You moved the goalposts from my original comment but we've reached the same conclusion.
đź‘Ť
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Video: A First Look at visionOS for the Apple Vision Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
đź‘ŤIt can make money because an architect/firm would charge the client more to provide AVP services.
An architect's client wouldn't need to buy the app, they would get access to their project in the app as part of the costs of the project. I can even see the client being sent a set of the goggles to use during the project. A large firm could buy quite a few to use with clients on all of their projects.
When competing against other firms, the wow factor of AVP exploration of the project is a differentiating factor.
Drones didn't make money until people started providing drone-related services.
Last edited:
You and I clearly think differently. I did some of what I describe using a calculator before computers were mainstream, then wrote software taking advantage of DEC PDPs as computers became financially more cost effective tools (~$10k instead of ~$100k at the low end). I expect devs to similarly jump on the AVP tool.
My point is that I expect forward thinkers to find uses for the AVP tool, rather than that the AVP tool needs to fit into some pre-existing consumer demand.
You say "It’s hard for me to see how Vision Pro becomes a successful new platform if the primary buyers are niche professional users only." I suggest that if professional users use them well, then consumer usages will follow. But there should be no need for immediate consumer acceptance. Unfortunately a lot of commenters seem to be trying to create an immediate need for consumer acceptance.
Last edited:
Forward thinkers? Is that your ego showing? Geez.
You completely ignored my point that AR and VR tools have existed for many years and many of the (obvious) use cases you drone on about could be accomplished with that hardware. Yet that hasn’t really happened. Will the Vision Pro convince these professionals that they need an AR/VR tool? Will enough invest to make it worth AutoDesk’s time to build an app?
It’s not hard to see the obvious use cases for AR and VR. We’ve all watched the same sci-fi. But do people want this stuff? If only a handful of professionals use it, it’s dead. Do you really think Apple invested the time and resources they did in order to build this new platform for niche professional users? Give me a break. There is most definitely a need for immediate consumer acceptance.
I’m not an idiot. I get the theoretical ways these fantasy features can be monetized. None of this stuff happens without volume. If 10,000 architects buy Vision Pros, is it worth AutoDesk’s time to develop an app and service like the one you describe? Maybe. Will customers pay extra for the experience? Maybe. There are a lot of variables.
This is nothing like drones. Drones didn’t require third parties to develop software in order to enable drone-related services. Developers aren’t going to invest time and resources into developing for a platform with a very limited installed base. Look at AppleTV. Where are the apps? The Vision platform is designed for and, so far, marketed towards consumers, not business and certainly not towards niche professional use cases. If consumers don’t embrace it, developers probably won’t either.
Relax dude, you're the one who asked how the Architecture use case could make money.
How about everyone calm down and let's just see how the market plays out. Maybe the optimist are correct, or maybe the cynics are. No one knows until AVP is or is not successful.
Like I said, we clearly disagree.
Your creation of a need for immediate consumer acceptance means by definition that if immediate consumer acceptance does not happen the AVP is a fail. I disagree. Just let the AVP evolve, Apple can afford it...
Sure, they can afford it. They can also afford to do a lot of other things. That said, I doubt the shareholders and BOD will sit back and let them keep lighting money on fire if the Vision Pro isn't a success. Consumer acceptance is critical. Without it, there won't be any worthwhile apps and the platform will essentially be reduced to a fancy portable media playback device and virtual monitors, neither of which is going to move a lot of units. That would most definitely be a fail. Niche professional use cases alone aren't going to make the Vision platform a success.
Surely the BOD is aware that this is a *platform* launch with gen1 hardware, and are read in to the 3+ year roadmap…because that’s how Board’s work.
🙄
Yes and no. If it woefully fails to meet whatever expectations they have set, they'll re-evaluate, but yes, I agree, they will give the platform time to develop and hopefully build consumer interest. That said, they didn't create a whole new platform like this to be satisfied with a few niche professional customers, as others have suggested.
I mean that people seem to have projected their own ideas onto what the product was rather than paying attention to what Apple was showing.
People will either look at the limited information provided by Apple as to how they see it being used, or will project their own ideas onto it.
Apple isn't showing anything new that will make people see the practical application of the AVP. As others have mentioned, their needs to be some widespread consumer acceptance or it will die on the vine.
Of course the AVP could remain a product for specialized uses but I don't see Apple doing this. Even a super expensive Mac Pro is just a more powerful computer that enables users to do more.
The iPhone was different enough yet practical enough that customers lined up to buy it.
So far I just see the AVP as a different way to view and use information, but I don't see how it's much better. But it's still early and I expect we'll learn more in time.
Kind of ruins the magic doesn’t it?
Y'all need to re-read. No one said that niche professional customers is all that AVP would ever be. The point is that niche professional customers justify the AVP concept from day one such that your words: "need for immediate consumer acceptance" [words yours, emphasis mine] is wrong.
Last edited:
Niche professional use does not justify anything. The entire concept withers on the vine without consumer acceptance. Developers aren't going to waste their time developing for niche professional markets. Without consumer sales, there's no incentive for anyone, including Apple, to invest in the platform. Furthermore, all of these niche professional users you think will prop up the Vision Pro could all be using a Quest or HoloLens right now...yet they're not. Why? Maybe because most commercial users simply don't see the value in this type of tech? Because no one is developing professional apps? Because 99% of people who buy AR/VR headsets use them for gaming? But, by all means, keep deluding yourself that a handful of professional users with custom apps will make this platform a success.
Yup, we continue to disagree. ;~). The >$10B CAD industry developed around professional use, not consumers. IMO the AVP is or will be an evolutionary part of that solid professional-usage based industry.
Certainly AVP will get to consumers, either quickly or slowly. The existing evolutionary-but-limited products like Hololens help prove that; kudos to MS for leading. But consumer immediacy is not a prerequisite for long term success in the AVP product line.
Sure, keep telling yourself that. The fact that this huge CAD industry has not embraced existing AR/VR solutions is very telling. What makes Vision Pro different? Most CAD companies don't support any of Apple's platforms and the ones that do only offer a limited set of tools compared to what is available on Windows. You think Vision Pro is going to convince them to finally embrace Apple? That's funny.
Good points...
But my CAD example was to show that a large important field can evolve without immediate consumer acceptance. IMO AVP can do that. Your commentary about AR/VR being largely missing from CAD (Trimble's SketchUp being a notable exception) is very relevant, however. My hope/expectation is that the new level of competence AVP presents sets new things to happening in the space, and I do not predicate forward progress on immediate low-level consumer acceptance.
Last edited:
Believe me, I get where you're coming from. I just think your perspective is overly rose-colored. Most professional software, especially engineering, architecture, etc, is Windows-based. There are very few Apple-based options, if any. There's no incentive for a Windows-centric professional software developer to develop for Vision Pro unless Vision Pro is widely adopted. If those same developers can't be bothered to develop for iOS or the Mac, there's absolutely no way they are going to allocate resources to VisionOS.
Vision Pro faces a tough battle for widespread acceptance. I firmly believe that most people won't want to wear something akin to (heavy) ski goggles for hours every day. While I find Vision Pro's huge virtual screens very cool and can't wait to experience them, I'm also not convinced that this feature will ultimately sell units. The Environments feature is very cool too, but I wonder if it's something that will really resonate with users. It looks great in a demo and I'm sure it will be very cool to experience, but does it have staying power or will the novelty wear off?
As a fitness tool, I can (maybe) see using Vision Pro for cardio. I'd much rather pretend to be on a nice bike ride through the alps than stare at the gym wall when I'm on the stationary bike. Vision Pro is obviously an amazing portable media player with the obvious downside that only one person can watch/play. It clearly has the potential to be an amazing gaming device, but Apple has never understood gaming. Apple Arcade is laughable. Most of the games look no better than IIGS or Amiga games from the late 80s. Apple Arcade is a time warp. That level of gaming is not going to attract serious gamers to Vision Pro.
Will Apple get AAA titles and make Vision Pro the premiere VR gaming platform? The hardware seems primed, but I think they will continue to resist going all in on gaming. Also, to be clear, I understand that Apple makes a ton of money in gaming. I'm talking about game quality. Hardcore gamers spend more than Vision Pro on a gaming rig, so they are an ideal customer. But the games have to be there and Apple Arcade-level stuff won't cut it.
All of that (and more) is just noise compared to the elephant in the room, though. The price. Starting at $3500 before tax...I wonder what the most fully specced-out model costs! Whether the use case is consumer or professional, that's a lot of money to spend. A robust selection of apps will be critical to Vision Pro's success, but it's a chicken and egg situation. Developers have to believe they will make money by developing for Vision Pro and users need (great) apps to convince them to spend that kind of money on hardware. That holds true whether the user is a consumer or a professional.
As novel and exciting as it may be I suspect that 'spatial computing' will have a similar market trajectory as 3D movies and TV.
In my opinion, the problem is the hardware, not the concept of "spatial computing". So long as the hardware is bulky I don't think most people will embrace the technology.
I think you're right about this. If the technology could be implemented in lightweight eyeglasses I could see widespread adoption. As it is now the device detracts from the user friendliness.
I would love to have an interactive HUD I can access throughout my day that doesn't actually interfere with my activities.
Also, I take back my statement about spatial computing. The UI is not the problem, it's that the device separates the user from the environment. If the UI were an overlay on a screen that didn't block the view of the world it would change the entire paradigm as much as the iPhone did.
It's at that point that true Augmented Reality (AR) is realized. Military and commercial aviation achieved useful HUDs long ago.
Last edited:
I see it as an incredible software experience that has the unfortunate requirement of truly objectionable hardware. No one wants to wear the headset. No one. And few will force themselves to in order get at that truly great experience.
Agreed.
I just want eyeglasses with a built-in AVP UI on a HUD, not on a screen. I think that will change how people perceive and adopt the idea of spatial computing.