Vision Pro is a Great Success!

[d0sed0se]

and its just the beginning , too bad some users cannot see what this can do in 10 years
Our rant user tried this on mac section without any succession, everybody ended up to make fun of him now he tries here
I think with every generation this will become even more useful, more lighter , maybe even cheaper and more mainstream

I love how it's always "10 years! 10 years!" with you kids -- Except for the fact that they've already been working on this thing for nearly 20 years! (patents date back to 2007)...

Just like Nuclear Fusion and the High speed railway here in California "just give it 10 more years, please, guys!" 🤣

 

[MayaUser]

I love how it's always "10 years! 10 years!" with you kids -- Except for the fact that they've already been working on this thing for more than 10 years (patents date back to 2007)...

Just like Nuclear Fusion and the High speed railway here in California "just give it 10 more years, please, guys!" 🤣

same thing with the first iphone,first macbook air and so on" they been working on this thing for more than 100 years"
How many nicknames do you have? Just the fact that you are here and comment , its a fact that you are interested on Apple and on this device in one way or another. You can have patents for 100 years if the tech dont allow it, then its futile for how many years they were thinking about it. Most important is the R&D and QA and you cannot do it on patents, this is learn in collage
Please stay on topic dont be rude with this topic users just because the truth and history are too hard to swallow

 

[Ctrlos]

iPad vs Macbook Air I understand that but Apple Vision Pro vs Mac Studio and which one to buy? very strange and the exception rather than the rule to build an argument around it.

Whilst I appreciate its a clumsy analogy It was more aimed at two competing Apple products that happen to be very close in price and both have a niche, albeit not the same one. Perhaps an iPad Pro combined with a studio display is more apt!

 

[Ctrlos]

Because it failed. Developers are not interested and there are NO killer apps. As a result, AVP lost attentions in 2 months and many articles and reports proofs it. Do I have to say more?

It will take 2-3 years before the device can be considered a ‘failure’. Things like the surgery example show the sorts of industrial uses it has. Apple’s marketing was the problem: they tried to sell it as a piece of consumer tech which it definitely is not.

 

[sunny5]

It will take 2-3 years before the device can be considered a ‘failure’. Things like the surgery example show the sorts of industrial uses it has. Apple’s marketing was the problem: they tried to sell it as a piece of consumer tech which it definitely is not.

iphone 1gen didnt even had an app store so 0 "killer app"....keep dreaming, dev are interested and the interest will go higher and higher with every gen improvements,its clear you dont know too many developers and you just speculate to rant here . Is like you are just born and dont know how Apple works and develops. Keep it going we are having a good time
This is the Mac Pro of macs...a lot of people are interested but 90% of them are price sensitive so of course the momentum is falling from the moment they saw the price

Wrong, literally all consumer AR/VR devices failed from more than 10 years ago and go on based on the history and fact. And literally NOBODY ever succeed with consumer AR/VR markets. Dont forget that there were many AR/VR devices tried to convince consumers to buy but totally failed as nobody wish to use it. Just because it's just 1st gen, does not mean we dont know. Apple didn't even solve problems that others who already made AR/VR devices instead of making more issues. Even Meta with Quest series failed despite selling more than 30 million devices last year just because people were not keep using it.

This is why it's a failure as it has been proven so many times. What makes you think Apple is no different from them?

 

[Sami13496]

Please stop using term killer app. It’s use case. Does it have real use cases.

Or more specifically first we need to ask
- does it solve real problems
- does it offer solutions for real needs
- does it offer additional value compared to traditional computing (Mac, iPad)

If the answers are no then the whole concept is a failure. Then the form factor doesn’t matter. If the answers are no it doesn’t matter even if the form factor would be regular glasses.

But we all know the answers are yes. Because if the form factor was regular glasses then this would be a revolution in computing.

So the real issue is that this generation 1 product just has too much compromises (weight, looks, battery) to be used daily like Macs and iPads.

If or when the tech matures enough for it to have form factor like regular glasses it will be a success.

If that happens in say 5 years then the revolution started with this first gen AVP.

Or maybe the tech won’t mature fast enough and Apple will kill this product and try again in 10 years. Or some other company will.

 

[surferfb]

Wrong, literally all consumer AR/VR devices failed from more than 10 years ago and go on based on the history and fact. And literally NOBODY ever succeed with consumer AR/VR markets. Dont forget that there were many AR/VR devices tried to convince consumers to buy but totally failed as nobody wish to use it. Just because it's just 1st gen, does not mean we dont know. Apple didn't even solve problems that others who already made AR/VR devices instead of making more issues. Even Meta with Quest series failed despite selling more than 30 million devices last year just because people were not keep using it.

This is why it's a failure as it has been proven so many times. What makes you think Apple is no different from them?

Is there literally anything that could change your mind that all headsets are failures? That the entire product category is doomed?

Or to ask it another way, what would success look like to you?

 

[sunny5]

Is there literally anything that could change your mind that all headsets are failures? That the entire product category is doomed?

Or to ask it another way, what would success look like to you?

Be realistic based on the history. AR/VR headsets are no way near for consumers which has been proven. If you wanna argue about it, why do we even need it?

 

[Night Spring]

MKBHD had a great WVFRM podcast episode recently with Hugo Barra on why he's bullish on the Vision Pro and VR/AR long-term. Lots of great insights on how tech companies are finding niches in the market and what exactly they need to do and accomplish before these devices become more mainstream. Highly recommend for everyone here interested in this space generally. Haters need not apply.

Where can I find this? Do you have a link?

 

[surferfb]

Be realistic based on the history. AR/VR headsets are no way near for consumers which has been proven. If you wanna argue about it, why do we even need it?

We could have said the same thing about tablets before the iPad though. Tons of companies had tried tablets and no consumers wanted them. Then Apple released the iPad and after a few generations they were a success.

My only point is not that AVP is a success, but that you can’t call it a failure after three months because other companies tried and (in your OPINION, not “proven”) failed.

I don’t NEED the AVP any more than I NEED an iPad. I prefer to work on my iPad but I could work just as easily on a Mac, or Windows PC.

But, I certainly can see a future where there is entertainment I want to watch that requires an AVP-like headset, for example. I am a huge sports fan. Immersive entertainment could give me court-side seats at every NBA game. Does that exist yet? No. Will it definitely come to pass? Of course not. But it definitely won’t exist if companies like Apple and Meta don’t try new things like AVP.

 

[sunny5]

We could have said the same thing about tablets before the iPad though. Tons of companies had tried tablets and no consumers wanted them. Then Apple released the iPad and after a few generations they were a success.

My only point is not that AVP is a success, but that you can’t call it a failure after three months because other companies tried and (in your OPINION, not “proven”) failed.

I don’t NEED the AVP any more than I NEED an iPad. I prefer to work on my iPad but I could work just as easily on a Mac, or Windows PC.

But, I certainly can see a future where there is entertainment I want to watch that requires an AVP-like headset, for example. I am a huge sports fan. Immersive entertainment could give me court-side seats at every NBA game. Does that exist yet? No. Will it definitely come to pass? Of course not. But it definitely won’t exist if companies like Apple and Meta don’t try new things like AVP.

iPad is a whole different market unlike AR/VR. End of the story.

 

[surferfb]

iPad is a whole different market unlike AR/VR. End of the story.

Of course it’s a whole different market.

Your argument is that AR/VR is doomed to fail. I ask why, your response is “because it’s already proven failed because other companies tried and failed.”

So, I give an example of another market where the product category had been tried by other companies “and failed” and Apple found success. The first tablet computer was released in 1987! So over 20 years before the iPad. Even Apple tried and failed with the Newton.

Your argument is AR/VR is doomed because companies have been trying for over 10 years. My response is, sometimes the technology needs to catch up to the idea. Why is it not possible that Apple will find success here too?

Again, I ask, is there literally anything that could convince you that AR/VR headset could be a success? If so, what is it? If not, why are you hanging out on a forum for AR/VR devices?

 

[sunny5]

Of course it’s a whole different market.

Your argument is that AR/VR is doomed to fail. I ask why, your response is “because it’s already proven failed because other companies tried and failed.”

So, I give an example of another market where the product category had been tried by other companies “and failed” and Apple found success. The first tablet computer was released in 1987! So over 20 years before the iPad. Even Apple tried and failed with the Newton.

Your argument is AR/VR is doomed because companies have been trying for over 10 years. My response is, sometimes the technology needs to catch up to the idea. Why is it not possible that Apple will find success here too?

Again, I ask, is there literally anything that could convince you that AR/VR headset could be a success? If so, what is it? If not, why are you hanging out on a forum for AR/VR devices?

Then why do you bother to argue when you wanna keep defending the failure? Like I said, iPad or tablet is a different market and even then, they have different markets as laptops are easily replace tablets which already happen.

Again, pointless statement.

 

[surferfb]

Exactly what I expected. No actual response. Just “iPads are different because I say so.”

You’re definitely right that this is pointless, so I’m going to stop responding to this thread after this post. Hopefully we’re both still hanging out on MacRumors in 10 years so one of us can tell the other “I told you so!”

 

[sunny5]

Exactly what I expected. No actual response. Just “iPads are different because I say so.”

You’re definitely right that this is pointless, so I’m going to stop responding to this thread after this post. Hopefully we’re both still hanging out on MacRumors in 10 years so one of us can tell the other “I told you so!”

You failed to prove it first and therefore, I have no interest in a pointless conversation.

 

[Richu]

Inititial sales != sustained sales

The initial sales were from the hype built up by a massive company. Not selling out the initial batch is a poor indication though, but let’s see…

If it’s a good enough product for the market, we’ll see it in sustained sales being picked up and continuously growing.

What is success?

Because Apple is such a ginormous company they essentially need to catch lightning in a bottle with a new product for it to be meaningful on their PNL.

This means even if becomes a conventional success it isn’t for Apple or Apples shareholders. It needs to be huge.

 

[JustAnExpat]

Or more specifically first we need to ask
- does it solve real problems
- does it offer solutions for real needs
- does it offer additional value compared to traditional computing (Mac, iPad)

XR/VR does offer solutions to real problems, and offer solutions to meet consumers real needs. These consumers on the other hand, are not general purpose computer users, but should be focused on businesses, government, and industrial.

I expect Apple to sell off the Vision Pro line to another organization or to abandoned it eventually, because we're about 30 years away from a general purpose VR/XR device, and apple does not focus on government or business.

 

[Delgibbons]

It's glitchy and approximate, which you can see very clearly in that video. Like every other example of AR I've ever seen. It makes for a great tech demo, but can never be used for anything important or precise.

Exactly the same accuracy as lidar via Polycam on the iPhone pro. Plus you can connect wirelessly to steam vr and use actual vr applications other than the walled garden

 

[JPack]

Please stop using term killer app. It’s use case. Does it have real use cases.

Or more specifically first we need to ask
- does it solve real problems
- does it offer solutions for real needs
- does it offer additional value compared to traditional computing (Mac, iPad)

If the answers are no then the whole concept is a failure. Then the form factor doesn’t matter. If the answers are no it doesn’t matter even if the form factor would be regular glasses.

But we all know the answers are yes. Because if the form factor was regular glasses then this would be a revolution in computing.

So the real issue is that this generation 1 product just has too much compromises (weight, looks, battery) to be used daily like Macs and iPads.

If or when the tech matures enough for it to have form factor like regular glasses it will be a success.

If that happens in say 5 years then the revolution started with this first gen AVP.

Or maybe the tech won’t mature fast enough and Apple will kill this product and try again in 10 years. Or some other company will.

Every single Apple product has a real use case, even failed products like iPod Hi-Fi. Otherwise, it wouldn't have received a green light for development and launch.

Steve Jobs said for iPhone, "the killer app is making calls."

Killer app refers to a popular and widely desirable feature. Every product has a real use case. The problem is niche use cases don't make a commercially viable product.

Right now, Vision Pro offers very niche use cases. AR doesn't have a killer app where many consumers can appreciate.

 

[leifp]

Some day…

Until the Vision Pro was announced, I had a dreamer’s vision of VR: I imagined fully immersed first person games. Instead, Beat Sabre was the height. So my Kickstarted Oculus and various kit from then (up to my present sole kit, PSVR2... 🥲) have not remotely lived up to hype for me. Now the Vision Pro has me dreaming of technical/“useful” headsets… but no killer app (for you, JPack) has arrived. So I will wait patiently. I can feel how close Apple is with this thing but it awaits traction. And I will be there when it succeeds.

Or cry softly in the reeds when it dies

 

[Sami13496]

Right now, Vision Pro offers very niche use cases. AR doesn't have a killer app where many consumers can appreciate.

I’m not sure I can agree with this. Watching content on a giant virtual screen is not a niche use case that consumers can appreciate for sure. I believe many would buy AVP just for that. Another not so niche use case would be virtual external screens for Mac. I think those two use cases alone would make AVP hugely popular. The issue is that first generation product has too much compromises. Weight, bulkiness, battery life, looks, price. If AVP had form factor like regular glasses and more consumer friendly price those thing would fly of the shelf.

 

[DonkeyWonkey]

 

[Night Spring]

If AVP had form factor like regular glasses and more consumer friendly price those thing would fly of the shelf.

if wishes were horses...

The problem is that technology that will allow for AVP functionality in a format closer to regular glasses is at least a few decades away, as some other poster has already suggested previously.

I like what Apple has done with the AVP, and I hope the product is successful, because I want one, but can't afford it unless the price comes down significantly. But I have serious doubts whether it can gain a big enough market for that to happen. Right now I'm thinking chances are 50/50.

 

[TechnoMonk]

Tried AVP the other day. I am blown away by the device. I almost pulled the trigger, but I still have some concerns and will wait for Gen 2.0. I tried Quest for 3 months before sending it back to costco. For folks comparing AVP to Quest are either people invested in AVP failure or the usual hate Apple crowd.

 

[cardfan]

if wishes were horses...

The problem is that technology that will allow for AVP functionality in a format closer to regular glasses is at least a few decades away, as some other poster has already suggested previously.

I like what Apple has done with the AVP, and I hope the product is successful, because I want one, but can't afford it unless the price comes down significantly. But I have serious doubts whether it can gain a big enough market for that to happen. Right now I'm thinking chances are 50/50.

The Apple Vision Pro’s eBay prices are making me sad

Thankfully, in the headset nobody can see my tears.

www.theverge.com