At $3,500, will you buy a Vision Pro?

[Flowstates]

Can't wait for the first enterprise to have a use case for a main stream audience.
I don't overestimate the shared experience, I live in reality. I don't think it resonates with families, or real social people. This has no sharing capacity in the family outside of buying 4 of them to make that happen.

I don't understand the first sentence, and I may have used a poor wording around the idea of "shared experiences".

I fully agree with you that those shared experiences will be very hard to replace, I meant that under this light manufacturers and developers (as they have pretty broadly done) will focus on improving cases where a less than realistic interaction is still an improvement on the current state of affairs (EG business communication at a non-executive level and uberized workers of the gig economy in their interactions with enterprises) and "Gaming" as a para-social activity (EG vrChat and the push towards the "metaverse"). Not to replace the sacred TV in the living room.

I'd argue that some of the use cases are already realized, the simple block towards mainstream adoption being device price. On this mac forum it tends get lost in the echo chamber that most common folk do not discard four figures on technology.

In the end, all that is needed is eyeballs on platforms to support the self fulfilling creator economy ... And we know that it won't be apple with the vision pro achieving that ... But it may just be the halo product to bring the idea of virtual/augmented reality to the mainstream just in time for an affordable device from meta.

And if I am being fully honest, the magic somewhat faded after coming to grips that this virtual deskop just wont do when compared with my retina monitors. Meaning that I already became jaded with the device although consuming content in the Skybox Player is a delight and will most likely be crispier on th vision.

That is if Apple will let us beam our own files on the headset ... time will tell ... and what remains for me to do is to open up a nice bordeaux and enjoy it outside the hyperreal

 

[avro707]

Definitely not buying one until it has widespread adoption. Too risky.

 

[RSmith2023]

I can’t see myself dropping $3500 on this. It’s still in its early stages and once they release, they’ll give a bunch to tech influencers, etc., but it’s just too expensive right now. (they are trying to recoup development costs)

Add to that, the meta quest 3 is out and at a WAY lower price point. They will soon release a decent set of APIs to allow for the iPhone to cast to that thing properly and then it’s a wrap.

 

[jbehrmusic]

It's way too expensive. I might have to way for the Vision Pro 2 to come out, and buy a refurbished Vision Pro 1, lol

 

[mattspace]

Apple has combined the expense of an upgradable professional / enthusiast tethered simulation, work & game VR headset, with the rapid obsolescence and throwaway paradigm of a cheap standalone headset.

 

[Jdhommert]

No.

However I really feel like this is the only product they've made since the iPhone where I had a holy **** moment, and they reinvented or revolutionized an entire type of product. If you go back and watch the OG iPhone announcement, it was such a game changer with people gasping and clapping at multi touch and pinch to zoom and all the things. I've never been a fan of VR at all. I didn't even watch the Vision Pro announcement for a month or two because I didn't care. When I did I was floored and thought in a few years this thing could be the new big thing. I also think just like the OG iPhone we look back and say "remember when..." to the battery life, graphics, screens, processor/speed, no MMS...on and on. So the sky is the limit with this, especially with battery life/packs, overall capability and usability and hopefully price most of all.

Only question is can they get it cheap enough to get enough people to buy it, and enough companies to develop things for it so people want to buy it-before they abandon it. I will say if they really step up with this thing after a couple-few years, I'm a buyer at its current price.

 

[cardfan]

The biggest consideration is being able to wear these for more than 30min before you just want to rip it off.

This isn’t talked about enough. I don’t care how many screens I can have or if all the other issues are worked out if I can’t use this comfortably for hours.

I don’t see this happening.

 

[AppleMan2015]

Who is the Vision Pro for? Honest question because I really have no idea...

 

[mattspace]

Who is the Vision Pro for? Honest question because I really have no idea...

People who want to use iPads in this manner, but don't want to set up the space.

Fundamentally, the Vision Pro is the answer to "when will the iPad have good multitasking". It's iPad-scale "whole app in a single window" computing in terms of device power, but with lower resolution visuals than a retina iPad (which is why everything will be huge).

People like Tim Cook, who don't actually work, but rather, orchestrate the work of others, who think that an iPad is the only computer you need, and who live in big beautiful architecturally satisfying homes that look good as a computing backdrop, with cleaning staff, and storage for their clutter - that's the market.

What the market, I suspect, isn't is people currently using VR & AR because they need a stereoscopically-separated, proprioceptively valid 3D computer generated working environment.

 

[KPOM]

I haven’t posted here in a while but it looks like put up or shut up time is coming soon. I’m still likely to buy this because I have the money and why not, but I totally accept that many will wait until the next gen particularly since there are reports that Apple is working on a significantly less expensive version.

 

[Beau10]

Fundamentally, the Vision Pro is the answer to "when will the iPad have good multitasking". It's iPad-scale "whole app in a single window" computing in terms of device power, but with lower resolution visuals than a retina iPad (which is why everything will be huge).

The resolution per eye is dramatically higher than an iPad. Do you mean pixel density at the designed viewing distance?

 

[MBAir2010]

I dont think my cats will like the vision goggles and the fact im not watching them.
the tuxedo cat Jax, dislikes when I have a MacBook Air on the lap instead of him.

 

[mattspace]

The resolution per eye is dramatically higher than an iPad. Do you mean pixel density at the designed viewing distance?

The apparent pixel density when looking at things in the headset.

An iPad pro's screen looks like print, no discernable stepping to diagonals in the graphics etc. The Vision Pro is not going to provide that level of density, given how close things are to your eye, so things will have to be larger. You're not going to be seeing something the size of an iPad in your hands, that has the same visual quality as the screen of an actual iPad in your hands.

 

[Beau10]

The apparent pixel density when looking at things in the headset.

An iPad pro's screen looks like print, no discernable stepping to diagonals in the graphics etc. The Vision Pro is not going to provide that level of density, given how close things are to your eye, so things will have to be larger. You're not going to be seeing something the size of an iPad in your hands, that has the same visual quality as the screen of an actual iPad in your hands.

Not sure if I fully understand what would cause this effect. A single 1.4" display has more pixels than the 16" display in my MBP, so it has something like 11-12x the DPI. Which should mean that it could be that much closer to give a similar amount of detail. IOW, sitting 20" w/ the 16" should be similar to viewing the Vision Pro screen at 1.6-1.8". But really I'm only able to discern pixel level detail w/ the 16" at about 10-12" away, so it's probably more like 1".

I assume this maybe has something to do with managing FOV? How close does the screen actually sit in front of the eye? Is it under an inch, or if further is there some trick (ie. lens magnification) to expand FOV that harms fidelity?

 

[mattspace]

Not sure if I fully understand what would cause this effect. A single 1.4" display has more pixels than the 16" display in my MBP, so it has something like 11-12x the DPI. Which should mean that it could be that much closer to give a similar amount of detail. IOW, sitting 20" w/ the 16" should be similar to viewing the Vision Pro screen at 1.6-1.8". But really I'm only able to discern pixel level detail w/ the 16" at about 10-12" away, so it's probably more like 1".

I assume this maybe has something to do with managing FOV? How close does the screen actually sit in front of the eye? Is it under an inch, or if further is there some trick to expand FOV that harms fidelity?

In practice the issue is pixels per degree of visual field - a HMD's full resolution is distributed across its full ~120 degrees, so while your laptop might only take up 30 degrees of your vision - it packs that full screen resolution into that 30 degrees. Your screen devices don't lose pixels when you move them away from your face, making them smaller to your perception, so an iPad's screen always looks print-sharp.

It's something that doesn't come across very well unless you've used a VR system, but all the promo stuff I've seen so far for the Vision Pro is renderings, not camera footage of the screens.

 

[Beau10]

In practice the issue is pixels per degree of visual field - a HMD's full resolution is distributed across its full ~120 degrees, so while your laptop might only take up 30 degrees of your vision - it packs that full screen resolution into that 30 degrees. Your screen devices don't lose pixels when you move them away from your face, making them smaller to your perception, so an iPad's screen always looks print-sharp.

It's something that doesn't come across very well unless you've used a VR system, but all the promo stuff I've seen so far for the Vision Pro is renderings, not camera footage of the screens.

I have used VR systems but only older ones used for presentation work (ie. museum exhibits). The pixellation was very obvious on them.

It seems the initial impressions from reviewers said this issue was addressed on the VP, but I'm unsure how that would come to be - aside from high resolution - or what the technique these systems use to address FOV.

 

[mattspace]

I have used VR systems but only older ones used for presentation work (ie. museum exhibits). The pixellation was very obvious on them.

It seems the initial impressions from reviewers said this issue was addressed on the VP, but I'm unsure how that would come to be - aside from high resolution - or what the technique these systems use to address FOV.

I've read reports of it which specifically mention the quality as not being represented accurately by the publicity images / videos.

Essentially, is the quality actually going to be good enough, for the iPad / document-centric computing (Apple's in-house apps - Mail, Notes etc) Apple seems to think people will want to use this to access, given the need to strap an appliance to your head.

How long will the novelty last, before people say "this was better on my laptop, because I don't need Notes to be a cinema screen".

 

[Beau10]

I've read reports of it which specifically mention the quality as not being represented accurately by the publicity images / videos.

Essentially, is the quality actually going to be good enough, for the iPad / document-centric computing (Apple's in-house apps - Mail, Notes etc) Apple seems to think people will want to use this to access, given the need to strap an appliance to your head.

How long will the novelty last, before people say "this was better on my laptop, because I don't need Notes to be a cinema screen".

My cofounder (we're working on a gen ai company) is thinking about getting one to replace his 3 monitor setup. Sounds like from what you're saying that's probably not really going to work out? Or it would have to be something like zooming one screen in and the other screens out?

I love the idea of having maybe the 3rd or 4th gen good enough that Apple could sell a screen less laptop slab to hook into it.

 

[mattspace]

My cofounder (we're working on a gen ai company) is thinking about getting one to replace his 3 monitor setup. Sounds like from what you're saying that's probably not really going to work out? Or it would have to be something like zooming one screen in and the other screens out?

I love the idea of having maybe the 3rd or 4th gen good enough that Apple could sell a screen less laptop slab to hook into it.

Well the only option for using it with an existing computer like a Mac is a single-screen VNC connection. It's not a display, the way a traditional VR headset is. It's an iPad you wear on your face, not a display for a Mac (the same way even with Sidecar, an iPad can't be the sole display for a Mac). You have all the same restrictions you have for an iPad, app store etc.

It's a replacement for a computer, not a peripheral for one.

What I suspect in terms of quality, is that if you were to set up a document, at the size it is on a 27" retina iMac - so 18-24" away and occupying the middle third of your visual field, with the same size type you would have on the iMac, my guess is that the document will look closer in terms of edge quality for type etc to a pre-retina 1440p iMac, than a retina 5k iMac.

And I'm not sure people want to jump back to pre-retina quality to do computing tasks that are not inherently stereoscopically three dimensional, at the cost of wearing a toaster strapped to their head.

 

[Beau10]

Well the only option for using it with an existing computer like a Mac is a single-screen VNC connection. It's not a display, the way a traditional VR headset is. It's an iPad you wear on your face, not a display for a Mac (the same way even with Sidecar, an iPad can't be the sole display for a Mac). You have all the same restrictions you have for an iPad, app store etc.

It's a replacement for a computer, not a peripheral for one.

What I suspect in terms of quality, is that if you were to set up a document, at the size it is on a 27" retina iMac - so 18-24" away and occupying the middle third of your visual field, with the same size type you would have on the iMac, my guess is that the document will look closer in terms of edge quality for type etc to a pre-retina 1440p iMac, than a retina 5k iMac.

And I'm not sure people want to jump back to pre-retina quality to do computing tasks that are not inherently stereoscopically three dimensional, at the cost of wearing a toaster strapped to their head.

I see. I thought the photos of this were not actually as a computer display connected to a Mac, but from what you're saying it does sound like each app gets a separate pane in space and the monitor paradigm is completely done away with.

I mean in a way, that is kinda cool if there were a way to zoom out in Mission Control and zoom closer to your working state, in a Minority Report kind of way.

But I get what you're saying, that document in a focused state which normally might represent your full screen now only takes a small portion of your field of view.

 

[Piggie]

My Prediction.....

This device will simultaneously be both an amazing massive sold-out success, meanwhile, for the most part being a major flop in the short term.

I predict this device will sell out, Apple will not be able to keep up with demand.
We will even see such shortages as some will buy (scalp) to sell on at a higher price to those who are simply unable to obtain one, or do not want to do through the whole Apple store in-person experience.

So a massive sold out success.

And yet, at the same time, after the initial hype cycle has calmed down, which may take a few months, we will get stories about how people don't use them, don't like wearing them, not enough good reasons to wear one.

Yet they will still be sold out

So we will then be in a sort of Limbo world to see what happens first.
Either the software/experiences with then slowly grow and grow to overcome the post launch hype views and those who decided it was not for them, gives it another try and now start to find there are things which they like and they will gradually start to use them more.

Or it goes the other way, and the software/experience simply does not grow enough, we start to see quite a number of units going up for sale, as people decide they will wait till later when there is more of a reason to use one (the initial novelty has worn off)
The supply shortage dies off, and it becomes obvious that whatever market there was has been filled and sales are dropping off very sharply followed by the media declaring it another MacPro TrashCan / Original HomePod device.

Will be interesting to watch is either of my predicted scenarios happens or something else ?

 

[mattspace]

And yet, at the same time, after the initial hype cycle has calmed down, which may take a few months, we will get stories about how people don't use them, don't like wearing them, not enough good reasons to wear one.

Yeah, I remain convinced that the hardware in the headset in terms of its 3D capabilities, the fact that it's not upgradable, and the expense of the device are going to combine to make it a device that will not appeal to the sort of people who are currently willing to wear a headset for hours on end to get work done better than they could do it on a 2D screen.

I also don't think that the sort of people who develop for that sort of use case will be interested in developing for the expensive / non-upgradable paradigm.

I think it's the same problem Apple has with gaming - they want to convince the world that a computer with the 3D capability and non-upgradability of a ~$500 console is worth the price of a 4090-powered gaming system, and it just isn't. And because there is no reasonable venn diagram overlap for people who care about gaming, and people who want PC pricing, with Console performance & upgradability, game developers aren't particularly interested in the Mac - hence Apple Arcade, Apple has to pay people to make games for them. It's like the unpopular rich kid on the playground offering to pay people to be his friends.

If you look at the sorry state of Mac software now, so much of it is janky Catalyst or iOS apps - most developers go for the lowest common denominator, and on Vision Pro that means it's going to be largely iPad apps. The likelihood that we're going to see significant stereo 3D based applications & workflows seems remote to me, at best.

 

[Piggie]

Do we think that Apple will be arrogant enough to put in actual software blocks/locks that will make it unable to be used as a PCVR headset?
Will the people with the most money, with the most powerful computers, and who want the best VR they can get, be blocked by Apple from being able to use their headset?

 

[hovscorpion12]

There is no doubt in my mind that Apple will lock the Vision Pro to only function with Apple products. ie. Macs/iPads ONLY

 

[Piggie]

There is no doubt in my mind that Apple will lock the Vision Pro to only function with Apple products. ie. Macs/iPads ONLY

I will indeed be interesting to see them deliberately block the sale of a product to a sector of the public who are the very people who would want it and have the money to buy it

A bit like Ferrari saying only normal drivers can buy our car, anyone who is interested in high speed cars is not allowed to own one

I know the story is saying that Apple don't want to talk about VR Gaming, but stories in the media about it being the best headset out there, would not exactly be a negative.