There's an obvious parallel between the unveiling of the Apple Vision Pro and the unveiling of the original iPhone. Naturally, the Vision Pro lends itself to discussion as to whether or not it's the next big thing. In 10 years, is everyone going to be using headsets strapped to their faces, is it dead on arrival, or something in between? I've been digesting the announcement and one thing has become very clear to me. The iPhone and the Vision Pro differ in a fundamental way: clarity of vision (in the insightful-visionary sense).
When the iPhone was announced, it had a crystal-clear vision as a product. Apple developed it with full intent for what they wanted the product to do. In the keynote, they communicated that vision directly. The Vision Pro, by contrast, lacks any such vision. Apple themselves don't have a good answer to "why did we build this?". My impression is that they managed to develop this headset with sophisticated capabilities that could convincingly replicate one's environment. Not some 3D rendered virtual environment - but their own, photorealistic space complete with the objects and people around them. They now had the ability to put virtual objects seamlessly within that environment. And then they had no idea what to put there.
Macworld 2007
With the original iPhone, it was clear what Apple wanted to do. They wanted to make phones easier to use, they wanted a phone that could browse the full internet, and they wanted to integrate it with iPod. The keynote focused heavily on the phone, which seems a bit silly today. However, at the time, they had some valid points.
Phone app
Most phones (remember they "reinvented the phone", not the smartphone) had small LCD screens to display text menus that you would navigate around with arrow keys. If you were on a call, you could open a menu and find some option to mute yourself, start a conference call, etc. It wasn't very intuitive, however, and it was pretty common to inadvertently hang up on someone if you tried to do anything fancy. With the iPhone, Apple made it very clear what was happening with your calls and how to manage them. Get a call while your already on a call? See - you can ignore the incoming call, put your current call on hold and answer the call, or hang up on your current call and take the new one.
Apple asked, "don't you want to make juggling your phone calls easy?"
SMS
Phones at the time handled text messages like email. New messages (from anyone) would go to in an inbox. Your replies would all get collected in a sent folder. I mean, what?! The iPhone had an easy win here by brining desktop-style instant messaging to your phone.
"Don't you want threaded text conversations on your phone?"
Safari
The phones that could connect to the internet at the time all used WAP browsers. They were low-feature browsers that required compatible web pages with very basic content. Steve referred it is as the baby internet, and they were completely terrible. The iPhone introduced full web browsing to the phone. Entire desktop pages would load, which you could zoom and pan around within. It was mind-blowing to see these miniature views of the same web pages you were used to visiting on your desktop, on your phone.
"Don't you want to browse the internet when you are away from your computer - waiting for a haircut, on a break at work, between classes, and so on?"
Google Maps
This was absolutely unprecedented prior to the iPhone. It was like having a yellow book on you at all times, except a graphical version with search and directions. You could look up stores and call to see if they had the product you wanted to buy in stock. It wasn't quite a GPS unit, but there was a lot of utility when things came up and you were already away from home. Are your friends going to a restaurant that you've never heard of? No problem, just look it up.
"Don't you want to be able to find places at the drop of a hat?"
Of course you did. It also happened to be wrapped up in a really impressive suite of technologies. Sure there were LCD displays, but it was a big no-no to touch them. There were touch screens, mostly resistive with low accuracy. ATMS for example were touch screens through about 2" of glass with high latency. The iPhone executed these technologies in a way that just had never been seen before. The novelty does wear off, but what lasted are these use cases that were never possible before. Naysayers complained that the price was too high, the camera sucked, or it didn't have MMS and 3G (nevermind the competitors who obviously were never going to say "oh yeah, our product sucks by comparison, I can't wait to get an iPhone!"). Why were they wrong? Well, they weren't - the criticisms were valid, but they just so narrow that they didn't really consider the total vision of the product. And the product's vision was incredible.
WWDC 2023
What is different about the Vision Pro unveiling? There's no cohesive vision for what this product made for. They present several different use cases, but they are contradictory. It's not totally obvious with the "don't you want to" questions what the utility is. Sometimes that answer is "actually, not really." From all early accounts, the execution of the AR technology is just as mind-blowing as the original iPhone. It has really impressive video pass-through and eye tracking. That's the kind of novelty that will off wear off after awhile, so what's left?
Spatial Computing
According to Tim, the Vision Pro is a new kind of computer - a spatial computer. Ok, so let's think about it somewhat like a Mac. One person uses it at a time. You put it on to do some work, which involves launching apps and navigating virtual 2D interfaces, then you put it away. That makes it very much like a Mac, except that it can have a dynamic number of monitors, even in different positions in the environment. Additionally, your environment can even be blended with a photorealistic (not 3D rendered) landscape. Instead of working in cubicle with a boring view of the parking lot, you can feel like you are working at the side of a serene lake. It's not a device created to wear around all the time - it's just like your computer is now, but with a richer experience. Don't you want that?
Absolutely! Ok, but here's the thing. It doesn't run MacOS nor MacOS apps. The iPhone was interchangeable with your current cell phone. Swap it out and you just have a better phone - that was the solve. This isn't something you swap out with your current computer for a better one. This is another device to add to your ecosystem. It runs three different platforms: iOS apps, VisionOS (presumably 3D) apps, and MacOS apps within a VisionOS window of a MacOS desktop that you must already be using. Oof, this is giving me real Windows 8 vibes. Plus, with a base M2 at $3,500, it is a hard sell as a companion device.
But fine. It's a new kind of computer for new experiences, not for replacing current experiences. Don't you want that?
"Don't you want to wear a computer to watch your kids play in the park?"
"Don't you want to wear a computer to record birthday parties?"
"Don't you want to wear a computer to pack your luggage?"
"Don't you want to wear a computer to work in the kitchen?"
"Don't you want to wear a computer during transient interruptions?"
No, I don't. If this spatial computer is for using AR apps, why would I be wearing them while packing luggage (with no apps in use)? Why would I be in the habit of wearing them in the park or around the house while not doing anything in particular at all? I definitely don't want to look into some uncanny eyes while talking to you. I'd prefer that, much like a typical computer, you would look up and give me your attention by putting the headset up on your forehead. All these use cases suggest the device is meant to be used persistently even after you've finished your app-related work.
Augmented Reality
Then it must a true AR headset that is typically worn persistently that "seamlessly blends the real world with the digital world." If that's the case, then why are there seams? You launch apps as these encapsulated digital windows where the real ends and the digital begins. As David Pierce put it, if you see a homescreen, they blew it. What about reality is being augmented here? Granted, I'm not convinced that map-like pins overlayed in our environment is the way to go. Yet, for example, if the headset is not tracking what I packed in my luggage, ensuring that I haven't left anything behind, why am I wearing this thing? There was no vision presented for what the world could be like with digital augmentation and why I would want it.
Personal Entertainment System
Vision Pro is a remarkable entertainment system then. You can view photos and video in a totally immersive way. It provide a truly cinematic experience right in your living room for movies and games. Imagine having a convincing experience of watching an enormous, 100' screen in a serene setting. Don't you want that?
Absolutely! Ok, but only by yourself. Note how not a single person had a TV in all the promo shots. It makes sense, after all. If the headset provides such a grand viewing and auditory experience (for its premium price), why bother with expensive monitors and large TV's for the same purpose? You'd be spending your money twice. Yet this paradigm breaks down entirely once another viewer is in the equation. "Instead of watching something together, wouldn't you prefer a shared virtual experience via Share Play with the Apple Vision Pro users in your home?"
No, I wouldn't.
It feels like Apple doesn't have a clear direction for the product. It seems like was built with quite the opposite philosophy that Steve describes about technology. They had some really impressive technology with no clear vision for what to do with it. So they threw a bunch of use cases out there and they will see what sticks.
Is it the next iPhone? Not with this approach. The headset's technology provides a novel experience that really does remind me of the original iPhone (according to hands-on reports). It's impossible to imagine that it it would just get discarded though. Apple will likely pivot similar to how they did with the Apple watch and make something of the headset yet. The future could eventually well be a bunch of headsets parked on our desks instead of monitors.
When the iPhone was announced, it had a crystal-clear vision as a product. Apple developed it with full intent for what they wanted the product to do. In the keynote, they communicated that vision directly. The Vision Pro, by contrast, lacks any such vision. Apple themselves don't have a good answer to "why did we build this?". My impression is that they managed to develop this headset with sophisticated capabilities that could convincingly replicate one's environment. Not some 3D rendered virtual environment - but their own, photorealistic space complete with the objects and people around them. They now had the ability to put virtual objects seamlessly within that environment. And then they had no idea what to put there.
Macworld 2007
With the original iPhone, it was clear what Apple wanted to do. They wanted to make phones easier to use, they wanted a phone that could browse the full internet, and they wanted to integrate it with iPod. The keynote focused heavily on the phone, which seems a bit silly today. However, at the time, they had some valid points.
Phone app
Most phones (remember they "reinvented the phone", not the smartphone) had small LCD screens to display text menus that you would navigate around with arrow keys. If you were on a call, you could open a menu and find some option to mute yourself, start a conference call, etc. It wasn't very intuitive, however, and it was pretty common to inadvertently hang up on someone if you tried to do anything fancy. With the iPhone, Apple made it very clear what was happening with your calls and how to manage them. Get a call while your already on a call? See - you can ignore the incoming call, put your current call on hold and answer the call, or hang up on your current call and take the new one.
Apple asked, "don't you want to make juggling your phone calls easy?"
SMS
Phones at the time handled text messages like email. New messages (from anyone) would go to in an inbox. Your replies would all get collected in a sent folder. I mean, what?! The iPhone had an easy win here by brining desktop-style instant messaging to your phone.
"Don't you want threaded text conversations on your phone?"
Safari
The phones that could connect to the internet at the time all used WAP browsers. They were low-feature browsers that required compatible web pages with very basic content. Steve referred it is as the baby internet, and they were completely terrible. The iPhone introduced full web browsing to the phone. Entire desktop pages would load, which you could zoom and pan around within. It was mind-blowing to see these miniature views of the same web pages you were used to visiting on your desktop, on your phone.
"Don't you want to browse the internet when you are away from your computer - waiting for a haircut, on a break at work, between classes, and so on?"
Google Maps
This was absolutely unprecedented prior to the iPhone. It was like having a yellow book on you at all times, except a graphical version with search and directions. You could look up stores and call to see if they had the product you wanted to buy in stock. It wasn't quite a GPS unit, but there was a lot of utility when things came up and you were already away from home. Are your friends going to a restaurant that you've never heard of? No problem, just look it up.
"Don't you want to be able to find places at the drop of a hat?"
Of course you did. It also happened to be wrapped up in a really impressive suite of technologies. Sure there were LCD displays, but it was a big no-no to touch them. There were touch screens, mostly resistive with low accuracy. ATMS for example were touch screens through about 2" of glass with high latency. The iPhone executed these technologies in a way that just had never been seen before. The novelty does wear off, but what lasted are these use cases that were never possible before. Naysayers complained that the price was too high, the camera sucked, or it didn't have MMS and 3G (nevermind the competitors who obviously were never going to say "oh yeah, our product sucks by comparison, I can't wait to get an iPhone!"). Why were they wrong? Well, they weren't - the criticisms were valid, but they just so narrow that they didn't really consider the total vision of the product. And the product's vision was incredible.
WWDC 2023
What is different about the Vision Pro unveiling? There's no cohesive vision for what this product made for. They present several different use cases, but they are contradictory. It's not totally obvious with the "don't you want to" questions what the utility is. Sometimes that answer is "actually, not really." From all early accounts, the execution of the AR technology is just as mind-blowing as the original iPhone. It has really impressive video pass-through and eye tracking. That's the kind of novelty that will off wear off after awhile, so what's left?
Spatial Computing
According to Tim, the Vision Pro is a new kind of computer - a spatial computer. Ok, so let's think about it somewhat like a Mac. One person uses it at a time. You put it on to do some work, which involves launching apps and navigating virtual 2D interfaces, then you put it away. That makes it very much like a Mac, except that it can have a dynamic number of monitors, even in different positions in the environment. Additionally, your environment can even be blended with a photorealistic (not 3D rendered) landscape. Instead of working in cubicle with a boring view of the parking lot, you can feel like you are working at the side of a serene lake. It's not a device created to wear around all the time - it's just like your computer is now, but with a richer experience. Don't you want that?
Absolutely! Ok, but here's the thing. It doesn't run MacOS nor MacOS apps. The iPhone was interchangeable with your current cell phone. Swap it out and you just have a better phone - that was the solve. This isn't something you swap out with your current computer for a better one. This is another device to add to your ecosystem. It runs three different platforms: iOS apps, VisionOS (presumably 3D) apps, and MacOS apps within a VisionOS window of a MacOS desktop that you must already be using. Oof, this is giving me real Windows 8 vibes. Plus, with a base M2 at $3,500, it is a hard sell as a companion device.
But fine. It's a new kind of computer for new experiences, not for replacing current experiences. Don't you want that?
"Don't you want to wear a computer to watch your kids play in the park?"
"Don't you want to wear a computer to record birthday parties?"
"Don't you want to wear a computer to pack your luggage?"
"Don't you want to wear a computer to work in the kitchen?"
"Don't you want to wear a computer during transient interruptions?"
No, I don't. If this spatial computer is for using AR apps, why would I be wearing them while packing luggage (with no apps in use)? Why would I be in the habit of wearing them in the park or around the house while not doing anything in particular at all? I definitely don't want to look into some uncanny eyes while talking to you. I'd prefer that, much like a typical computer, you would look up and give me your attention by putting the headset up on your forehead. All these use cases suggest the device is meant to be used persistently even after you've finished your app-related work.
Augmented Reality
Then it must a true AR headset that is typically worn persistently that "seamlessly blends the real world with the digital world." If that's the case, then why are there seams? You launch apps as these encapsulated digital windows where the real ends and the digital begins. As David Pierce put it, if you see a homescreen, they blew it. What about reality is being augmented here? Granted, I'm not convinced that map-like pins overlayed in our environment is the way to go. Yet, for example, if the headset is not tracking what I packed in my luggage, ensuring that I haven't left anything behind, why am I wearing this thing? There was no vision presented for what the world could be like with digital augmentation and why I would want it.
Personal Entertainment System
Vision Pro is a remarkable entertainment system then. You can view photos and video in a totally immersive way. It provide a truly cinematic experience right in your living room for movies and games. Imagine having a convincing experience of watching an enormous, 100' screen in a serene setting. Don't you want that?
Absolutely! Ok, but only by yourself. Note how not a single person had a TV in all the promo shots. It makes sense, after all. If the headset provides such a grand viewing and auditory experience (for its premium price), why bother with expensive monitors and large TV's for the same purpose? You'd be spending your money twice. Yet this paradigm breaks down entirely once another viewer is in the equation. "Instead of watching something together, wouldn't you prefer a shared virtual experience via Share Play with the Apple Vision Pro users in your home?"
No, I wouldn't.
It feels like Apple doesn't have a clear direction for the product. It seems like was built with quite the opposite philosophy that Steve describes about technology. They had some really impressive technology with no clear vision for what to do with it. So they threw a bunch of use cases out there and they will see what sticks.
Is it the next iPhone? Not with this approach. The headset's technology provides a novel experience that really does remind me of the original iPhone (according to hands-on reports). It's impossible to imagine that it it would just get discarded though. Apple will likely pivot similar to how they did with the Apple watch and make something of the headset yet. The future could eventually well be a bunch of headsets parked on our desks instead of monitors.
