Kinda doubt about Vision Pros' future.

[zakarhino]

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 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.

I also very much appreciate your detailed response and I genuinely apologize for my ranting and umbrage. Ultimately I really enjoy reading different takes on here because I've had my opinion changed a lot based on MR posters alone. 💚

I'm glad you posted what you did because you've done a fine job of summarizing my hopes and wishes for the Vision platform. I have made similar posts in defense of the future paradigm. I think we're very much aligned on the potential for what Apple calls "Spatial Computing" but my specific issues are with Apple's Spatial Computing as it exists today with AVP Gen 1. In short the first stepping stone is not enough for me to declare the paradigm shift.

I still take issue with your last bullet point though because the only authority over whether or not a new paradigm has been reached is reality (loosely defined, what I mean by "reality" in this specific case is the general public's relationship with technology). The smartphone did this. Meta claims they are ushering in the age of the "metaverse" which if their vision is fully realized might be a paradigm shift... but nobody's calling it that right now because they haven't done it yet. Their vision is still just a vision. That's how I feel about Apple's "Spatial Computing" right now, it's a vision that's not fully realized no matter how much engineering time and effort has been put into laying the groundwork. I guarantee you Apple believe the same, they know that we know their dream product is the glasses version. It's not an issue of AVP Gen 1 cost preventing the new era either, even if AVP Gen 1 were on sale for $100 I think the hardware and software is not at the level necessary for a Spatial Computing revolution.

Allow me to elaborate. My personal definition of "Spatial Computing" is:

1. A form of computing that truly merges the digital world with the physical world such that the lines are blurred. I think this can be 100% realized with a pair of see through glasses which we won't see for decades unless there's a yet to be achieved technological breakthrough (the opinion of those in the AR industry). We can get closer if Apple improves the issues with AVP Gen 1 that put that device specifically in the same camp as other VR/AR/MR headsets to me, namely: glare, FOV, weight. Once Apple achieves the Glasses product I don't think we'll see the end of the Vision Pro product line, it will remain as the option that lets you fully immerse in an environment because a glasses design can't achieve this.
2. Spatial Computing must also be ubiquitous, I must be able to 'pop in' to the digital realm with zero friction, similar to taking an iPhone out of my pocket wherever I am. However, iPhone has the drawback of everything being contained to the device and it cannot seamlessly interact with the real world, so that is not a truly frictionless digital experience for me. Example: real time insights and overlays based on what I'm looking at. The Vision platform will be able to do this eventually, maybe even AVP Gen 1 with some software updates, but the iPhone can never do it realistically. AVP gives us a hint at that with the "look up to drop down" menu used to launch the app springboard, control environment settings, and open control center. But that's just software. The hardware must also be frictionless, hence:
3. The hardware must reach a minimum threshold of invisibility. I should almost forget I'm wearing it. I mentioned this in point 1 but this is very important for me. visionOS 1.0 is better than any other VR/AR OS I've used by an order of magnitude but the hardware holds it back a lot. I always feel like I'm wearing a VR headset with AVP and that significantly blunts the experience for me. Whatever the screens did to my eyes concerned me enough to swear I'm never wearing them again until they have zero effect on my eyesight (I made a thread about this).

I bet Apple have a similar definition but they can't share it fully yet because the technology doesn't allow them to fully realize it. It would be awkward for them to announce features and share a vision not yet possible so they have to tease it instead.

Until the Vision platform sheds the glaring (pun intended) limitations of other VR headsets, it's not a paradigm shift for me because my relationship with the AVP is not dramatically different from other headsets I've used and my relationship with technology in general has not yet changed because of it. It is markedly better than everything else and I thought it was more enjoyable and useful than anything else I've used in the segment. I've been excited about Apple's first discrete AR product for YEARS because I knew they would come out swinging.

Right now based on my experience it's just a better version of what's already out there. A much better version with the groundwork set for something more substantial down the line, but going from a 720p LCD screen to an 8k OLED panel is not fundamentally changing how I interact with my Mac for example. Now going from a Mac to an iPhone is a different story because the iPhone as a technology has changed my relationship with the real world and the digital world. I cannot imagine going back to a world without smartphones, nobody can, which is why I think it's easier to agree that's a paradigm shift. As of today with Gen 1 AVP and visionOS 1.0 I can take it or leave it and enough people seem to agree. I can't in good conscious call this a paradigm shift... yet. I can only call it once we reach it. The promise of what's to come is not enough. I know people worked their behinds off to make this first product as good as it can possibly be with the current technological limitations but it's not enough for me. I made this mistake already after last year's WWDC when my expectations for Gen 1 fell short of what I actually used when I finally tried it for myself. I imagined myself using it all day, every day for all kinds of productivity and media consumption tasks but that didn't happen.

I hope that sheds light on why I called Spatial Computing a marketing stunt. As long as my relationship to Vision Pro is the same as other VR headsets, I'll call it glossy marketing. I wish it weren't the case and I believe it won't always be, but I'm done believing the hype until the reality of a product changes my life substantially.

Some of my benchmarks are:

1. Can I go grocery shopping with both hands free wearing a pair of Vision Glasses (or whatever they'll be called) so that I can:
   1. Interact with my grocery list in a floating window and not worry about getting my iPhone dirty because I'm sampling fruits at the market like what happens right now.
   2. AR overlays to help me shop: Directions to the right aisle for my next ingredient in my list, personalized nutritional information when I take a look at a product (tell me when a product contains something my brother might be allergic to), quick info about the company behind a product, where to buy more in bulk online, etc.
   3. It goes without saying but I can't look like an idiot with ski goggles and cable running down my jacket, nor can I interact with people via a fake pair of eyes. It's antisocial, which is more concerning than looking like an idiot honestly.
2. Can I quickly interact with digital devices in my home without opening a windowed app? It should feel like telepathy and be easier than flipping a light switch in a wall. Again this falls under the category of 'ubiquitous' computing
   1. One tap toggling of HomeKit lights just by looking at them
   2. Turn on my Mac's screensaver even when it's on the other side of the room
   3. Get sprinkler schedule status when I look at my garden hose (lol)
3. Is the device capable of rendering retina level resolution content? I can't easily make out pixels on AVP but plenty of complicated geometry still looks pixelated due to antialiasing of text, certain UI elements, etc.
4. The device must have ZERO consequences to eye or brain health. I got dizzy driving right after I took AVP off.
5. Can I input text as quickly (or quicker) than I can on iPhone?

I am very excited for that future. I'm not in the camp of people concerned with societal collapse because of these devices, I don't think it will happen.

Sorry again for the long post but you can tell I'm basically more excited about this technology's potential than basically anything else.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

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.

Thanks, I was indeed just referring to myself and the whole rabbit hole of gender didn’t even enter my head when making that comment. Hopefully I have further clarified and that’s the end of it. Appreciate it.

 

[Bodhitree]

The iPhone was revolutionary because you could use it on the move, it was convenient and had a lot of real-world functionality. The Vision Pro, not so much. The battery life and the hardware make it an inconvenient device to use outside the home, and for me this is a key point because it means all the things it does have to compete with the other things in the home: Macs, TVs, home audio.

In a way the smartphone introduced a new and simpler kind of computing, which allows people to get the things done that they have to get done. It has become essential because of digital ID, banking, and the always-on internet. I’m sure that Apple had in mind for ‘spatial computing’ to become a similar kind of new paradigm.

Is there a possibility for a similar kind of growth? I think there are some signs, the way Immersive Video is implemented it could grow into a key feature, it is a way of extending virtual presence into the real world and that is very cool. Further it could be a strong product for 3D artists, if the right software emerges.

But I don‘t see the kind of range of useful features that the iPhone had at launch. Really the core nature of it being a headset works against it, and I don’t think it will be a kind of universally-desired product. At best it will become an iPad-sized division, and at worst they will fail to scale it down to consumer price levels And it’ll never take off.

 

[G5isAlive]

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.

Thanks, I was indeed just referring to myself and the whole rabbit hole of gender didn’t even enter my head when making that comment. Hopefully I have further clarified and that’s the end of it. Appreciate it.

As far as I was concerned this was ask and answered and over with yesterday, not sure why this is the burning issue in an AVP situation discussion, but ok I am glad we apparently all three agree gender has no role in this.

Any new thoughts on the AVP?

 

[Borjan]

I also very much appreciate your detailed response and I genuinely apologize for my ranting and umbrage. Ultimately I really enjoy reading different takes on here because I've had my opinion changed a lot based on MR posters alone. 💚

I'm glad you posted what you did because you've done a fine job of summarizing my hopes and wishes for the Vision platform. I have made similar posts in defense of the future paradigm. I think we're very much aligned on the potential for what Apple calls "Spatial Computing" but my specific issues are with Apple's Spatial Computing as it exists today with AVP Gen 1. In short the first stepping stone is not enough for me to declare the paradigm shift.

I still take issue with your last bullet point though because the only authority over whether or not a new paradigm has been reached is reality (loosely defined, what I mean by "reality" in this specific case is the general public's relationship with technology). The smartphone did this. Meta claims they are ushering in the age of the "metaverse" which if their vision is fully realized might be a paradigm shift... but nobody's calling it that right now because they haven't done it yet. Their vision is still just a vision. That's how I feel about Apple's "Spatial Computing" right now, it's a vision that's not fully realized no matter how much engineering time and effort has been put into laying the groundwork. I guarantee you Apple believe the same, they know that we know their dream product is the glasses version. It's not an issue of AVP Gen 1 cost preventing the new era either, even if AVP Gen 1 were on sale for $100 I think the hardware and software is not at the level necessary for a Spatial Computing revolution.

Allow me to elaborate. My personal definition of "Spatial Computing" is:

1. A form of computing that truly merges the digital world with the physical world such that the lines are blurred. I think this can be 100% realized with a pair of see through glasses which we won't see for decades unless there's a yet to be achieved technological breakthrough (the opinion of those in the AR industry). We can get closer if Apple improves the issues with AVP Gen 1 that put that device specifically in the same camp as other VR/AR/MR headsets to me, namely: glare, FOV, weight. Once Apple achieves the Glasses product I don't think we'll see the end of the Vision Pro product line, it will remain as the option that lets you fully immerse in an environment because a glasses design can't achieve this.
2. Spatial Computing must also be ubiquitous, I must be able to 'pop in' to the digital realm with zero friction, similar to taking an iPhone out of my pocket wherever I am. However, iPhone has the drawback of everything being contained to the device and it cannot seamlessly interact with the real world, so that is not a truly frictionless digital experience for me. Example: real time insights and overlays based on what I'm looking at. The Vision platform will be able to do this eventually, maybe even AVP Gen 1 with some software updates, but the iPhone can never do it realistically. AVP gives us a hint at that with the "look up to drop down" menu used to launch the app springboard, control environment settings, and open control center. But that's just software. The hardware must also be frictionless, hence:
3. The hardware must reach a minimum threshold of invisibility. I should almost forget I'm wearing it. I mentioned this in point 1 but this is very important for me. visionOS 1.0 is better than any other VR/AR OS I've used by an order of magnitude but the hardware holds it back a lot. I always feel like I'm wearing a VR headset with AVP and that significantly blunts the experience for me. Whatever the screens did to my eyes concerned me enough to swear I'm never wearing them again until they have zero effect on my eyesight (I made a thread about this).

I bet Apple have a similar definition but they can't share it fully yet because the technology doesn't allow them to fully realize it. It would be awkward for them to announce features and share a vision not yet possible so they have to tease it instead.

Until the Vision platform sheds the glaring (pun intended) limitations of other VR headsets, it's not a paradigm shift for me because my relationship with the AVP is not dramatically different from other headsets I've used and my relationship with technology in general has not yet changed because of it. It is markedly better than everything else and I thought it was more enjoyable and useful than anything else I've used in the segment. I've been excited about Apple's first discrete AR product for YEARS because I knew they would come out swinging.

Right now based on my experience it's just a better version of what's already out there. A much better version with the groundwork set for something more substantial down the line, but going from a 720p LCD screen to an 8k OLED panel is not fundamentally changing how I interact with my Mac for example. Now going from a Mac to an iPhone is a different story because the iPhone as a technology has changed my relationship with the real world and the digital world. I cannot imagine going back to a world without smartphones, nobody can, which is why I think it's easier to agree that's a paradigm shift. As of today with Gen 1 AVP and visionOS 1.0 I can take it or leave it and enough people seem to agree. I can't in good conscious call this a paradigm shift... yet. I can only call it once we reach it. The promise of what's to come is not enough. I know people worked their behinds off to make this first product as good as it can possibly be with the current technological limitations but it's not enough for me. I made this mistake already after last year's WWDC when my expectations for Gen 1 fell short of what I actually used when I finally tried it for myself. I imagined myself using it all day, every day for all kinds of productivity and media consumption tasks but that didn't happen.

I hope that sheds light on why I called Spatial Computing a marketing stunt. As long as my relationship to Vision Pro is the same as other VR headsets, I'll call it glossy marketing. I wish it weren't the case and I believe it won't always be, but I'm done believing the hype until the reality of a product changes my life substantially.

Some of my benchmarks are:

1. Can I go grocery shopping with both hands free wearing a pair of Vision Glasses (or whatever they'll be called) so that I can:
   1. Interact with my grocery list in a floating window and not worry about getting my iPhone dirty because I'm sampling fruits at the market like what happens right now.
   2. AR overlays to help me shop: Directions to the right aisle for my next ingredient in my list, personalized nutritional information when I take a look at a product (tell me when a product contains something my brother might be allergic to), quick info about the company behind a product, where to buy more in bulk online, etc.
   3. It goes without saying but I can't look like an idiot with ski goggles and cable running down my jacket, nor can I interact with people via a fake pair of eyes. It's antisocial, which is more concerning than looking like an idiot honestly.
2. Can I quickly interact with digital devices in my home without opening a windowed app? It should feel like telepathy and be easier than flipping a light switch in a wall. Again this falls under the category of 'ubiquitous' computing
   1. One tap toggling of HomeKit lights just by looking at them
   2. Turn on my Mac's screensaver even when it's on the other side of the room
   3. Get sprinkler schedule status when I look at my garden hose (lol)
3. Is the device capable of rendering retina level resolution content? I can't easily make out pixels on AVP but plenty of complicated geometry still looks pixelated due to antialiasing of text, certain UI elements, etc.
4. The device must have ZERO consequences to eye or brain health. I got dizzy driving right after I took AVP off.
5. Can I input text as quickly (or quicker) than I can on iPhone?

I am very excited for that future. I'm not in the camp of people concerned with societal collapse because of these devices, I don't think it will happen.

Sorry again for the long post but you can tell I'm basically more excited about this technology's potential than basically anything else.

I think you are confusing Spatial Computing with “frictionless tech” or some other definition.

Frictionless tech absolutely speeds up and helps Spatial Computing reach mass adoption. But having a slightly narrow FOV in gen 1 doesn’t negate what the framework aspect of this all is.

 

[robertosh]

I don’t understand why people compares AVP with the 1st iPhone. That’s a really different history! iPhone success was majorly because it combined different already successful use cases in the same device: phone, mp3, browsing,etc. AVP enters in a market that has proven to have failed many times, because almost everything you can do with the AVP you can do with another device (and more conveniently in some cases)

And the references to Apple Watch.. initially in my opinion was a failure until they repurposed it from an iPhone companion to a health tracking device. The good thing that helped initially is that was “cheap” so it sold well anyways.

For the AVP they need to focus in something that you can get only with AVP and still don’t think that spatial computing is the thing. I have a 5k 40” inch monitor in my desk that was 1/3 the cost and I don’t need to wear anything.

 

[zakarhino]

I think you are confusing Spatial Computing with “frictionless tech” or some other definition.

Frictionless tech absolutely speeds up and helps Spatial Computing reach mass adoption. But having a slightly narrow FOV in gen 1 doesn’t negate what the framework aspect of this all is.

How can I be confusing the thing I just gave my definition for. I just said the tech feeling frictionless is one necessary part of Spatial Computing for me to consider it a paradigm shift. I don't care what Apple says it is. You do realize Apple don't own the term, right? We've been using that term professionally since before Apple announced anything.

I said "frictionless" applies to both hardware and software, so FOV is just as relevant as the software framework. The "framework" is incomplete for me to consider it a complete spatial computing platform. It doesn't interact with the real world in the way it should. Even if it did, again, the hardware makes it impractical therefore no paradigm shift. Ask yourself when did the smartphone become the smartphone? This is a serious question.

The underlying point is the Vision platform available right now, both in terms of hardware and software, falls short of what an ideal spatial computer should be to declare a paradigm shift. What you and others are doing is defending the Apple Vision Pro Gen 1, the actual thing we have now in our hands, on the basis of what the platform might be in an imagined future when not even Apple have shown us what the future of the platform is yet. A product setting the "framework" means as much as Meta setting the "framework" for the Metaverse future with Quest 3. It's meaningless.

I have an imagination for what Apple's Vision platform might become too. Doesn't make the AVP Gen 1 and visionOS 1.0 any more useful to me right now, does it?

 

[FromTheOfficeOfMrZippy]

🎉🍏🔮 Breaking News from the Techno-Castle of Innovation! 🚀🌈

Greetings, my dear fellow tech voyagers! Gather 'round and lend me your virtual ears, for I come bearing tidings of wonder and marvel from the mystical realms of Cupertino!

Behold! After a riveting marathon of negotiations that would make even the mightiest of demigods perspire, yours truly, Mr. Zippy, has just emerged from an epic summit with none other than the illustrious Mr. Cook himself! 🤯🔥

Picture this: amidst the flickering glow of holographic projections and the symphony of binary whispers, we delved deep into the very essence of innovation, dissecting the fabric of reality itself in pursuit of the ultimate technological apotheosis!

And lo and behold, amidst the cosmic dance of electrons and dreams, a grand revelation hath dawned upon us like a supernova in the night sky! 🌌🔭

Yes, my friends, prepare thine hearts for a fusion of past, present, and future unparalleled in the annals of human ingenuity! For the hallowed Zip drive shall ascend to the ethereal realms of Apple Vision Pro in the forthcoming quarter! 🚀💫

Oh, rejoice! Rejoice, I say, for this heralds an epoch of boundless possibilities and transcendental wonders! With the sacred bond of backward compatibility, we shall traverse the corridors of time with nary a hiccup, ensuring that the sacred rhythm of our daily lives remains unsullied by the winds of change! 🌀🔒

So fret not, dear comrades, for the dawn of a new era is upon us, and with it, the promise of technological utopia! Let us raise our digital chalices high and toast to the inexorable march of progress! 🥂🌟

Until we meet again, may the algorithms of destiny guide you unfailingly toward the shores of innovation and enlightenment!

Yours in the pursuit of transcendence,

Mr. Zippy ✨🍏

 

[nathansz]

And my point is that a decade ago, most people said "I don't even wear a watch, my phone tells the time."

Two decades ago, they said "My phone is for phone calls."

Four decades ago, "What would I ever need a computer for!?"

Maybe Apple won't make people see the value in Vision Pro, or maybe they will. But the market sentiment right now is meaningless.

Frankly, for most normal people the watch is still in the goggles category

Most people still don’t wear a “smart” watch

Nearly everyone now has a “smart” phone and/or a personal computer

As someone who grew up during the 70s/80s while computers were becoming normalized the iPhone quite frankly blew my mind when I first got my hands on one

The ipad and the watch I had no interest in. Ditto for the iGoggles

 

[nathansz]

I don’t understand why people compares AVP with the 1st iPhone. That’s a really different history! iPhone success was majorly because it combined different already successful use cases in the same device: phone, mp3, browsing,etc. AVP enters in a market that has proven to have failed many times, because almost everything you can do with the AVP you can do with another device (and more conveniently in some cases)

And the references to Apple Watch.. initially in my opinion was a failure until they repurposed it from an iPhone companion to a health tracking device. The good thing that helped initially is that was “cheap” so it sold well anyways.

For the AVP they need to focus in something that you can get only with AVP and still don’t think that spatial computing is the thing. I have a 5k 40” inch monitor in my desk that was 1/3 the cost and I don’t need to wear anything.

Well said

iPhone was a revolutionary product

The watch is a niche product. Not for me, but I understand who/what it’s for

The goggles I don’t even know what the point is

 

[Lift Bar]

Well said

iPhone was a revolutionary product

The watch is a niche product. Not for me, but I understand who/what it’s for

The goggles I don’t even know what the point is

AVP is the boldest example yet of Crossing the Chasm, pushing the limits of Apple's marketing prowess to reach the mainstream.

The Goggles look absolutely ridiculous and are severely isolating; challenging the boundaries of tech products for everyone but the most enthusiastic early adopters.

However, Apple's track record suggests that if any company can bridge this gap and make such a polarizing product a mainstream success, it's them.

 

[AustinIllini]

This never gets old.

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

Completely different. We're not saying AVP will never work. We're saying it's not ready.

iPhone was great but it definitely wasn't ready for most people when it was launched.

Anyone who says "there's no purpose for AR" isn't paying attention. That being said, this product is too heavy and its battery is too short for it to be a true AR solution.

 

[patmondal]

Why do I keep seeing this fantasy over and over?

The original iPhone sold 4x as well as expected. The iPhone 3G which adopted the standard phone subsidy model was a breakout hit.

By WWDC 2009, they had sold around 40 million iPhones:

View attachment 2350061

I think 3GS was the last phone to be sold as ATT exclusive. Those of us who didn’t want anything to do with ATT wouldn’t touch it at all. Once the ATT monopoly was broken, 4 onwards it meant mainstream.

To compare it to the AVP, for those who don’t want to look like a video game character, till the 3rd to 5th gen with a smaller form factor which is more similar to regular glasses and slightly better battery life and less expensive…. If it survives that long, then it’ll take off in popularity.

I’m not saying that the iPhone and AVP aren’t popular. Just not enough to go mainstream.

 

[Avatar74]

Apple's bread and butter has been convenience. MR will take off when it has a practical application, and there is one that's a little ways off from where we are now... purchasing convenience.

I've said before and I'll repeat here: The biggest mistake is trying to get everyone to go to the metaverse, rather than the other way around. You've got to make it more convenient to use MR than to not use it.

In that regard, the biggest segment they can go after is retail and the biggest thing they can do for retail is make it ridiculously easy for you to impulse buy, exactly what they did for music.

Forget about the current state of the technology right now... imagine being able to look through ordinary eyeglass lenses in ordinary frames, at someone wearing a jacket, and say, "I want that," and an order is created, direct from the manufacturer or distributor, in your size, to your address, billed to your account, all at the snap of a finger.

That's the kind of convenience that can't be ignored, and drives mass adoption. Now think bigger... interior decor, furniture, every day items you see. One of the biggest things we do in societies that can afford Apple tech is we want what someone else has that we don't.

That's trillions of dollars of impulse purchasing and whoever cracks that nut will obliterate Amazon.

 

[nathansz]

AVP is the boldest example yet of Crossing the Chasm, pushing the limits of Apple's marketing prowess to reach the mainstream.

The Goggles look absolutely ridiculous and are severely isolating; challenging the boundaries of tech products for everyone but the most enthusiastic early adopters.

However, Apple's track record suggests that if any company can bridge this gap and make such a polarizing product a mainstream success, it's them.

Interesting thought…

What about apples track record makes you think they could make a niche product mainstream?

 

[surferfb]

Interesting thought…

What about apples track record makes you think they could make a niche product mainstream?

Well, for one smartphones, smart watches, and tablets were all niche products before Apple released theirs. Apple has a knack for not jumping into a market until they think it’s ready to go mainstream, then iterate on the first couple of products and by the time the technology is ready for mass adoption they have a mature, refined offering.

 

[nathansz]

Well, for one smartphones, smart watches, and tablets were all niche products before Apple released theirs. Apple has a knack for not jumping into a market until they think it’s ready to go mainstream, then iterate on the first couple of products and by the time the technology is ready for mass adoption they have a mature, refined offering.

Sure

I think they did that twice successfully

With iPhone and ipad (though personally I still don’t get what an tablet is for)

I think they are maybe too far ahead with the goggles.

Just personal opinion. But I don’t think goggles are even close to ready for (or ever will be ready for?) mainstream

Maybe closer to newton territory on this one?

It just seems like a clunky expensive toy that’s too far ahead on the curve of usefulness

 

[scupking]

Just like 3D TV was going to be the future of TV. That failed. For near $4000 AVP is so over expensive… With that said I don’t think AV/VR will fail but the AVP is a failure at its asking price… I laugh at all the people that say it so great for watching shows and movies…. Guess what the $500 Quest 3 is also very good at doing that and you save almost 3,500. Sure the AVP has a higher resolution but the Quest 3 is still fantastic especially for the price and has a larger FOV. Quest 3 is more than enough for 99% of people that want to try out AR/VR and it can do more than the AVP.

 

[cupcakes2000]

Just like 3D TV was going to be the future of TV. That failed. For near $4000 AVP is so over expensive… With that said I don’t think AV/VR will fail but the AVP is a failure at its asking price… I laugh at all the people that say it so great for watching shows and movies…. Guess what the $500 Quest 3 is also very good at doing that and you save almost 3,500. Sure the AVP has a higher resolution but the Quest 3 is still fantastic especially for the price and has a larger FOV. Quest 3 is more than enough for 99% of people that want to try out AR/VR and it can do more than the AVP.

I’m not sure anyone said that 3DTV would be the future of tv. It’s just a type of tv tech that didn’t really take off, same as 3D movies. More ‘we can do that now so let’s do it’ you can still buy them, and stuff is still released in 3D.

Virtual, augmented and mixed reality IS the future of mobile computing technology though, this is clear to see.

The AVP in its current state isn’t going to be the killer device, that’s for sure - people aren’t going to walk around with these things stuck to their faces in the same number that people currently do with phones.

But be it with glasses, contact lenses or some type of temporary or indeed invasive implant, or some other as yet unrealised method, being able to summon the info you want somewhere within your peripheral vision is where it’s headed.

Whoever does it right will hold the world in their hands.

 

[Lift Bar]

Sure

I think they did that twice successfully

With iPhone and ipad (though personally I still don’t get what an tablet is for)

I think they are maybe too far ahead with the goggles.

Just personal opinion. But I don’t think goggles are even close to ready for (or ever will be ready for?) mainstream

Maybe closer to newton territory on this one?

It just seems like a clunky expensive toy that’s too far ahead on the curve of usefulness

You're touching on a crucial aspect of Apple's strategy with the Vision Pro. Apple is aware that this product category is not appealing to the mainstream. The vast majority of people are hesitant to embrace VR or AR, especially when it involves wearing bulky ski goggles. The same goes for science fiction AR contact lenses; they're just not something the average person is clamoring for.

The key to Apple's approach with the Vision Pro is the slow and deliberate establishment of a new category. They're not expecting overnight success; this is about laying the groundwork for the long haul, spanning decades.

The screen on the front of the Vision Pro, with its animations, is entirely a marketing tool, it’s not a functional feature. It's about acclimatizing people to the idea of wearing such a device, trying to make it appear somewhat cool and less intimidating. They’re trying to make it less gross!

The strap design is another example of prioritizing aesthetics over functionality, aiming to make the device look slightly more appealing than the typical double-strap design seen on other VR headsets, even though it does ship with both.

This long-term strategy is about positioning Apple for the next 25 years. Widespread adoption of this technology might not occur for decades.

 

[nmart1214]

You say that but don’t forget that both Google and Samsung entered and exited the VR market SEVERAL years ago. Go ahead and revisit this thread years down the line and see what a true failure AVP is. Have you even done research on XReal Air Pro 2? Lightweight glasses form factor that offers TRUE AR and the ability to dim the lenses from clear to dark “sunglasses”. And yet you have this idea that AVP in 5 to 10 years will be so advanced that you come back to this thread?

The Air 2 Pros are a closed source beta product, they are a bare minimum AR experience and they require external computing. They refuse to release their API like their competitors and the community is suffering for it. The microled looks really nice but it’s a noticeably small square in your vision, the FOV is plain bad.

They won’t be remembered in the grand scheme of things, Apple and Meta are going to be the ones defining this generation of MR/AR.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Forget about the current state of the technology right now... imagine being able to look through ordinary eyeglass lenses in ordinary frames, at someone wearing a jacket, and say, "I want that," and an order is created, direct from the manufacturer or distributor, in your size, to your address, billed to your account, all at the snap of a finger.

How is anything about that made better with an AR/VR headset ...vs just using a computer/device screen as we do right now?

 

[turbineseaplane]

The key to Apple's approach with the Vision Pro is the slow and deliberate establishment of a new category. They're not expecting overnight success; this is about laying the groundwork for the long haul, spanning decades.

Everyone seems to be forgetting that this isn't even the device Apple wanted to make.
They settled on this form factor and all its compromises because the tech to make the magical AR glasses isn't there and isn't close and the C-Suite said "ship something"


AVP just is what it is -- it's not necessarily some "step in the right direction".

Might be... Might just end up being a one off.

 

[ZiBart]

But is that a good thing?

Good for Apple and shareholders? Short term, probably not. Long term yes, if they can execute on their vision and be open to customer feedback along the way. I don't see this mainstream, or in a less ridiculous form factor for another 7 to 10 years. The eye tracking tech alone deserves this tool to be developed.

Good for consumers? To each their own. No for those who dislike major change and prefer slow refinement to what already works for them. Yes for those who like it when companies take chances and are excited by drastic changes. I think Apple has enough money to keep both groups happy so no need for the alarmism.

 

[turbineseaplane]

The eye tracking tech alone deserves this tool to be developed.

To be clear, eye tracking in VR headset is not even close to "new"
Apple didn't pioneer anything here