The technology is very impressive but nobody wants to wear that monstrosity on their face for any extended length of time. It is just stupid concept unless they can shrink it to normal glasses level which is in about 50 years from now.
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.
Kinda doubt about Vision Pros' future.
- Thread starter sunny5
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But when they launched they weren’t essential. Computers were just expensive, fancy typewriters that you had to buy expensive printers to even use. They absolutely weren’t needed at home. Smartphones were expensive and for nerds. In fact, my wife RESISTED getting an iPhone because she didn’t see why it would be better than her flip phone. Texting was harder (“I can text without looking using the number pad’) and it seemed complicated to Her. Tablets had been repeatedly tried and failed until the iPad came along.
Not saying the AVP will become essential, but just because there isn’t a market now doesn’t mean there won’t be in the future.
For sure. Give me Apple Glasses that I can use instead of Mac and IPhone and I will pay $10k for it. I doubt it will happen in our lifetime.
Honestly, I think Apple is way too early (at least 10 years) with Vision Pro. If AR/ VR glasses go by the same trend as television, I think we're now in the equivalent of the late 1920's: People are completely unsure what value they hold, how to integrate it into their life, and it's way too cumbersome to use. For people with lots of time and money, and willing to tinker, it's fine, but for everyone else, wait.
I *DO THINK* Vision Pro (or something similar) should be targeted towards businesses, for B2B use. I can see a lot of value in these tools. These tools can be used for:
- Training for first responders, to simulate a mental health crisis, such as suffering from visual or audio hallucinations, in police officers and other first responders.
- As in-flight entertainment for long flights (it'll be the airlines buying them, not consumers).
- By interior design firms/ architectural firms to show 3D walkthroughs of buildings.
- By museums, such as Angkor Wat, to show visitors how the building and surrounding areas was like before it collapsed.
- Maybe in higher education?
VisionPro will need to be an "easy on/ easy off" device, just like the Apple Watch, or iPhone. It takes too long to put the VisionPro on.
I *DO THINK* Vision Pro (or something similar) should be targeted towards businesses, for B2B use. I can see a lot of value in these tools. These tools can be used for:
- Training for first responders, to simulate a mental health crisis, such as suffering from visual or audio hallucinations, in police officers and other first responders.
- As in-flight entertainment for long flights (it'll be the airlines buying them, not consumers).
- By interior design firms/ architectural firms to show 3D walkthroughs of buildings.
- By museums, such as Angkor Wat, to show visitors how the building and surrounding areas was like before it collapsed.
- Maybe in higher education?
VisionPro will need to be an "easy on/ easy off" device, just like the Apple Watch, or iPhone. It takes too long to put the VisionPro on.
Translation: 'Spatial Computing is a new term to me so I assume it must be Apple branding -- because (1) I can only see the overlap of AVP with what I know and (2) I haven't bothered to listen to people who actually know more about the subject than me.' Here's some reading material if you care to develop a more informed perspective.
^^^ This is correct!
When AR/VR/MR gets to that level, I might reconsider it.
Main pet peeve: very clunky Mac Virtual display on either my M2 MBA or Mac Studio - just went back to my MBA & Studio Mac where it's still faster to type & scroll.
I returned mine yesterday after finding I used it less and less probably because it was only for entertainment use only.
And I never liked iPads even though I own 2 iPad Pros.
iPhone - similar arguments, no keyboard, no App Store. Never gonna compete with RIM/Blackberry and Nokia. Just a glorified iPod.
iPad: just a big iPhone.
Apple Watch: no one wears a watch, every one carries a smart phone.
AVP: TBD
Rinse and repeat. Apple is probably gonna have a failure at some point, but gloom and doom is the constant after every major new product introduction.
The true power of AVP will be when Apps start using the spatial computing and large screens. As some one who travels a lot, I could Definetly use Large high quality displays when working from hotels or in the flight. I don’t need it now, but in future iterations, it is gonna be intriguing.
iPad: just a big iPhone.
Apple Watch: no one wears a watch, every one carries a smart phone.
AVP: TBD
Rinse and repeat. Apple is probably gonna have a failure at some point, but gloom and doom is the constant after every major new product introduction.
The true power of AVP will be when Apps start using the spatial computing and large screens. As some one who travels a lot, I could Definetly use Large high quality displays when working from hotels or in the flight. I don’t need it now, but in future iterations, it is gonna be intriguing.
Random perspective here:
None of these devices are essential. The only device that’s nearly essential these days is a smartphone.
I don’t own a watch. I barely use my iPad.
I might eventually get the Vision Pro or equivalent headset, but not at the current price point or capability. For me the killer application would be the ability to take work calls while walking around outdoors, and be able to actually pull up and edit documents and diagrams. For them to be viewable without the sort of constant zooming you have to do on a phone. For typing not to be excruciating. And to do all that while enjoying the scenery / without walking into a lamppost.
That’s not worth $3k and looking like a douchebag, though, even if it were currently fully possible. And it’d require the headset to pair with a device that works more like my computer than my phone.
The other use I see would be if it could be an almost infinite canvas for things like diagramming and mind mapping, without having to scroll things in and out of view so much.
None of these devices are essential. The only device that’s nearly essential these days is a smartphone.
I don’t own a watch. I barely use my iPad.
I might eventually get the Vision Pro or equivalent headset, but not at the current price point or capability. For me the killer application would be the ability to take work calls while walking around outdoors, and be able to actually pull up and edit documents and diagrams. For them to be viewable without the sort of constant zooming you have to do on a phone. For typing not to be excruciating. And to do all that while enjoying the scenery / without walking into a lamppost.
That’s not worth $3k and looking like a douchebag, though, even if it were currently fully possible. And it’d require the headset to pair with a device that works more like my computer than my phone.
The other use I see would be if it could be an almost infinite canvas for things like diagramming and mind mapping, without having to scroll things in and out of view so much.
I don't know
Apple has released clunkers in the past (pre-Steve return). For example: - Apple Quick Take Cameras. $800 USD for a camera that can take pictures of 640 x 480.
- Apple Newton. They released about 3 generations before getting killed off by Steve.
- Apple Geoport Modems. I was never a fan of Geoport.
- Apple eWorld. Anyone remember that?
Apple did release some clunkers too after that:
- iPod Hi-Fi. Only released for one generation.
- iTunes "Ping" service.
Will Vision Pro eventually be a success? Only time will tell.
Why own something you never liked? I don’t buy something/return it it doesn’t serve any purpose. I pretty much use Apple for most of my Mobile computing(MBP/Ipad Pro/iphone/AW), but haven’t bought an Apple workstation from 2012. I value upgradability in my workstations, and Apple has stopped providing what I need, so I use a AMD/Nvidia workstation.
I don’t care about pre Steve after he was fired from Apple. I was referring to major new product launches. iPod hi fi wasn’t a new device category. Apple cloud services were never its strong suit, mobile me was a disaster, among others. But none of that compares to launch of AVP. AVP launch is comparable to Mac, iPod, iPhone, and iPad. You could probably add AW.I don't know
- Apple Quick Take Cameras. $800 USD for a camera that can take pictures of 640 x 480.
- Apple Newton. They released about 3 generations before getting killed off by Steve.
- Apple Geoport Modems. I was never a fan of Geoport.
- Apple eWorld. Anyone remember that?
Apple did release some clunkers too after that:
- iPod Hi-Fi. Only released for one generation.
- iTunes "Ping" service.
Will Vision Pro eventually be a success? Only time will tell.
I understand your sentiment and also see others comments about the iPhone/Apple Watch.
Apple is never the first to jump into a new sector. They wait till others do it, fail, see what works and doesn't; then create their own version which is different from what previous competitors have had (Nokia smartphones/Blackberry), and then the "fanboys" (as MarkZ put it) will do the rest.
That being said, Apple has had failures before, but more successes than failures. HomePod failed versus Alexa and Google devices, but Apple TV succeeds despite FireTV and Roku.
I'm just here for the innovation, seeing how Apple treats the AR/VR field different than all previous entrants and even if they fail, they'll provide some improvement or learn what work and what don't and then bring it back in the future.
I'm thinking Newton vs. iPad.
Thinking this will literally take 50 years is absolutely maddening.
50 years ago was 1974.
The funny part here is Apple has patents from 2007 for AVP, which are implemented in the AVp released years later. Same with iPad, but Samsung and others rushed to release a tablet after iPad rumors started coming out. Same with AW, you can argue that others rush products to beat Apple to the market. As some one who closely follows patents landscape, it isn’t easy as copying others or waiting to see what works or doesn’t. The approach takes years to build for Apple. I don’t get the fan boy argument as some one who uses Apple for some of my needs and other companies. Usually for most part Apple provides better experience than others.
None of Apple's reimagining/renaming changes the fact that Vision Pro is just a VR/AR headset.
Very true!
The smartphone became essential thanks to some pretty specific circumstances and technological progressions.
The home phone was already essential for communication, so it was easy to see cell phones becoming essential. Most people saw the usefulness of being able to make phone calls from anywhere. Those of us driving before cell phones were common had been stuck on the side of the road at some point!
Also by 2007, the computer had become essential for communication and commerce. Most people were banking, paying bills, using email, and all the rest by then. It was easy to see having all that in your pocket would be great. Remember having to CALL to check your bank account balance??
So, by combining two things that were already essential and making it more convenient, success of the smartphone was unsurprising. Each progression, things got more convenient and more functional, and solved everyday problems that most people had experienced.
This is not the case for AVP or any VR/AR/Spatial Computing headset. There aren't the glaringly obvious everyday problems it solves, like being able to call for help when stuck on the side of the road. Getting wide-spread adoption is going to be an up-hill battle no matter how advanced the tech gets, even if it eventually becomes glasses or even contacts.
Of course, it can still "succeed" as a niche product and never get wide-spread adoption. After all, jackhammers and steel-toe boots are rather successful products, even though most people don't have the need.
iPhone is part of mobile phone which has been an essential device for a long period of time. Beside, PDA phones were already available way before iPhone or smartphone released. iPhone is mobile phone and therefore, it was essential. Why do you differentiate between mobile phones and smartphones?
iPad is still considered as a bigger iPhone. Still limited for its hardware performance. That's why many users demand macOS on iPad.
Like I said, AR/VR/MR markets aren't easy and yet, Vision Pro already have limitations compared to other AR/VR/MR devices such as PCVR and hardware controller.
Unlike smartphones, AR/VR/MR markets failed several times which is a huge difference. That's why many companies ditched consumers to B2B markets. Even then, Apple chose to be much more restricted than others.
I look at it from a usability standpoint.
You can be staring at a tv, monitor, or smartphone all day and only get eye strain.
I don’t see the same being true for VR, no matter how good it gets.
You can be staring at a tv, monitor, or smartphone all day and only get eye strain.
I don’t see the same being true for VR, no matter how good it gets.
You, in 2010:
Unlike smartphones, tablets failed several times which is a huge difference. That’s why many companies ditched consumer tablets to B2B markets. Even then, Apple chose to be much more restricted than others.
Clearly, you failed to prove your point. I keep saying that AR/VR/MR is totally different than others especially since they failed several times. Beside, Apple is dominating the tablet market as others aren't really interested in that market so your logic is totally wrong after all.
AVP is still in its infancy.
It's not comparable to my iPhone, AW or Mac Studio - yet.
It's more an entertainment device - I use the Pico Neo 3 Pro AR for 1/8 the price of a VP.
No, I think the thing you don't realize is that a lot of us that doubt the vision pro's success actually DID think the iPhone, iPad, and other products would succeed. So, don't you wonder why someone like me who went out and bought the first iMac, the first iPod, the first iPhone, the iPad 2, and the first Apple Watch, and thought they all would succeed, all of a sudden doesn't think the same thing about the AVP?
I am breaking my rule about not arguing on the internet, but why is it totally different than others?
Smartphones had been tried repeatedly before Apple, were crappy, and did not see widespread consumer adoption.
Tablets had been tried repeatedly before Apple, were crappy, and did not see widespread consumer adoption.
Wearables had been tried repeatedly before Apple, were crappy, and did not see widespread consumer adoption.
You keep saying “those are different because they’re essential“ but THEY WERE NOT ESSENTIAL WHEN APPLE RELEASED THE FIRST ONE and “AR/VR/MR is totally different” which, sure, it’s a new form factor, of course it is - but you could have said the same thing in 2007, 2010, and 2015. I am not saying AVP will be successful, or that it is guaranteed that there will be a consumer market for it. I am just saying you can’t say ”the first generation product is doomed because there isn’t a consumer market for it yet.“
I totally get that. And personally I am not even sure it is going to succeed. It’s a risky product, and it’s super interesting that Apple released it when they did. You can tell they’re nervous about it too based on how they rolled it out. Hell, I still haven’t decided if I’m returning mine yet (didn’t pick up on launch day, so I have another week to decide). I just get annoyed when I see the same arguments I’ve seen on MacRumors since I joined in 2007 about how new Apple product category is doomed when we’re two weeks in. Especially when I think AVP is definitely a lot better as a Gen 1 product than the Apple Watch.
Because AR/VR/MR markets actually failed and disappeared several times. None of those markets you mentioned ever failed critically but instead grew continuously. Your logic already failed.