computer. And it also was not Apple's first computer with a GUI. That distinction belongs to the Apple Lisa. These facts support the following assertions:

1. The Macintosh is in no way comparable to the AVP which is undeniable Apple's first Spatial Computer.
2. The progression from the Apple 1 to the Macintosh took at least 8 years and 5 product iterations to achieve anything that can credibly be called mainstream adoption.
3. Judging the viability of a new platform by the first generation product is premature and short-sighted at best.

Yes I know the Lisa had a GUI. The Macintosh was the first mainstream PC with a GUI and came out merely about a year after the Lisa. It was priced much cheaper than the $10,000 ($30,000 in today’s dollars) Lisa and didn’t have the technical issues that plagued the Lisa.

The situation with the PC was that many of the attempts at it for years prior to the Macintosh were failures partly because they were mostly command line interfaces and in a lot of cases their expense. The Macintosh was a radical departure from all of them, both in its software and physical design.

The situation with AR/VR is not the same. There have been many AR/VR headsets for years that formed what was invented in the space. Apple brings very little that is unique to this space and their GUI and Spatial input isn’t that much better than other products like Meta. Importantly, Apple does not have a unique interface here like they did with the PC back in the early 1980s. Further, Apple’s design is in some ways not good: it’s heavy with an external battery and cord tethered from the side of a User’s face.

AR/VR dates back to 1961 and even earlier. Then there was the NASA AR/VR developments in the 1990s. The 2000s brought a lot of innovation with bigger name companies and startups getting in the space.

Overall, Apple does not have the same leverage in the AR/VR space they had when the PC era started in the early 1980s. They’re in a market now where people can buy a decent AR/VR headset for around $500 with a lot of the capabilities of an AVP.

 

[heretiq]

Yes I know the Lisa had a GUI. The Macintosh was the first mainstream PC with a GUI and came out merely about a year after the Lisa. It was priced much cheaper than the $10,000 ($30,000 in today’s dollars) Lisa and didn’t have the technical issues that plagued the Lisa.

The situation with the PC was that many of the attempts at it for years prior to the Macintosh were failures partly because they were mostly command line interfaces and in a lot of cases their expense. The Macintosh was a radical departure from all of them, both in its software and physical design.

The situation with AR/VR is not the same. There have been many AR/VR headsets for years that formed what was invented in the space. Apple brings very little that is unique to this space and their GUI and Spatial input isn’t that much better than other products like Meta. Importantly, Apple does not have a unique interface here like they did with the PC back in the early 1980s. Further, Apple’s design is in some ways not good: it’s heavy with an external battery and cord tethered from the side of a User’s face.

AR/VR dates back to 1961 and even earlier. Then there was the NASA AR/VR developments in the 1990s. The 2000s brought a lot of innovation with bigger name companies and startups getting in the space.

Overall, Apple does not have the same leverage in the AR/VR space they had when the PC era started in the early 1980s. They’re in a market now where people can buy a decent AR/VR headset for around $500 with a lot of the capabilities of an AVP.

I get it. You’re convinced that you have sufficient data points to extrapolate that Apple’s Spatial Computing initiative will fail. You are viewing the collective failures of Microsoft/Google/Meta, et.al. (attempts at AR/VR) and Apple’s first attempt at Spatial Computing with AVP as terminal failures and proof that there’s no there there and concluding that these failures prove that the Spatial Computing concept is DOA.

What this misses is how technology innovation works. Contrary to popular opinion, innovation is not driven by success — it is fueled by failure and learnings from analysis of technical and commercial failure mechanisms. It’s through this iterative process of failing, learning and trying new things that new technology and associated products are defined and refined.

Take the incandescent bulb as an example. Electric arc lights were invented 40 years before Edison succeeded with the incandescent bulb. The technology was severely flawed, inefficient and dangerous. Over that 40 year period two dozen inventors and their companies tried and failed. Based on your standard Edison should have concluded that the goal was not achievable because so many others had failed.

Thank goodness that Edison understood that failure was the key to success and was committed to failing as many times as required to succeed. This reportedly turned out to be 1,000 failures. It took Apple 4 product iterations to cross the chasm with the Mac. Why the insistence that Spatial Computing is DOA after only one product generation? And no, previous attempts at AR/VR were just that — AR/VR product initiatives — not generalized spatial computing platforms so claiming that they count as Spatial Computing failures is simply mixing Apples and lemons. 😉

 

[Pbwallstreet]

I get it. You’re convinced that you have sufficient data points to extrapolate that Apple’s Spatial Computing initiative will fail. You are viewing the collective failures of Microsoft/Google/Meta, et.al. (attempts at AR/VR) and Apple’s first attempt at Spatial Computing with AVP as terminal failures and proof that there’s no there there and concluding that these failures prove that the Spatial Computing concept is DOA.

What this missed is how technology innovation works. Contrary to popular opinion, innovation is not driven by success it is fueled by failure and learnings from analysis of technical and commercial failure mechanisms. It’s through this iterative process of failing, learning and trying new things that new technology and associated products are defined and refined.

Take the incandescent bulb as an example. Electric arc lights were invented 40 years before Edison succeeded with the incandescent bulb. The technology was severely flawed, inefficient and dangerous. Over that 40 year period two dozen inventors and their companies tried and failed. Based on your standard Edison should have concluded that the goal was not achievable because so many others had failed.

Thank goodness that Edison understood that failure was the key to success and was committed to failing as many times as required to succeed. This reportedly turned out to be 1,000 failures. It took Apple 4 product iterations to cross the chasm with the Mac. Why the insistence that Spatial Computing is DOA after only one product generation? And no, previous attempts at AR/VR were just that — AR/VR product initiatives — not generalized spatial computing platforms so claiming that they count as Spatial Computing failures is simply mixing Apples and lemons. 😉

Or, I’m right and the AVP like other AR/VR headsets are fundamentally flawed and won’t ever take with consumers.

 

[5097842]

I think most everyone would have doubts about the Vision Pro's future in its current form. Really needs to get less expensive and more useful. Not to mention lighter and more comfortable. I'm fully onboard with the idea of spatial computing, but the apps need to be as powerful as the Mac versions, not the neutered iPad versions.

They also need to make the device have much less friction to use. When I open my MBP, all my Spaces and open apps are there and ready to go. With the AVP, I have to put on the headset, power it up and plug it in, connect keyboard and mouse, open and arrange all my apps, etc. That's a lot unless I'm going to be on it for quite a while.

 

[cpurdy]

AVP is a portable giant screen for me. I'm currently 2000km from my office, but I brought my 200cm monitor with me, by way of the $3500 AVP (plus inserts and various other pricey accessories). So if you want a big monitor on the go, it's really the only decent choice, and you do have to pay out the wazoo for it.

Some day, maybe they'll deliver good out-of-the-box integration with macOS and iOS, which is slowly getting there (very slowly). In the meantime, this is an expensive screen, and there must be other killer apps for it, but no one has figured that out yet. 🤷‍♂️

 

[AdonisSMU]

AVP’s two main problems is that at $3500 it cant even replace a computer. Thats hard for people to swallow. The second is the weight of the device. Apple is still operating with the assumption that people are afraid of computers. People arent afraid any longer. Apple needs to stop insulting our intelligence and make Vision OS more capable like an actual computer in the traditional sense.

 

[Piggie]

I work with around 30 people, mostly male. Ranging in age from about 23 thru to 60
Most in their 30's to 40's.

Having spoken to most of them. Only 1 uses a VR headset and that's one his mate that he shares a house with owns.

Most have no real clue about VR headsets at all.
They all have various brands of Smartphones, and laptops etc.

And that's with the Meta Quest being the most popular by far.
There's not a hope in hell these people are going to spend $1000's on one.

Even at $299 for a Quest 3s which is an absolute steal with what you get for your money, they are not even interested enough to ask me anything about it or want to try it.

 

[Ste_S]

Or, I’m right and the AVP like other AR/VR headsets are fundamentally flawed and won’t ever take with consumers.

Yeah, they will. It’s just the tech isn’t there yet, and won’t be for a while.

I’m probably not the first to make this comparison, but the AVP reminds me of the Newton (and other PDAs). Interesting concept that appealed to tech heads, but didn’t land with the mass market until the advent of the iPhone. I suspect we’ll need to wait longer than 10 years though to get the AR version of the iPhone.

 

[Pbwallstreet]

Yeah, they will. It’s just the tech isn’t there yet, and won’t be for a while.

I’m probably not the first to make this comparison, but the AVP reminds me of the Newton (and other PDAs). Interesting concept that appealed to tech heads, but didn’t land with the mass market until the advent of the iPhone. I suspect we’ll need to wait longer than 10 years though to get the AR version of the iPhone.

You like many others don’t address the issues with AR/VR. You mistakenly seem to believe that this is a valid product category. Even with advancements like lightweight glasses that can do everything the current AVP can do, what actual problems does it solve for people. Why do they need it. Why do they want it. How will it get them to jump from what they are using now to that.

Or, how will it be something that is used regularly in their mix of devices and doesn’t collect dust in a drawer.

I can help you out here. It still won’t catch because it won’t solve enough problems for people and be valuable enough for them to buy it AND use it regularly. One simple example: text input.

We can sit here and talk about how… hey man, in the future the AVP will be integrated into your body and have biochemical interfaces and brain wave links to read your mind etc. Clearly, that isn’t the same product. We’re talking about a product category here that requires people to wear stuff on their face and has very limited practical applications for people.

 

[Amazing Iceman]

I'm getting tired of seeing the same arguments go over and over repeatedly in an endless loop.
You are all discussing about something you can't control, only because you have an opinion about it.

 

[HDFan]

Besides, what makes the spatial computing so special when there are smartphone and computers? What makes it so special to replace them?

If you owned one you would know. But maybe you still have a Black and White TV and are happy with it.

Why do we need it?

Why did we need the automobile when we had horses and carriages? Why did we need TV when we had perfectly good radios? Simply put it allows us to do things that we never could do before.

AVP is not something new or special as similar products

That is not what all of the reviewers say when comparing the VP to other VR products.

doesn't really stand out compared to other devices.

That's not what reviewers, and owners of both, say.

they chose AVP as a failure.

Certainly not a roaring success but as sales are right about what was expected it is hardly a failure.

 

[sunny5]

If you owned one you would know. But maybe you still have a Black and White TV and are happy with it.



Why did we need the automobile when we had horses and carriages? Why did we need TV when we had perfectly good radios? Simply put it allows us to do things that we never could do before.



That is not what all of the reviewers say when comparing the VP to other VR products.



That's not what reviewers, and owners of both, say.



Certainly not a roaring success but as sales are right about what was expected it is hardly a failure.

And yet, Apple is stopping the mass produce as the sale way below their expectation. Good luck on justifying their failures.

 

[Ghost31]

And yet, Apple is stopping the mass produce as the sale way below their expectation. Good luck on justifying their failures.

Yeah I’m pro apple vision and love the technology, but this is pretty damning. And not only did they stop production because they couldn’t sell the ones they have, they stopped production WHILE expanding to multiple new countries. So not only do we have enough for america and existing places for awhile…but even MORE countries as well? How do we have THAT much stock? It’s crazy

here’s hoping apple does something about the price

 

[Amazing Iceman]

Yeah I’m pro apple vision and love the technology, but this is pretty damning. And not only did they stop production because they couldn’t sell the ones they have, they stopped production WHILE expanding to multiple new countries. So not only do we have enough for america and existing places for awhile…but even MORE countries as well? How do we have THAT much stock? It’s crazy

here’s hoping apple does something about the price

You both are missing the point.
A new Vision Pro will be released in 2025. Once it gets announced at WWDC25, hardly anyone will want to buy the current version.
Apple already had plans to launch in other countries; no surprise here.
If they already have enough stock, it makes no sense to continue manufacturing and later have to deal with something that will hardly sell.
Nothing surprising here. We all know that when certain item goes low on stock it is most likely due to a new version going to be released in the near future. You don't know the whole story behind this decision, so how could you criticize it as if you were an industry expert?

 

[HDFan]

Apple is stopping the mass produce as the sale way below their expectation

Sony, the exclusive supplier of the high-resolution OLED displays in Vision Pro, only has the physical capacity to manufacture 900,000 units per year, and with two displays per Vision Pro, that put a maximum capacity on Vision Pro production at about 450,000 headsets for the year. That’s only slightly higher than the actual sales estimate The Information cites from Counterpoint Research, of 420,000 units.

Apple almost certainly could not manufacture as many Vision Pro units as it wanted, if market demand had turned out to be much higher than expected.

I really doubt that Apple considers actual Vision Pro demand much worse than mildly disappointing.

So not a runaway success but they will likely meet the expected number of sales.

Vision Pro Bites Dog

It’s almost as though — hear me out — Apple launched Vision Pro in 2023 for long-term strategic reasons, not with short-term sales in mind.

daringfireball.net

they stopped production

If true (no one really knows) could be due to their production limit.

 

[sunny5]

Sony, the exclusive supplier of the high-resolution OLED displays in Vision Pro, only has the physical capacity to manufacture 900,000 units per year, and with two displays per Vision Pro, that put a maximum capacity on Vision Pro production at about 450,000 headsets for the year. That’s only slightly higher than the actual sales estimate The Information cites from Counterpoint Research, of 420,000 units.

Apple almost certainly could not manufacture as many Vision Pro units as it wanted, if market demand had turned out to be much higher than expected.

I really doubt that Apple considers actual Vision Pro demand much worse than mildly disappointing.

So not a runaway success but they will likely meet the expected number of sales.

Vision Pro Bites Dog

It’s almost as though — hear me out — Apple launched Vision Pro in 2023 for long-term strategic reasons, not with short-term sales in mind.

daringfireball.net

If true (no one really knows) could be due to their production limit.

You literally described it as FAILURE. Do you know how many devices that Meta sold? Even they failed despite selling tons of them. Besides, links that I provided are the recent one while yours are not.

 

[sunny5]

Yeah I’m pro apple vision and love the technology, but this is pretty damning. And not only did they stop production because they couldn’t sell the ones they have, they stopped production WHILE expanding to multiple new countries. So not only do we have enough for america and existing places for awhile…but even MORE countries as well? How do we have THAT much stock? It’s crazy

here’s hoping apple does something about the price

Their expectation was a failure as they thought they gonna sold tons of them. At this point, it never did.

 

[avro707]

I cannot see it being a long term thing.


Too expensive and limited use. Maybe if they expanded it into the PC VR space so it could be used with PC games then that’s a big, big plus to keeping it relevant for longer.