Apple Vision FOMO

[cardfan]

For those with Apple Vision FOMO (either living outside the US or financially the product is not accessible), how are you handling it?

For those without FOMO and didn't order, how are you looking it at it that keeps you level?

I think most handle it by ridiculing it. Happens with gen one devices. But it’s their continued presence in forums obsessed with it that is telling. The want is there. It’s the funds that aren’t.

 

[B S Magnet]

I think most handle it by ridiculing it. Happens with gen one devices. But it’s their continued presence in forums obsessed with it that is telling. The want is there. It’s the funds that aren’t.

Unlike past innovations by Apple — iPhone (2007), iPod (2001), Newton messaging (1993), PowerBook (1991), Macintosh (1984) — Vision Pro is a solution in search of a problem.

While it’s easy to agree on how three from the above list, as with Vision Pro, enter the market without a robust, third-party software ecosystem, all of the above springboarded from previously existing hardware innovations whose purposes, as delivered by other companies, were already in demand by both business/corporate and personal/leisure markets.

iPhone was a decade-long culmination of the industry “converging” phone, PDA, and internet appliance into one device. The early/mid 2000s was littered with such devices by Compaq HP, Palm, and others — all with varying (and valiant) degrees of effectiveness, but not so much paradigm shifts as they were evolutionary.

iPod tidied up the use of read-write digital storage without the need for external media — an extension of the Rio from 1998 and Compaq’s Personal Jukebox in 1999.

Newton evolved from eight years of business customers using Psion Series 3, 2, and 1.

PowerBook did what Macintosh Portable couldn’t: making a Macintosh truly portable and on level with the first wave of PC-based laptops.

Macintosh was derived from the Xerox Star platform of 1981 and earlier, Xerox PARC desktop/GUI experiments.

Apple today assert Vision Pro has no market precedent. They assert it is not a VR goggles replacement or competitor, but something else entirely: a kind of wearable “laptop” of sorts. Vision Pro is a product without precedent, whose secondary function is its foundational, inherent ability to monitor and record biometrics (like eye movement, gestures, sound, and other proprioceptive input) continuously, with potential to synthesize data from with those for future applications.

Having used Macs for four decades; having marvelled at Newton and its handwriting recognition component in 1993; having first used a Powerbook at home in 1995; and as a one-time owner of a 1G iPod 5GB, I don’t have a fear of missing out here.

I do believe, for this first generation, Vision Pro is a niche luxury product (i.e., a signifier of one’s means to consume conspicuously) — not too unlike Macintosh in 1984–86. Unlike Macintosh, Vision Pro is neither extensible nor adaptable (well, except for the prescription inserts and other phantom-charge accessories).

I can envision subsequent generations of Vision Pro being useful for a slim subset of learners who learn best via proprioception, including folks with specific learning disabilities (dyslexia comes to mind).

In Vision Pro, I cannot see a strong case where Apple are polishing an existing idea for wider consumption, as (to their insistence) there is no pre-existing idea. Even best-laid ideas/inventions can and do fail in the hands of able, well-funded innovators. The “It” breakthrough of 2001, a human transporter called the Segway, failed. Other companies, however, built on the paradigm, making possible a wealth of battery-powered human transporters in the decades since.

The point here: Apple rode their way to success by refining and improving on existing paradigms, as with the five listed above. Vision Pro, as Apple insist, dropping several billions into the commitment, is its own paradigm. This is a giant risk by Apple.

So no, I won’t worry about missing out. I‘d rather the market work it out first before I shout, “Shut up and take my money,” — even if, in the end, other companies find ways to compete effectively with Apple’s newly-created innovation, forcing Apple to improve on the innovation and to price it more competitively.

As it is, that’s still a long way off, if at all.

 

[MikeX]

easy. It is a device I do not need. I wish I could go back to the days before smart phones

you don't even know whether you need it until you use it for a while.

The want is there. It’s the funds that aren’t.

i have possibility to get the vision pro with close to 0 cost to me personally. still undecided.

i'll give the psv2 example. i showed the game horizon zero's beginning part to many friends who visit me. each time, i heard people say the life and colors of life in real is much more dull compared to virtual reality. they found the vr so vivid, that alone is fascinating.

so, the immersity is uncomparable.

my comparison is the concept of paper forms - like on goverment things. with digitalization they only become webforms where you have to enter each form, same 120 boxes e.g your address and everything again and again, where in reality your national id number should be sufficent alone. they simply took old concept of paper forms and made same only this time with an electronic look.

likewise, vision pro should be bringing new way of doing things 80% and only 20% backwards compatible stuff. now it is the other way around.

vision pro is not for processing text. not for writing, not for reading. if you want to type and format word documents with it, that wont be what it will be able to offer better than an advanced typewriter like a laptop.

So what is its use? imho experience something which you cannot do with old tech. that new something may not match how we work or do things and that part may make vision pro unusable than its first few hours.

maybe they announced it too soon. they should have introduced ios 18 with next gen ai and vision pro should have come together with it. right now siri doesn't even understand half of stuff i tell it. so how am i supposed to interact with vision pro? by moving my hand all the time like a maniac? and looking at a point all the time like the mercedes chicken?

 

[Komodo Rogue]

No FOMO for me. I love VR (Breachers is my new addiction) and AR and definitely plan to get an Apple Vision someday, but these headsets are extremely expensive. I'm going to wait for Gen 4.

To all the people shelling out cash on Gen 1, thank you! I'm sure apple will learn a lot from your experiences and feedback, and it'll just get better and better.

 

[dukebound85]

you don't even know whether you need it until you use it for a while.

I can assure you, I do not need it. I have lived my entire life without it

 

[ebika]

I’m channeling any FOMO into living vicariously through the early adopters. The tech is interesting to me. I don’t have a good use for an AVP so far.

 

[smirking]

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned is that for those of us who don't have much free time, it's quite easy to not have FOMO because it's really hard to have FOMO when you wouldn't have time to enjoy it even if a Vision Pro just landed in your lap.

I hear echoes of this when people say they're just fine letting other people be the beta testers and they look forward to maybe enjoying a better product later on. With early gen products, you're always going to have to meet the experience halfway on your own. Even if it were a mind blowing one, some effort is involved to enjoy it and for a lot of us, it's too much effort at the time.

 

[caseyjones41]

I got the FOMO so so bad... just out of reach, but living through the early adopters!

The mac integration for virtual display is something I would def use often but lets face it... I really want to sit in that landspeeder on tatooine and watch Empire.

 

[MagicTorch]

I have no 'fear', I simply accept that I am 'missing out', purely because I live in the UK. Had the launch included UK, I would have likely pre-ordered and would now be feeling excited about receiving my new toy tomorrow...but also remorseful at spending so much cash. Maybe it is a blessing that the option to order has not been given to me (yet). At least I can read/absorb all of the real world reviews which will be with us soon & then make a reasoned decision on whether or not to order (once it becomes available to order in the UK)

 

[Macalway]

I'll maybe buy used, eventually. There's some novelty here.

 

[JoeG4]

Vision Pro is a product without precedent, whose secondary function is its foundational, inherent ability to monitor and record biometrics (like eye movement, gestures, sound, and other proprioceptive input) continuously, with potential to synthesize data from with those for future applications.

I don't really see it this way. The Macintosh came about 10 years after the Xerox Alto, and technology had changed drastically in that period of time, allowing Apple to make a similar computer way smaller and cheaper. The Xerox Alto nailed almost everything, except the price.

The same exact thing happened with the iPhone! Smartphones existed before the iPhone, but the tech was a bad bottleneck. Apple launched just as capacitive touchscreens became an economical and practical technology for phones - the iPhone was the second phone ever to have one. So it was a technical advancement allowed by evolution of technology and perfect timing.

I think the Apple Vision Pro is coming from the same thing - the concept has already existed for a while - it's the same as an Oculus/HTC Vive/SteamVR headset except with way more sensors and a powerful portable processor - because the technology to make these things a reality is finally here.

Now, they may not have made the perfect launch - that's fine, they rarely do. The iPod didn't become a mass-market hit until the 3rd or 4th gen. I remember it being called "the modern nerd's pocket protector" lol. The iPhone also took a couple of years to gain traction due to the lack of popular features at launch, awkward pricing structure, and AT&T exclusivity (among other things). The Apple Watch also sucked at launch - the tech wasn't quite there and the value proposition sucked. I remember that because I had an s0 apple watch lol. The Apple Watch S0 was a large jump from the smartwatches that existed before it launched, but it wasn't like the concept of a smartwatch didn't already exist.

I wouldn't call the Vision Pro a product without precedent at all. I think its situation is most similar to the S0 apple watch.

From watching the MKBHD review last night, I'd go further and say, it reminds me a lot of Microsoft's Hololens product. The floating app windows are very similar. Hololens was also incredibly expensive at $3000 (and then later $5000!), and it launched 8 years ago. I think I'm looking at the vision pro as an evolution of hololens. That makes the most sense to me.

 

[B S Magnet]

I don't really see it this way. The Macintosh came about 10 years after the Xerox Alto, and technology had changed drastically in that period of time, allowing Apple to make a similar computer way smaller and cheaper. The Xerox Alto nailed almost everything, except the price.

Alto, unlike Star, was never mass-produced: two-thirds of the maybe 1,500 units assembled were in Xerox company offices and laboratories; the rest were with universities (also labs). If a suitable analogy could be made for the Alto, one would need to look to the NeXT Computer. Star, in that sense, was analogous to NeXTstep and saw slightly wider adoption.

Unlike Vision Pro, the Alto was a proof-of-concept: never meant for the consumer, prosumer, or even professional market. As noted, it was experimental. Even Star was never intended for any market less than major institutions/corporations.

The point: Apple argue Vision Pro is not iterative VR, but a new, AR paradigm entirely discrete from the VR headsets to come into being, both low-production and mass-production, over the last couple of decades.

Apple choose to do this. Although they have plenty of cash to burn to realize their, ahem, vision, Vision Pro isn’t building iteratively upon a previous, AR computing headset. Vision Pro is a solution, in search for a problem which was never there to begin with. It will be interesting to gauge how loyal shareholders will be as that cash gets burned and sales on other products remain as they’ve been for the last year or so.

The same exact thing happened with the iPhone! Smartphones existed before the iPhone, but the tech was a bad bottleneck.

Correct. Convergence — aka, “smartphones” — was in place for some time by the time 2007 rolled around.

That convergence already had a diversified consumer base in the professional, prosumer, and even higher-end consumer markets. The key change Apple brought into convergence was monetizing the microtransaction and making microtransactions a foundational requirement for their device (and, consequently, closed platform). iPhone was not a clean-sheet invention. It was iterative.

I think the Apple Vision Pro is coming from the same thing - the concept has already existed for a while - it's the same as an Oculus/HTC Vive/SteamVR headset except with way more sensors and a powerful portable processor - because the technology to make these things a reality is finally here.

Again, Apple are adamant that Vision Pro is not a VR headset or intended to be a VR headset competitor. Apple are steadfast that Vision Pro is a new thing entirely. So, yah.

The iPod didn't become a mass-market hit until the 3rd or 4th gen. I remember it being called "the modern nerd's pocket protector" lol.

I was around and working in marketing communications. That was not what people were calling it. They were calling it “the next Walkman/Discman/MiniDisc Walkman”. And once more, iPod, unlike Vision Pro, was iterative, not a clean-sheet idea. The Rio and others were around before, proving the idea could be marketed (in both HDD and solid-state capacities). Even Springboard modules for the Handspring Visor line, pre-2001, offered digital music player modules.

At that time, music consumers were looking forward to what would succeed the compactness and low-energy consumption of the portable MiniDisc player. They were speaking of the need to no longer have removable media. So, as with the convergence of smartphones, it was a matter of a manufacturer building iteratively on the existing paradigm pioneered by the Rios, Compaqs, and others, from 1998 to 2001.

The reason why iPod’s mass-market appeal arrived by the 3G/4G iPod was because this was the exact timeline roll-out for the lower-end, smaller-capacity iPod Mini (and at the tail-end, the entry iPod shuffle). It was also when Apple abandoned FireWire in order to sell the iPod (and iTunes) to Windows consumers. iTunes, by that point, was Apple’s first go with their chief innovation: the microtransaction.

The iPod mini was how Apple secured their hold on portable digital music, with the nano taking over that mantle from the 2G/3G/4G/5G nano window of the later ’00s. But beneath all of this, for a bulk of their consumers, was the iTunes Music Store.

The iPhone also took a couple of years to gain traction due to the lack of popular features at launch, awkward pricing structure, and AT&T exclusivity (among other things). The Apple Watch also sucked at launch - the tech wasn't quite there and the value proposition sucked. I remember that because I had an s0 apple watch lol. The Apple Watch S0 was a large jump from the smartwatches that existed before it launched, but it wasn't like the concept of a smartwatch didn't already exist.

Correct. Apple Watch was, just as with the five earlier examples I listed and described, iterative, not a new invention entirely, as the Vision Pro AR headset is.

I wouldn't call the Vision Pro a product without precedent at all. I think its situation is most similar to the S0 apple watch.

This is a curious take.

From watching the MKBHD review last night, I'd go further and say, it reminds me a lot of Microsoft's Hololens product. The floating app windows are very similar. Hololens was also incredibly expensive at $3000 (and then later $5000!), and it launched 8 years ago. I think I'm looking at the vision pro as an evolution of hololens. That makes the most sense to me.

Ah yes. HoloLens, that popular household brand, right up there with Zune. HoloLens was designed as a headset mated with a separate computer with the computing power capable of meeting specific requirements to work properly with Windows Mixed Reality — not as a standalone whole computing device.

Again, what Apple are promoting with Vision Pro is something else entirely: an invention. It is a standalone AR computing headset, meant to be what comes after a laptop or even iPad. I wish them lots of luck. Ultimately, with Apple spending profuse amounts of money trying, for a change of pace, to be a pioneer, competitors are no doubt jotting down many notes to produce an iterative, popular successor.

Of course, that competing successor will also need to also demonstrate, decisively, how a standalone AR computing headset is not merely a solution in search of a problem. They all have their work cut out.

 

[turbineseaplane]

$3500 buys a LOT of groceries

No FOMO whatsoever

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

Unlike past innovations by Apple — iPhone (2007), iPod (2001), Newton messaging (1993), PowerBook (1991), Macintosh (1984) — Vision Pro is a solution in search of a problem.

While it’s easy to agree on how three from the above list, as with Vision Pro, enter the market without a robust, third-party software ecosystem, all of the above springboarded from previously existing hardware innovations whose purposes, as delivered by other companies, were already in demand by both business/corporate and personal/leisure markets.

iPhone was a decade-long culmination of the industry “converging” phone, PDA, and internet appliance into one device. The early/mid 2000s was littered with such devices by Compaq HP, Palm, and others — all with varying (and valiant) degrees of effectiveness, but not so much paradigm shifts as they were evolutionary.

iPod tidied up the use of read-write digital storage without the need for external media — an extension of the Rio from 1998 and Compaq’s Personal Jukebox in 1999.

Newton evolved from eight years of business customers using Psion Series 3, 2, and 1.

PowerBook did what Macintosh Portable couldn’t: making a Macintosh truly portable and on level with the first wave of PC-based laptops.

Macintosh was derived from the Xerox Star platform of 1981 and earlier, Xerox PARC desktop/GUI experiments.

Apple today assert Vision Pro has no market precedent. They assert it is not a VR goggles replacement or competitor, but something else entirely: a kind of wearable “laptop” of sorts. Vision Pro is a product without precedent, whose secondary function is its foundational, inherent ability to monitor and record biometrics (like eye movement, gestures, sound, and other proprioceptive input) continuously, with potential to synthesize data from with those for future applications.

Having used Macs for four decades; having marvelled at Newton and its handwriting recognition component in 1993; having first used a Powerbook at home in 1995; and as a one-time owner of a 1G iPod 5GB, I don’t have a fear of missing out here.

I do believe, for this first generation, Vision Pro is a niche luxury product (i.e., a signifier of one’s means to consume conspicuously) — not too unlike Macintosh in 1984–86. Unlike Macintosh, Vision Pro is neither extensible nor adaptable (well, except for the prescription inserts and other phantom-charge accessories).

I can envision subsequent generations of Vision Pro being useful for a slim subset of learners who learn best via proprioception, including folks with specific learning disabilities (dyslexia comes to mind).

In Vision Pro, I cannot see a strong case where Apple are polishing an existing idea for wider consumption, as (to their insistence) there is no pre-existing idea. Even best-laid ideas/inventions can and do fail in the hands of able, well-funded innovators. The “It” breakthrough of 2001, a human transporter called the Segway, failed. Other companies, however, built on the paradigm, making possible a wealth of battery-powered human transporters in the decades since.

The point here: Apple rode their way to success by refining and improving on existing paradigms, as with the five listed above. Vision Pro, as Apple insist, dropping several billions into the commitment, is its own paradigm. This is a giant risk by Apple.

So no, I won’t worry about missing out. I‘d rather the market work it out first before I shout, “Shut up and take my money,” — even if, in the end, other companies find ways to compete effectively with Apple’s newly-created innovation, forcing Apple to improve on the innovation and to price it more competitively.

As it is, that’s still a long way off, if at all.

Now try that with the iPad and get back to us.

 

[dotzero123]

It's about 1500 to 2K above my FOMO budget. FOMO for me ends at $1500 to $2000. I love all my apple products but will sit this one out till it comes down a bit.

 

[4sallypat]

It's about 1500 to 2K above my FOMO budget. FOMO for me ends at $1500 to $2000. I love all my apple products but will sit this one out till it comes down a bit.

I am glad I passed on the iPhone 15 this year and the M3 Macbook.

Got to rationalize this purchase instead....

 

[B S Magnet]

Now try that with the iPad and get back to us.

There were several: Nokia N800 and several manufacturers adopting the Microsoft Tablet PC (running Windows CE) come to mind, as does the Gemini iBook clamshell and even the Thinkpad X61. The Gemini iBook, which did not require a stylus, was way ahead of its time — but, again, a third-party company modified an existing Apple product to make that come to life. There is no doubt Apple learnt a lot from the way Gemini made the most out of taking Mac OS 9/OS X and adapting it to a touch screen UI/UX, when envisioning how to make iOS directly from OS X Tiger and Leopard.

The chief iteration Apple brought to the iPad was the touch-capacitive screen from the iPhone, whose existence was introduced prior to iPhone.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

There were several: Nokia N800 and several manufacturers adopting the Microsoft Tablet PC (running Windows CE) come to mind, as does the Gemini iBook clamshell and even the Thinkpad X61. The Gemini iBook, which did not require a stylus, was way ahead of its time — but, again, a third-party company modified an existing Apple product to make that come to life. There is no doubt Apple learnt a lot from the way Gemini made the most out of taking Mac OS 9/OS X and adapting it to a touch screen UI/UX, when envisioning how to make iOS directly from OS X Tiger and Leopard.

The chief iteration Apple brought to the iPad was the touch-capacitive screen from the iPhone, whose existence was introduced prior to iPhone.

Congrats, youve 100% missed the point.

 

[B S Magnet]

Congrats, youve 100% missed the point.

Yours does not lend to a civil, topical discussion.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

iPads succeeded after microsoft tablet didnt for 14 years because iPads got the 'recipe' right, microsoft didnt. iPads do almost everything worse than a mac (with exception of perhaps drawing with the pencil) but they succeeded despite not having a 'purpose' because they offer form factor and life style benefits.

 

[JoeG4]

Again, what Apple are promoting with Vision Pro is something else entirely: an invention. It is a standalone AR computing headset, meant to be what comes after a laptop or even iPad. I wish them lots of luck. Ultimately, with Apple spending profuse amounts of money trying, for a change of pace, to be a pioneer, competitors are no doubt jotting down many notes to produce an iterative, popular successor.

Keep on drinking that kool-aid dude. Apple is selling a VR headset that wants to be an AR headset. It may have the most responsive vision system ever, and it may have an astonishing amount of sensors and sensor fusion going on, but when you put the Vision Pro on a table, what I see is a VR headset.

As for hololens, have you ever seen demo videos?

I'm not saying Apple's Vision Pro is not a remarkable device. I mean, look how jank and glitchy the UI looks on Hololens 2 (and this was made a few years ago) vs the Vision Pro.

 

[PBG4 Dude]

I am also 65 and the other thing is I am going to have to wait no matter what because I have cataracts and wear glasses it would be of no use for me until I get those dang cataracts correction done.

Feel you there. Found out last week the reason my right eye’s vision went so far south is due to cataracts and now I need to get that resolved.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

I heard the tech for cataracts has come a long way and that it's usually very good outcomes. Hoping speedy and full recoveries for you fellas.

 

[B S Magnet]

Keep on drinking that kool-aid dude.

Read my bio and don’t “dude” me. Thank you.

And Jim Jones references apply to cults, such as the cult of, well, new products by a certain, five-letter, multi-trillion corporation. If you’ve been around for a minute, it’s more than clear that does not fit me in the slightest.

Apple is selling a VR headset that wants to be an AR headset.

If you say so. Apple don’t.

It may have the most responsive vision system ever, and it may have an astonishing amount of sensors and sensor fusion going on, but when you put the Vision Pro on a table, what I see is a VR headset.

OK. Apple argue it is an AR device, not a VR device.

And you do you.

And congrats.

 

[DaveOZ]

I've watched lots of YT reviews, read all the reports on here, even the ones highlighting the light leave and glare issues but I still have FOMO. It's made worse by the fact the AVP is not available in Australia so I can't even go try one out.

Maybe the only positive in that they might make it better by the time it is released here.