- Users of those services will be steered toward the web
- Searches indicate apps from Meta may also be unavailable
Bypass paywall: https://archive.ph/4kfYI
the ipod filled a hole in the market. wtf is this solving for?
To be fair, a lot of people were wondering the same thing when the iPad was announced. Now there’s like a billion of them out there.
They were wondering that for the iPod, the iPhone, the iPad, the Apple Watch, and AirPods. I’d bet that in 10 years a decent portion of the population will have some sort of headset, Apple or otherwise.
None of those had a point nearly as questionable as this headset thing. The ipod was an advanced mp3 player, which was very popular and common tech at the time. The iPhone was an advanced phone with a large touchscreen, which was rapidly becoming very common at the time. The iPad was an advanced tablet, which was a concept that had already been tried many times by many other companies by then. The air pods are just advanced wireless earbuds, which nobody could ever deny were rapidly becoming more popular.
VR headsets are fundamentally different from all of those, in that there’s no technological and social precedence quite like it. People used mp3 players and watches and phones before Apple did something new. Nobody was wondering the point of a better mp3 player that could hold massive amounts of songs. But the history of humankind says nothing about the masses’ willingness to walk around in public with big ass high tech ski goggles strapped to their faces. VR is much, much more unknown compared to those.
I get what you’re saying, and regarding people walking around in public wearing a headset, I completely agree. It’ll be a very long time before that happens, if ever.
I disagree that AR won’t become more ubiquitous in people’s lives. Right now, the biggest gripe I see when people talk about Vision Pro is the price. Which was also the case with all the other Apple products I mentioned. The price will come down, it’ll get more features, and it will become more attractive to consumers.
Only time will tell which of us will be right.
The iPhone had 2 interesting things going for it. Everyone had been begging for an iPod phone for years before this happened. Apple had been working on the iPad since the Newton failed and the iPhone was a combination between iPod phone and iPad.
All glass all touch screens were not a thing people thought they wanted before Apple made a really compelling (and pleasing) device.
AR has been a thing for years, but hasn’t garnered the popularity or utility that MP3s and phones ever had. QR codes being the possible exception and only since most phones handle them natively at this stage.
It’s possible that AR just hasn’t had a good enough UX to break the “cool experiment bro” uses imagined so far (because of screen/camera/movement limitations). It’ll be interesting to see if Apple has managed to revolutionize the experience enough to imagine new and more widely needed AR uses or not.
We can argue that this product has no continuity with anything anyone has ever used, or we can admit that it is a new kind of immersive screen for a world where people are absolutely hooked to screens. It’s pretty simple.
And the very concept of virtual reality has been an inevitability for decades. This is something people have been fantasizing about for a long time, thought they underestimated the technical challenges and limitations of it all. We’re getting close to overcoming most of them now.
While the whole world laughs at Mark Zuckerburg, Occulus headsets are selling in rapidly increasing numbers. They sold more headsets in 2021 than Microsoft sold Xboxes. So to use your own words, yes, this product is a foray into a space that is rapidly growing in popularity.
Oculus headsets are for gaming, mostly. There’s a rather humongous social and practical gap between wearing one of those in the privacy of your living room and casually wearing one outside in public. There never was such a massive gap for the iPad or whatever. Maybe if we were already used to the likes of Google glass, but we all know what happened to that one.
I’m honestly not laughing at zuck, at least not for this one. Besides not believing it’s not gonna catch on, at least not this first generation, I’m actively hoping it doesn’t. The world absolutely does not need people walking around in public with a dozen cameras attached to their faces, with LCD screens between their eyes and mine at all times. I wouldn’t be comfortable with that shit and I don’t want to get comfortable with it either.
Why are you talking about whether people will feel good walking around in public with headsets on? The Apple Vision doesn’t even do that. You realize it’s tethered by a wire, and is closer in usage to an iMac than Google Glass, right?
You seem to have your own speech about headsets you want to espouse but it is not connected to reality or this thread or this product.
If you have a computer space with multiple monitors with various equipment interfacing with it cluttering up a desk at your home, imagine all of that just completely gone, cleaned up, with nothing there but a recliner and a headset that can even go with you.
I think this is the value proposition. The price is too high for me, but I don’t think there’s anything to be confused about. The smart watch and iPad took more for me to wrap my head around than this.
When they get it down to rad sunglasses I’ll wear them everywhere.
I love my Quest headset, but I haven’t turned it on in 6 months. I don’t have time to be isolated like that without asking other people to make sacrifices for me so I can have that time.
I think the tech will be important in the future. I could be wrong, but when it shrinks down and becomes easy to remove isolation, I think people will want it.
I want 90s style bug-eye sunglasses with shiny, royal blue frames.
The thing is, I don’t want those replaced by a headset. I have a total of 5 monitors on my home setup, and I can’t see a reason to replace any of them. Especially with a headset that’s likely going to be uncomfortable, heavy and isolating. I just can’t see any case where a headset could be even remotely close to preferable.
A recliner would probably decrease my enjoyment of the setup anyways, as I much prefer a physical desk, chair and monitors.
That sounds like a pretty epic setup! Fortunately no one is forcing you to replace anything. You’re free to keep and make the most of what you’ve spent your own money on, just like anyone else.
Actually, I’m sure you more than most can appreciate why others who don’t already have a setup like yours might want to look at a headset as an option.
If you can’t see any use case for this, especially as they become smaller and cheaper, then no one is going to convince you otherwise. Even now, there are literally thousands of scenarios where a headset with no physical limitations is going to be more preferable than needing an entire room in your house or office for your computer setup.
People understood what the iPhone was about immediately. Heck, they knew before it was even announced.
Same for the Apple Watch…ish. People didn’t know exactly what area it would end up focusing on, but the idea of getting and responding briefly to notifications without getting your phone out has always been appealing.
AirPods people have, again, always understood the appeal of. People are/were just angry at the option of using wired headphones being taken away.
I mean, yeah, you can find people who believed in them. But the general consensus around all those products was they are too expensive, don’t offer any meaningful upgrades over current tech, or are just useless and no one will want them.
I’ve been reading MacRumours forums since before the iPhone launch and it’s always the same thing regarding new products. Without using them, people can have an hard time seeing the positives. I think that issue is even bigger now with the Vision Pro.
Your confusion probably relates to your idea that people dislike the cost of Vision Pro, as opposed to any actual problems with the product. All those other products were expensive versions of things that existed already that people used.
VR has existed for 40 years (remember Tron?). The reason it never took off is because the headset sucks and gives you a headache after an hour. That’s basically it. People will buy most anything, but a headache is pushing it.
I’m not confused at all. The reason people get headaches it’s a tech issue. Not a VR issue. Low resolution screen, low refresh rate, and heavy headsets are the cause of those issues. Technology has not advanced enough to solve those issues. Apple has created the best option so far, but there’s still a lot of room to improve.
Due to the better tech in Vision Pro I wouldn’t be surprised if the amount of people getting headaches compared to other headsets is lower, but not zero unfortunately.
I’m not sure how you can say in good conscience that people don’t dislike the price. Go into any thread regarding Vision Pro and price will by far be the most discussed topic.
That’s because the technology sucks. If it really was revolutionary, $3500 would be a bargain.
People pay that right now for gaming computers. If it could replace that, it would be worth it. Many people own toys more expensive than that (motorcycles, boats, jet skis). People with mobility issues spend that amount on their wheelchair and can barely go to the Grand Canyon, let alone more remote places.
It’s just a technology issue. It sucks.
This doesn’t make any sense at all. You know Tron was fiction, right? VR existed back then in the same way that neural prosthetics do now. There are like 5 working versions and none of them are functional enough to be used by the public. “The headset sucks and gives you a headache” is a nonsense generalization. There are hundreds of headsets out there and many people can use any number of them without any headache whatsoever.
The parent is right. This is the same pattern that repeats every time. People say it’ll never take off and then it absolutely does.
Occulus sold more headsets than Microsoft sold Xboxes. And that’s 2021. https://x.com/JackSoslow/status/1471549480595955716?s=20
Wow I never would have guessed. Very cool! Thanks for the info.
They were wondering why the iPad wasnt a keyboardless mac instead of an oversized phone. Not why it existed.
no, they werent. the ipad replaced the netbooks everyone wsa using until tablets became viable. again, an actual use case for a product.
theyve been pushing these headsets for years now, and theyve gained little traction and not solved any of the common problems.
anyone who thinks this is will some popular thing everyone will be doing is smokin the reefer, or just not paying attention
do you seriously think retail consumers are the demographic Apple is trying to capture right now?
talk to some creative professionals & craftsmen. my company used to work with hololens on a regular basis but there way too much jank in how it performed in a live setting. If the Vision Pro provides even the same level of utility but manages to make live object rendering & tracking consistent and reliable, they’re going to sell truckloads. Hollywood alone has probably 100 different ways to use this tech on set to slim creative workflows and save time (and therefore money). a $5000 headset is practically a rounding error when your principals cost 10x that per hour.
How is retail not their demographic? All the marketing for this thing has people sitting on the couch, watching movies, viewing their children’s photos in 3D, relaxation and meditation, taking photos with the headset on at a kids birthday, playing NBA 2K24, browsing news, spacial audio. Even the work stuff is pushing things like FaceTime and virtual screens. If retail consumers aren’t their demographic someone should let the marketing department know
You’re a retail consumer and you’re confused why all of the messaging you’re seeing is geared towards retail consumers?
nope, i think this will sellout to their core audience, the 1%s. its just funny many people think they are part of that number.
but my point is, this isnt a mass market device. its not a new ipad or iphone… this is an imac. a niche product for their niche audience.
even your example is hardcore niche and no where near an actual, large scale adoption
why would it need to be a massive immediate retail success?
moreover, why do you seem so irritated that you might not be the target audience here?
Reddit clowned soooo hard on the iPad when it was launched.
How have they been “pushing these headsets for years” considering that we’re literally discussing the launch of this product?
The giant thing on my head that’s spose to help…ar/vr…
This is unnecessary technical debt compared to what is already in place. It solves no current problem in my space.
But hey, maybe it will work for your niche use case
Your initial post was “wtf is the use case for this”. The answer to that is literally anything computational that has physical limitations.
The iPad always made 100% sense to me. The first Smartphones were fun and just joyful to use for simple Tasks. A lot of stuff was managed at a system level and Apps and games at the time were genuinely made very well and were great to play / use. Also keep in mind that at the times phones were at best 4". So getting the same experience on a much bigger screen always made sense to me.
Its only now that people try to use these things as a laptop replacement where they fall apart. But i.m.o. that was never the point and people got gaslit by marketing to believe that using a tablet as laptop replacement is viable.
Monitors. It’s not there yet but imagine a world where you have like 8, 30-inch, 4k monitors in a giant grid and it costs like $600. That’s the endgame here. Get VR tech to the point where it’s better than buying physical displays for general productivity.
Though in that case, I’d rather have these virtual displays driven by my PC, not some bs apple ecosystem.
And their resolution and size are arbitrary. Those have meaning in the physical world because they are physical objects that need to have dimensions and must fit those pixels within that space. For virtual displays, it’s only limited by how much of your field of view would you like to dedicate to each display and how high is the resolution of your headset.
And this is only really scratching at the surface of what AR might be capable of. Why use virtual displays when windows could be displayed floating without a display? Why use windows when UI elements could be floating on their own? Why show a screen playing a video when you could render the video as a semi-transparent 3d scene happening around the viewer (other than the obvious "because it’s in video format, not 3d)?
That said, I’ll wait for someone else to do it since apple likes to take good ideas and simplify them down to the point of frustration.
Yeah I don’t want Apple’s implementation either, just saying to the other guy where I thought the endgame was headed
Your vision starts with iVision. You can see that Apple is trying to do most of that. If the high priced niche product succeeds, everyone else will jump on that bandwagon and your vision is a few years away
the use cases ive seen would never use this, like 911. having run a 911 center, this product would never be implemented despite the 8 giant monitors at each station.
this is just an incredibly niche product, with very niche uses… and realistically its a toy that might be also used by some very specific industries.
Why not? it’s a lot more space efficient; it’s a lot more power efficient. The only thing holding it back is cost and comfort. I’m a developer rocking 4 monitors standard for work and I can absolutely imagine a world where I just have a desk, a keyboard, and a headset.
its about use case. in a 911 center, for example, all people need immediate access to all information in the room… often personnel not sitting at that station it is a non-static environment for a plural audience.
and cost is not really an issue anymore. giant, flat screens are Dirt cheap. this will never, ever be cheaper than the equivalent. they have new monitor tech rolling out that is literally like wallpaper.
i just cannot envision a generic use case that would make it popular
we know you can’t lol
that doesn’t mean they don’t exist though
right, i totally missed all those examples you provided
But you set up one example, just to knock it down. What about people who WFH? This sounds great for them.
Dude you obviously aren’t going to listen.
You decided this product isn’t going to be useful for anyone because you personally don’t see any utility.
You’re personally offended Apple didn’t make a VR headset for you. I’m sorry kid.
What I don’t get is the caustic hostility you’re displaying in this thread about a product for creative professionals and tradesmen (of which you are neither).
In 911 centers does anyone use a headset for answering calls or are all calls only on loud speakers?
AR/VR could work the same. You have your private view screen just like you have your headset. When you press a button, your view becomes public on a large standard display that anyone can see just like when you press a button to switch from headset to loud speaker.
a little of both. they wear headsets and have little local speakers per station. in a room you can get a pretty good idea of what each station is doin if youre within range
but this all just sounds like extra, more expensive steps to whats currently happening. this is a product begging for a problem to solve… and remember, existing solutions are continually cheaper and easier to implement.
also, no op is going to want to wear some giant head thing for a 12 hour shift. reminds me of when they pushed touchscreens like it was the end-all be-all of compute (even in 911!) turns out no one wants to keep raising their hand constantly for 12 hours.
also, no op is going to want to wear some giant head thing for a 12 hour shift.
Who would want to wear a headset for 12 hour shift? I get irritated after an hour of wearing headphones.
I got my kids some Quest 2’s last year and it’s amazing. So I can see in 10 years it might be good for productivity. Dismissing it because it isn’t useful for 911 call centers is kind of ridiculous.
I don’t understand this. Using something like this would give people more immediate access to all the information in the room and increase the amount of information they have access to. Your vision isn’t obscured with this. That’s why they’re calling it a “spatial computer”.
You can still make the same argument about laptops. Desktop computers and monitors are dirt cheap and so much better than laptops that I just can’t envision a generic use case that would make it popular …. Yet that most of the market now
When the iPad came out everyone thought it was the dumbest thing ever 🤷♂️
You can get that for $500 with the quest 3
The resolution isn’t quite there yet, and I think the headset is too heavy to wear for 8hrs a day, 5 days a week (plus leisure if you’re a gamer or hobbyist)
Quest 3 is light. 515 grams. Vision Pro is 600-650 grams.
Yes, pass through resolution isn’t there yet. Virtual monitor are fine though, especially large.
No you can’t.
The resolution is not close to sufficient for a monitor with any meaningful amount of text on it. Your eyes will be bleeding in about 2 minutes.
For pass-through monitor reading, yeah. 4MP won’t compare to the iVision’s 12MP. But “Quest generated” monitors are perfectly fine, especially if you blow them up to 8 feet.
I’m not talking about passing monitors through. I’m talking about having multiple virtual monitors in your field of view.
A shitty virtual 1080p screen taking your entire field of view is not even vaguely capable of being used for productivity purposes. It’s not remotely close. The whole point of multiple physical displays is to have a meaningful amount of information directly visible at once.
1080p doesn’t exist in a virtual environment.
That’s the generous best case of what you can tell a computer to display to, and it is still guaranteed to make text look like absolute shit.
It is not possible to use the terrible resolution of any of the quests to replace multiple physical monitors for productivity. The displays are bad for literally everything but entertainment.
I don’t understand how that would work, I work a lot across multiple spreadsheets and looking from screen to screen is ideal. Moving my eyes to look from division to seems straining.
You wouldn’t just move your eyes you’d move your head the same as you’d do at a desk. That’s the tracking part of the headsets
From what randos on the net have said the next closest headset that doesn’t require a computer to operate costs $5k+ so from an enterprise standpoint they could more cost efficient there. So apparently it might appeal to the enterprise market.
I have seen much dumber, much more expensive tech in the wild in offices.
If it lives up to the hype, it could replace 2-3 desktop monitors (or convince some executives it can, anyway). It’s about the same price as two Apple Studio Displays. I’ve seen offices with very expensive standard equipment. $3500 per employee isn’t all that much to begin with if it’s legitimately useful.
Except an employee leaves and a new one doesn’t mind using used monitors. Try that with a stinky used headset.
I’m just genuinely confused by the value proposition. $3500 seems to be about a 1000% Apple Tax over comparable tech. I’m sure the interface will be slightly nicer, but the Venn diagram of those who need the unique benefits of Apple’s product overlapping those who have this much money to spend has to be very small. For business or personal use.
$3500 seems to be about a 1000% Apple Tax over comparable tech.
Do you have an example of comparable tech?
To be clear, my value question and note about the Venn diagram is that there may be a specific configuration of features only on the Vision Pro, but “comparable tech” includes to me all of the standard VR/AR products out there that as I understand it (correct me if I’m wrong) can do 95% of what Vision Pro can do. So, the Quest line, the Vive line. Even the ultra high-end products I think are only $1500, aren’t they?
I’ve got a Vive, it’s nice but I wouldn’t say it’s comparable to the Apple headset. It’s VR only, like Meta’s but Apple are trying to do both AR and VR. The biggest difference though is in the displays. The Vive is great for gaming but that’s about it. Movies don’t look to great and working with text is a horrible experience due to the low resolution and the screen door effect.
Apple’s is probably the first “affordable” headset that can be used as a replacement for a monitor.
There is no comparable tech.
You can’t get just a headset with comparable resolution, without the high quality low latency passthrough or the computer, for meaningfully less.
The best explanation I’ve seen is it would be nice on airplanes so you can watch movies and not have to awkwardly scrub past everything that might offend the toddlers behind you.
deleted by creator
Sony has had a product like that for over a decade. HMZ-T1
Yeah but you can’t flex without an apple logo you dingus.
Old hype
Admitably I have too much money, but I might buy one of these in a few years as a monitor replacement. Depends on how good it is and how good the alternatives are
Here’s the state of the art VR: https://www.bigscreenvr.com/. You’d need that plus Valve base stations and controllers, so about $1500 total. It’s miles ahead of anything anyone else is offering, especially Apple. You can’t demo it to others though, it really does only work for the person that it’s made for.
I’ve seen the LTT video on that. Trouble is I’d need a computer to power it since my work computer struggles as it is. I work from home and the office and being able to use it in both environments would be helpful. Base stations are a pain in the ass to setup when you want to switch location a couple times a week.
One of the standalone headsets make a lot more sense for my use case. I’ve been thinking about getting a quest 3 but I need to use one to see if the fidelity is good enough. I wish there was a linux based headset I could tinker with but the VR market is still young. Hopefully Valve will pull a steam deck in VR.
Okey, so Apple would have to make client apps to those services by themselfs… Oops! All proprietary.
Yeah MS tried this with youtube. But got shut down fast
What was it called ? Sounds interesting
Windows phone. Originally Microsoft put out a number of apps as web wrappers, but the mobile YouTube site kind of awful. So Microsoft wrote a YouTube app of their own that was actually kind of great and allowed you to download videos and play audio in the background and basically actually work right. Google threw a fit and basically made Microsoft delete the app.
Windows central still has a bunch of articles from the time up.
https://www.windowscentral.com/search?searchTerm=Phone+YouTube
I still miss early Windows Phone. Looking at what Windows desktop has evolved into though, I’m not sure what kind of monster Windows Phone might have turned into if it were still around.
Or, a web browser…
Or iOS compatibility. But every layer of software stack is making every app less capable for hardware specific functions.
I wonder if Apple’s continued 30% crusade is a factor.
I’d guess it’s mostly just a low volume set of use cases. So few people are on iVision (my new name for this) that it doesn’t make sense to devote development time to it.
Same problem the windows phones had
The vast majority of “apps supported on Vision” will act as a floating screen in front of you. So essentially the same as a typical iPad app. Doubt it takes any development time at all
Have you ever worked with Apple SDKs? They’re kinda a mess. They’d still need a dedicated team to build, support and manage the app, and they clearly don’t feel it’s worth it.
It’s still 4-5 full time developers at least. Probably a full few teams also including marketing, legal and a few other departments.
this is pure speculation, I am not a developer
The same could be said of iPhone apps on iPad but Apple still forces you to make specific dev for the iPad.
This is how Windows Mixed Reality operated (Back when UWP was still a thing) and it actually worked great.
All you have to do is not block the iPad app though.
This is just businesses slowly shrinking back to their actual valuation. No one’s shelling out a thirty percent gratituity just to be involved with very expensive vr.
Pretty much every other platform charges 30% too. Steam? 30% Xbox? 30% PlayStation? 30% Google Play? 30% Samsung Galaxy Store? 30% YouTube Ad Revenue? 45%!
The only one that doesn’t is Epic, which charges 12% and recently it came out that they were struggling to make the store profitable.
So, not sure why Apple gets singled out here.
Why bother with making any apps these days when you can just build a web app and have it work across platforms.
Because they almost always universally suck across platforms. Only exception I’ve seen thus far is Figma.
Figma ballsLiterally every time someone says Figma that’s what I hear in my head.
Doctor can you figma balls i think they’re broke
Canva, too.
Figma? I’d say most webapps either are optimised for desktop or mobile and suck on the other one. Figma is one of the few that sucks on both.
First thing comes to mind is app integration with vision pro. I guess web app is not native enough for what they want to achieve
deleted by creator
Similiar reasons why using files when you can just use Google Docs and save links.
Because once you add all the tracking and advertising, and try to prevent ad-blockers, they don’t work as well. You’re also limited in tracking by restrictions all browsers have to some extent
Webassmely is still an option. Iirc Photoshop uses this for it’s web version and it seems to work very well
Thats a big oof. Imagine buying this thing, going into the Appstore and not even finding YouTube and Spotify! Would immediately dampen my mood.
This feels a bit like Smartwatches (Android Wear and Apple Watch) all over again for me. Where already at launch the third party “App” selection was really underwhelming with Major Apps like Youtube, Spotify, … absent and it never getting much better.
But I get it. Apple always talks a big game about how much they love developers and how awesome they are but in reality they treat them like shit. Now Apple needs them and they give Apple this middle finger. Rightfully so!
You could just load them in The web app anyways. It wouldn’t make sense for them to put dev resources on building an app for an unproven platform.
For now
We’ll see how it goes if the device sell well.
It’s a super expensive VR device, no way it sells well at that price. --we’ll see how this comment ages
Anyone knows the Reddit replacement for RemindMe! around here?
Why bother putting in the effort of developing and testing an app for a totally new platform that Tim Apple and 3 other people will use?
As a practical matter all they have to do is not proactively block their iPad apps from being available, which is the default.
Literally zero effort: Their iPad app is available for the Vision Pro and works perfectly fine.
Minor effort: Block the iPad app from being available.
Extra effort: make a specialized visionOS app that takes advantage of additional hardware features.
Is that Dave2D out of focus?
Pretty sure. He’s been rocking the longer hair for a little while now.
makes plenty of business sense to wait until millions have shipped and yet before competition eats their lunch. what about steam? open brush? what killer app would you wait for?
“Meta may also be unavailable”
That’s soooooo shocking /s
Nice of Google to let us know we can just use Safari with Adblock, SponsorBlock, DeArrow and Vinegar to have a better experience than with their app.
Why would meta rush to have apps on its biggest competition
Big whoop
