Kinda doubt about Vision Pros' future.

[zakarhino]

The only gaslighting going on here is from a handful of know-it-alls who lack either the capacity or discipline to suspend judgment, listen critically and change their minds when presented with new information. If you took the time to either listen to Apple or read some of the thoughtful analysis from others who started by listening to Apple, you might see just how shortsighted your assertions are.

Apple is building a platform for spatial computing. This includes everything from the computing device to spatial computing UI/UX, data modeling/representation/persistence, app design/development/deployment/distribution, privacy and other frameworks required to bootstrap an end-to-end spatial computing ecosystem. It’s obvious that this encompasses AR/VR/MR **plus a whole lot more ** — so the know-it-alls are adding nothing but noise and distraction to the discussion by harping on just the overlap.

Suspension of judgment and an honest effort to inform oneself about Apple’s vision (vs trying to confirm preexisting beliefs) might allow an honest skeptic to see that what Apple is trying to do is much more expansive than prior failed AR/VR/MR attempts — including current Quest/XReal and the other examples harped in by the know-it-alls.

Net-net: Apple is using the term Spatial Computing because they are doing something related, but legitimately different and much bigger. Deriding this extraordinary effort by equating it to “just marketing” shows a lack of understanding and respect for Apple’s seriousness and investment of money and life energies into this platform. That is to be expected from trolling, not honest discussion.

I don't need Apple or a journalist to tell me how to feel about the device when my experience using Apple Vision Pro tells me it's not a different paradigm than other devices I've used such as Magic Leap, Oculus, Meta Quest, or Valve Index. I can make my own conclusions just fine. Like I said, there are differences and I can predict what Apple might do in the future to make that platform more 'ubiquitous' so to speak than the competition but being "AR/VR/MR plus more" in your words is not enough to call it a new paradigm in my opinion.

 

[heretiq]

Exactly - adoption. It’s how the usage of existing technologies changed over time. It’s also cherry-picked to show successful technologies.

That has nothing to do the core mechanism of a product changing from one technology to another. Maybe try graphing microwaves to teleportation pods.

Apple Vision Pro turning into a pair of glasses through which you look at real objects is probably closer to 200 years away than 20. It might even only ever be hypothetical, like anti-gravity or wormholes.

Seriously? OK. Here’s a specific reference to technology innovation that shows the same trend of shrinking cycle time over the last 250 years:

And before you try to obfuscate: let’s establish that silicon, optics, software and battery tech are not new — so the curves aren’t starting today — they’re in the midst of decades of improvement and are improving nonlinearly.

So, are you claiming that suddenly:

1. Technology innovation and adoption cycles are no longer shrinking?

2. Silicon and optics miniaturization as well as battery charge density and software improvements are no longer a trend?

3. Or are you claiming that those general technology trends somehow do not apply to Apple Vision Pro?

🤔

 

[heretiq]

I don't need Apple or a journalist to tell me how to feel about the device when my experience using Apple Vision Pro tells me it's not a different paradigm than other devices I've used such as Magic Leap, Oculus, Meta Quest, or Valve Index. I can make my own conclusions just fine. Like I said, there are differences and I can predict what Apple might do in the future to make that platform more 'ubiquitous' so to speak than the competition but being "AR/VR/MR plus more" in your words is not enough to call it a new paradigm in my opinion.

Ok. By that logic, the evolution of computer programming from: programming with gears >> then vacuum tubes and physical switches >> to machine code >> then imperative symbolic code, >> followed by object oriented programming, >> then declarative programming >> to machine learning and large language models >> to quantum coding .. were not a series of paradigm shifts because it was still just programming a computer. C’mon man! 😂

 

[boss.king]

What’s aspirational about it?

“Aspirational” is the word people use to justify overpaying for something. It’s like when people talk about “investing in” a piece of consumer tech. It makes the inflated price tag seem less stupid.

 

[ZiBart]

I disagree with the original poster. Apple’s history has been founded on reinventing personal computing and media consumption devices. This came in the form of the original Mac, iPod, iPhone, iPad, and now AVP. AVP is the evolution of all of these devices into one to a certain extent. Its logical and makes total sense. I would never buy one in its current form factor, but its gen1. I can see myself easily getting one and shifting my work flow in a future gen when the ridiculous snowboarding goggles become a wearable resembling something closer to regular glasses. But i totally understand that this requires several generations and most importantly, a good early adoption that can sustain Apple, the competition and developers interests. There is a need and a market for a more immersive entertainment, communication and personal computing device - that is for sure. Im hopeful that this will become the future, daily, all in one device it deserves to be and accessible to all. The current form factor of pc’s, phones and displays has reached its peak a long time ago with incremental improvements that have been refining instead of reinventing. Im glad that Apple has finally gone back to thinking different.

There will be ups and downs of this device for sure but i have zero doubts. this is the right direction. And Apple may be the only company in the world with the vision, influence and resources for a long trip to take us there.

 

[Stevenyo]

Vision Pro or AR/VR/MR itself is far from being essential from the beginning. That's a huge difference. Even now, AR/VR/MR devices still failed to convince consumers which is a main issue and yet, Apple's Vision Pro is more limited than others for gaming.

I mean personally, the fact that AVP isn’t for gaming is one of the main reasons I have one. I having tried some VR gaming, I just don’t get it. if I wanted to move around while playing, I’d go outside and play sports. But with AVP suddenly I have a better workspace in coach on a flight than I’ve ever had in an office before. The killer app for day one is extended Mac displays. Time will tell if anything else comes of it. If not, HMDs like xreal and viture will eventually have higher resolution and FOV for a better price and form factor. And VisonOS will go the way of the Newton or iPod.

The hardware is “good enough” and the software is fixable, but time will tell if Tim’s Apple will let VisonOS become a useful platform on its own or remain the overpriced Mac accessory it is today.

I love my AVP, use it for hours a day and am more productive than ever. But I think almost no one should buy this version. By the time the software is useful the hardware will be better and cheaper, and there’s still a very good chance Apple never lets the software get good enough to survive.

 

[AustinIllini]

Vision Pro is an alpha product. Much like the original iPhone, it’s about 3 versions from maturity.

 

[Cape Dave]

I disagree with the original poster. Apple’s history has been founded on reinventing personal computing and media consumption devices. This came in the form of the original Mac, iPod, iPhone, iPad, and now AVP. AVP is the evolution of all of these devices into one to a certain extent. Its logical and makes total sense. I would never buy one in its current form factor, but its gen1. I can see myself easily getting one and shifting my work flow in a future gen when the ridiculous snowboarding goggles become a wearable resembling something closer to regular glasses. But i totally understand that this requires several generations and most importantly, a good early adoption that can sustain Apple, the competition and developers interests. There is a need and a market for a more immersive entertainment, communication and personal computing device - that is for sure. Im hopeful that this will become the future, daily, all in one device it deserves to be and accessible to all. The current form factor of pc’s, phones and displays has reached its peak a long time ago with incremental improvements that have been refining instead of reinventing. Im glad that Apple has finally gone back to thinking different.

There will be ups and downs of this device for sure but i have zero doubts. this is the right direction. And Apple may be the only company in the world with the vision, influence and resources for a long trip to take us there.

But is that a good thing?

 

[Col4bin]

Why such negativity? I just don’t understand it.

Because AVP is an overpriced, polished turd plain and simple. Just because Apple releases something and all the fan boys fawn over it doesn’t mean that it’s infallible.

 

[Col4bin]

Your insistence on referring to Vision Pro as AR/VR/MR then applying your personal assessment of AR/VR/MR to Vision Pro is telling. The device creator (Apple) refers to Vision Pro as a Spatial Computing device (a new product category), explained what Spatial Computing is and how it is different from AR/VR/MR, and deliberately avoids the term AR/VR/MR because it is an incorrect categorization of the device. Is it that hard to approach this new device with an open mind and respect for the vision and life energies of its creators?

So you fell for Apple’s marketing. AVP is still a VR device regardless of what the company refers to it as.

 

[Col4bin]

You’re repeating yourself. You’ve got one major point. The market has already failed for VR. True, history has not been kind. Another perspective is that history shows a lot of interest in this area, a lot of people keep trying, but the right combination of capability and features has not been found. The Wright brothers were not the first to try heavier than air flight. Plenty of failed previous attempts often resulting in death. The Wright brothers were just the first to succeed. Does Apple have the answers? Only time will tell. I’m not betting against them. History tells me someone will eventually succeed.

It’s the format. A big clunky wearable won’t entice the masses. Needs to be embedded in glasses, contact lenses, or burned into our retinas. That’s the future.

 

[Blackstick]

It’s the format. A big clunky wearable won’t entice the masses. Needs to be embedded in glasses, contact lenses, it burned into our retinas. That’s the future.

I'm 40. Assuming I see 80... I don't expect this level of technology in simple glasses or contacts. My daughter is 6, maybe she'll be a very old lady when it happens, but it could also be her great grandkid that sees it around 2100.

"I am limited by the technology of my time." -Howard Stark

 

[boss.king]

"I am limited by the technology of my time." -Howard Stark

Fortunately, that quote didn’t end with “but I’ll sell you the unsatisfactory version for $3500 anyway and pretend it’s good enough.”

 

[Stevenyo]

I'm 40. Assuming I see 80... I don't expect this level of technology in simple glasses or contacts. My daughter is 6, maybe she'll be a very old lady when it happens, but it could also be her great grandkid that sees it around 2100.

There are already many glasses sized HMDs with fullHD 40-50 degree FOV AR displays available for a couple hundred bucks. Magic leap and HoloLens have been doing optical pass through and much more robust VR/AR with similar resolutions and FOV at AVP price points for years. I’d be shocked if an headset with 4k+ per eye with variable opacity optical pass through and 100+ degree FOV all in a slightly bulky sunglasses form factor wasn’t on sale by the end of the decade. Hardware limitations aren’t going to be the death of this.

Failing to get the software right could easily kill Apple’s version though. There are so many boneheaded software limitations on VisionOS at the moment, and I don’t really trust today’s Apple to let this platform flourish on its own vs try to sell it as an expensive additional accessory to your Mac and or Apple eco system.

Done right, a good Vision headset replaces all other devices and screens in your life and allows the winning HW/SW combo to be for the 2030s what wintel was to the 90s, or even more dominant.

Even if Apple has the skill to pull that off technically, I worry they’re too short sighted to cannibalize every other product line they sell by letting the VisionOS platform truly breathe free. Case in point, iPads and Macs have remained 100% siloed from each other software wise even as they run identical SoCs. The Apple that won’t let you run MacOS on the iPad is unlikely to do things like put health sensors, a desktop class OS, and a cellular modem into a headset when they could sell you a headset, a Mac, a phone, and a watch.

If the iPhone came out under today’s management I fear it wouldn’t have a music app built in, because Apple wouldn’t be willing to help the iPhone at the expense of iPod sales when they could sell you an mp3 player and smart phone as two separate devices. Hell they might try to sell you a phone, a separate internet communicator and a third iPod with touch controls just to triple dip rather than making one great device that can do all three!

If Apple is serious about winning the battle for the next computing platform, VisionOS has to match and exceed the usefulness of MacOS fast, not remain an iPad with slightly better “sidecar” feature. If they don’t set VisionOS free, someone else will build the headset and software combo that does and in 30 years when TVs, Laptops, tablets, smartphones, etc are trivia answers like phonographs, VCRs, and CRTs are today, Apple will be another Commodore, Atari, Nokia, or RIM, a slightly longer footnote that got passed up by their own hubris as the tech market changed around them.

Something like VisionOS is the future of computing. It will replace every device you own. And soon. But, as an Apple fan who’s made a lot of money betting on them and loves my AVP, I’m not at all confident 2020s Apple can get out of their own way long enough to win in this space.

Also, your 6 year old will only be 82 in 2100, assuming climate change or something doesn’t kill us all, she’ll likely be quite active and healthy well into the 2100s, no need to wait for her great grandkid who won’t even be born yet (if she and subsequent generations also have kids at 34 like you, her great grandkid won’t even be born until the year 2120!)

 

[heretiq]

So you fell for Apple’s marketing. AVP is still a VR device regardless of what the company refers to it as.

Hmm .. this comment and much of this thread reminds me of a very instructive quote: “Belief is the death of intelligence” by Robert Anton Wilson.

 

[heretiq]

There are already many glasses sized HMDs with fullHD 40-50 degree FOV AR displays available for a couple hundred bucks. Magic leap and HoloLens have been doing optical pass through and much more robust VR/AR with similar resolutions and FOV at AVP price points for years. I’d be shocked if an headset with 4k+ per eye with variable opacity optical pass through and 100+ degree FOV all in a slightly bulky sunglasses form factor wasn’t on sale by the end of the decade. Hardware limitations aren’t going to be the death of this.

Failing to get the software right could easily kill Apple’s version though. There are so many boneheaded software limitations on VisionOS at the moment, and I don’t really trust today’s Apple to let this platform flourish on its own vs try to sell it as an expensive additional accessory to your Mac and or Apple eco system.

Done right, a good Vision headset replaces all other devices and screens in your life and allows the winning HW/SW combo to be for the 2030s what wintel was to the 90s, or even more dominant.

Even if Apple has the skill to pull that off technically, I worry they’re too short sighted to cannibalize every other product line they sell by letting the VisionOS platform truly breathe free. Case in point, iPads and Macs have remained 100% siloed from each other software wise even as they run identical SoCs. The Apple that won’t let you run MacOS on the iPad is unlikely to do things like put health sensors, a desktop class OS, and a cellular modem into a headset when they could sell you a headset, a Mac, a phone, and a watch.

If the iPhone came out under today’s management I fear it wouldn’t have a music app built in, because Apple wouldn’t be willing to help the iPhone at the expense of iPod sales when they could sell you an mp3 player and smart phone as two separate devices. Hell they might try to sell you a phone, a separate internet communicator and a third iPod with touch controls just to triple dip rather than making one great device that can do all three!

If Apple is serious about winning the battle for the next computing platform, VisionOS has to match and exceed the usefulness of MacOS fast, not remain an iPad with slightly better “sidecar” feature. If they don’t set VisionOS free, someone else will build the headset and software combo that does and in 30 years when TVs, Laptops, tablets, smartphones, etc are trivia answers like phonographs, VCRs, and CRTs are today, Apple will be another Commodore, Atari, Nokia, or RIM, a slightly longer footnote that got passed up by their own hubris as the tech market changed around them.

Something like VisionOS is the future of computing. It will replace every device you own. And soon. But, as an Apple fan who’s made a lot of money betting on them and loves my AVP, I’m not at all confident 2020s Apple can get out of their own way long enough to win in this space.

Also, your 6 year old will only be 82 in 2100, assuming climate change or something doesn’t kill us all, she’ll likely be quite active and healthy well into the 2100s, no need to wait for her great grandkid who won’t even be born yet (if she and subsequent generations also have kids at 34 like you, her great grandkid won’t even be born until the year 2120!)

Love this! Very thoughtful and insightful dissent. I learned a lot from this comment. Thank you 🙏🏽

I do have faith in today’s Apple to navigate the challenges you outlined by making smart fact and intuition-driven decisions.

 

[heretiq]

Because AVP is an overpriced, polished turd plain and simple. Just because Apple releases something and all the fan boys fawn over it doesn’t mean that it’s infallible.

“We see things not as they are, but as we are” by Anais Nin

 

[cupcakes2000]

And oh, I am not a single PERSON (not sure what role gender has here) either

Gender has no role here, but the person you responded to didn’t imply that.

I get that it’s bad form to assume someone else’s gender, but are you honestly calling out the OP you’re referring to for mentioning their own gender?

That’s ridiculous.

 

[Ghost31]

This never gets old.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1758284774941299088

“This guy was wrong about iphone, therefore all your complaints about vision gen 1 are invalid”

gotcha

 

[cupcakes2000]

None of those are 'essential' either, which is why the world got on just fine before any of them existed.

Yeah but times change, don’t they? Obviously these things weren’t essential before they existed. For example the concept of the telephone wasn’t essential when it was first realised. No one can disagree that in today’s world a telephone as originally intended absolutely is essential.

A smartphone is not currently absolutely essential, but it’s sure hard to do certain things without one (in Europe anyway, with digital ID and banking and other essential services).

 

[zakarhino]

Ok. By that logic, the evolution of computer programming from: programming with gears >> then vacuum tubes and physical switches >> to machine code >> then imperative symbolic code, >> followed by object oriented programming, >> then declarative programming >> to machine learning and large language models >> to quantum coding .. were not a series of paradigm shifts because it was still just programming a computer. C’mon man! 😂

Very strange post 🤔

The shift from mechanical engineering to computer/software engineering or the shift to quantum computers is not comparable to the shift from Quest 3 to Apple Vision Pro, that's my opinion based on experience and nobody has given me a reason to believe otherwise. You won't find a single person alive (including myself) who thinks the steam engine, for example, is not a different paradigm than a machine learning model on a supercomputer so it's safe to conclude those are indeed paradigm shifts.

I'm sure somebody out there thinks moving from OOP to functional programming for example is a "paradigm shift" but that doesn't make their opinion insightful without convincing justification. To me it isn't, but that's just me. AI or Quantum computing is a different matter for example. Maybe they have a explanation for why they think that way but you haven't provided us with anything beyond: "Well Apple says-" as if Apple are the authority on this matter. Reality is, everyone's experiences are because that constitutes "reality." Until you can explain why YOU (not Apple's marketing team, not some journalist, YOU) think the AVP is a paradigm shift away from existing VR devices, I'll maintain you're regurgitating the marketing material blindly.

"By that logic, nothing is a paradigm shift because putting mechanical gears together is 'programming a machine' in the same way programming an LLM is!"

This is the truly bizarre part of your post because I didn't provide you with any logical framework to make that conclusion because that's not my position LOL. I simply stated an opinion based on experience and you projected a 'logical framework' unto it based on nothing. Who is this person you've invented? It's an incredible rhetorical cop out because it's practically no different from exclaiming:

"There have been no engineering paradigm shifts since the time of cavemen because it's all just interacting and manipulating matter!"

That's your apparent logical framework, not mine, because I never implied anything of the sort.

We're still waiting for you to explain how Apple Vision Pro is a "paradigm shift" from existing VR/MR/AR devices. Granted, perhaps you have a different understanding of a paradigm shift than I do. That's fine, there is no authority over language. The problem is you haven't explained it. As a reminder, your original justification for it being a paradigm shift boils down to "Well Apple calls it a Spatial Computer and they said it's different" (can you show us where they said it's different? Even if you can that still doesn't explain how YOU think it's a paradigm shift because again what Apple claims is irrelevant, they are not the authority on what constitutes a paradigm shift). Then you made an emotional plea to respect Apple's marketing terminology: "guys is it so hard to respect the vision and life energies of the creators!???"

Here's what you said:

Your insistence on referring to Vision Pro as AR/VR/MR then applying your personal assessment of AR/VR/MR to Vision Pro is telling. The device creator (Apple) refers to Vision Pro as a Spatial Computing device (a new product category), explained what Spatial Computing is and how it is different from AR/VR/MR, and deliberately avoids the term AR/VR/MR because it is an incorrect categorization of the device. Is it that hard to approach this new device with an open mind and respect for the vision and life energies of its creators?

Sorry I have a bad habit of making long posts. Please just explain in brief why AVP is a paradigm shift. We can ignore your interesting understanding of programming for the sake of brevity.

 

[heretiq]

“This guy was wrong about iphone, therefore all your complaints about vision gen 1 are invalid”

gotcha

There’s a difference between complaints and outright dismissal. The comment you quoted was in response to premature dismissal of the VP product/platform (which is what Balmer did to the iPhone and will forever be associated with being comically wrong about) and not valid complaints. That was pretty plain, but you may have missed it. 😏

 

[heretiq]

Very strange post 🤔

The shift from mechanical engineering to computer/software engineering or the shift to quantum computers is not comparable to the shift from Quest 3 to Apple Vision Pro, that's my opinion based on experience and nobody has given me a reason to believe otherwise. You won't find a single person alive (including myself) who thinks the steam engine, for example, is not a different paradigm than a machine learning model on a supercomputer so it's safe to conclude those are indeed paradigm shifts.

I'm sure somebody out there thinks moving from OOP to functional programming for example is a "paradigm shift" but that doesn't make their opinion insightful without convincing justification. To me it isn't, but that's just me. AI or Quantum computing is a different matter for example. Maybe they have a explanation for why they think that way but you haven't provided us with anything beyond: "Well Apple says-" as if Apple are the authority on this matter. Reality is and everyone's experiences are. Until you can explain why YOU (not Apple's marketing team, not some journalist, YOU) think the AVP is a paradigm shift away from existing VR devices, I'll maintain you're regurgitating the marketing material blindly.

"By that logic, nothing is a paradigm shift because putting mechanical gears together is 'programming a machine' in the same way programming an LLM is!"

This is the truly bizarre part of your post because I didn't provide you with any logical framework to make that conclusion because that's not my position LOL. I simply stated an opinion based on experience and you projected a 'logical framework' unto it based on nothing. Who is this person you've invented? It's an incredible rhetorical cop out because it's practically no different from exclaiming:

"There have been no engineering paradigm shifts since the time of cavemen because it's all just interacting and manipulating matter!"

That's your apparent logical framework, not mine, because I never implied anything of the sort.

We're still waiting for you to explain how Apple Vision Pro is a "paradigm shift" from existing VR/MR/AR devices. Granted, perhaps you have a different understanding of a paradigm shift than I do. That's fine, there is no authority over language. The problem is you haven't explained it. As a reminder, your original justification for it being a paradigm shift boils down to "Well Apple calls it a Spatial Computer and they said it's different" (can you show us where they said it's different? Even if you can that still doesn't explain how YOU think it's a paradigm shift because again what Apple claims is irrelevant, they are not the authority on what constitutes a paradigm shift). Then you made an emotional plea to respect Apple's marketing terminology: "guys is it so hard to respect the vision and life energies of the creators!???"

Here's what you said:



Sorry I have a bad habit of making long posts. Please just explain in brief why AVP is a paradigm shift. We can ignore your interesting understanding of programming for the sake of brevity.

Ok. I truly appreciate the life energy you put into this reply. I’ll ignore the rant and umbrage because frankly you’re entitled to that based on my response to your comment. 🙏🏽

Here’s my rationale for viewing AVP as a paradigm shift:

• This AVP release is primarily about building Spatial Computing infrastructure/Platform (sensors, real/virtual world and application programming interfaces, spatial abstraction/computation/design/development/deployment/distribution/privacy frameworks, operating system, and other foundational elements) with secondary focus on largely proof of concept demos vs mature applications.
• All of this is being reduced to and compared with a single application of a spatial computing platform (AR/VR/MR) which misses the point of the platform.
• In other words, Spatial Computing is a higher layer of abstraction that encompasses AR/VR/MR and provides tooling to create spatially aware applications that go well beyond AR/VR/MR (imagine a remote collaboration session with a colleague to visually inspect and adjust a coolant regulating valve in a nuclear reactor — where remote camera feed + sensor data + digital twin simulation + embedded industrial controllers are brought together in an integrated computing environment in real time).
• Vision Pro is a platform that is intended to realize this abstracted spatial computing vision. This is a fundamentally different and more ambitious vision than existing AR/VR/MR devices. And, no I’m not making this up — invest the time to go to Apple Developer portal and watch the Vision Pro presentations from Apple Engineers and you can see the entirety of the platform and imagine this and other possibilities for yourself.
• Vision Pro Version 1 is primarily focused on foundational technology frameworks and less so on applications — hence the lack of sizzle which will come later as a result of reduced app dev friction enabled by a well though-out platform.
• Net-net: the paradigm shift is from AR/VR/MR appliance to generalized Spatial Computing platform (appliance + frameworks). Obviously, some of this is my opinion, but it is grounded in what Apple says about the platform they are building — because *they* are indeed the authority on what *they* are building.

 

[G5isAlive]

Gender has no role here, but the person you responded to didn’t imply that.

I get that it’s bad form to assume someone else’s gender, but are you honestly calling out the OP you’re referring to for mentioning their own gender?

That’s ridiculous.

Mmmm you’re calling me out for assuming while assuming my intentions? lol. Ok, but nope was just asking a sincere question. Peace out.

 

[cupcakes2000]

Mmmm you’re calling me out for assuming while assuming my intentions? lol. Ok, but nope was just asking a sincere question. Peace out.

I didn’t assume - you clearly implied by capitalising the word ‘person’ and questioning the role of identifying one’s gender in relation to the subject, in response to a guy referring to himself as a man.

It’s fine, and there are plenty of problems with assuming a gender or stereotyping someone due to gender or even thinking about gender in some situations. This is none of that though.