Apple CEO Tim Cook on Using Vision Pro: 'It's an Aha Moment'

[tubuliferous]

Apple will surely release some tech demos and some random game or even a professional application might find it's way on this system, but otherwise it will become old very quickly, even for most die hards

I don't know...it opens up possibilities, especially considering the coinciding (or enabling?) emergence of powerful AIs. The Vision has me, a mere dabbler in software development, wanting to get serious about programming. If I'm motivated by the platform, so will be many others.

The first smart phones weren't very compelling devices even though they contained the seeds of greatness. Apple put together the elements of smart phones into something coherent and seemingly magical, and Apple may have been similarly successful with the Vision. We'll see soon enough!

 

[novagamer]

But there are controllers…they showed people using controllers.

There are no compatible hand controllers for VR and none are allowed as far as I am aware, unless this changed sometime in the last month or two. If you move more than couple feet VR shuts off Automatically. There are no *tracked* controllers which everything from a Vive to an Index to an Oculus uses, and while gesture tracking with the cameras facing downward to your lap for scrolling works well, wide gestures like if you were playing a game and spinning around etc. the developer sessions explicitly tell you not to pursue.

If you have contrary information please provide a source, I've seen the developer sessions that explicitly instruct not to design for fast paced games on Vision Pro, which I expect will change and be a key feature of the second generation.

There will be some games and maybe even some innovative things using eye tracking, but nothing like what an Index can provide with outside-in tracking holding a weapon or something, for example. They explicitly say no wide-ranging motions in front of you, and certainly not behind you or to the side which outside-in tracking can accomplish.

Seated VR with a Playstation controller or something, maybe, but nothing like current VR. Example: no Beat Saber in VR with this thing in VR mode.

I'd love evidence to the contrary, because I've viewed the primary source material. Have you?

My opinion is that this is a first generation device and the lead of the Vision Pro is not a gamer (this is on record, and his own team complained internally about this), the team was not linked-in with Apple's recent substantial push into gaming due to how secretive the project was internally, and they've done the math on how limited the production will be and will use gaming as a forcing function to get people to upgrade to a future version, because enough early adopters will pick this up without it.

I also believe Apple wanted to prevent any comparisons between this device and "toys" like current VR devices, whether that's true or not I think that is how the executives want to position this first Vision Pro - as a spatial computing platform and paradigm shift, not a device for games. But that strategy will be augmented down the road, I think.

 

[NT1440]

There are no compatible hand controllers for VR and none are allowed as far as I am aware, unless this changed sometime in the last month or two. If you move more than couple feet VR shuts off Automatically. There are no *tracked* controllers which everything from a Vive to an Index to an Oculus uses, and while gesture tracking with the cameras facing downward to your lap for scrolling works well, wide gestures like if you were playing a game and spinning around etc. the developer sessions explicitly tell you not to pursue.

If you have contrary information please provide a source, I've seen the developer sessions that explicitly instruct not to design for fast paced games on Vision Pro, which I expect will change and be a key feature of the second generation.

There will be some games and maybe even some innovative things using eye tracking, but nothing like what an Index can provide with outside-in tracking holding a weapon or something, for example. They explicitly say no wide-ranging motions in front of you, and certainly not behind you or to the side which outside-in tracking can accomplish.

Seated VR with a Playstation controller or something, maybe, but nothing like current VR. Example: no Beat Saber in VR with this thing in VR mode.

I'd love evidence to the contrary, because I've viewed the primary source material. Have you?

My opinion is that this is a first generation device and the lead of the Vision Pro is not a gamer (this is on record, and his own team complained internally about this), the team was not linked-in with Apple's recent substantial push into gaming due to how secretive the project was internally, and they've done the math on how limited the production will be and will use gaming as a forcing function to get people to upgrade to a future version, because enough early adopters will pick this up without it.

I also believe Apple wanted to prevent any comparisons between this device and "toys" like current VR devices, whether that's true or not I think that is how the executives want to position this first Vision Pro - as a spatial computing platform and paradigm shift, not a device for games. But that strategy will be augmented down the road, I think.

Can you provide which sessions you’re talking about? I just read the transcripts of “Design for Spatial Input” and “Build Great Games for Spatial” computing and I didn’t see anything regarding “ They explicitly say no wide-ranging motions in front of you”.

They suggested a karate chop as an example of a custom gesture you could use.

What the Spatial Computing WWDC sessions have is clear *guidance* on considering ergonomics when designing custom gestures, but neither of the two sessions I read have anything forbidden. They give you the tools to create whatever gesture you want, but make it clear that non-obvious, confusing, and tiring gestures are not a good idea from a design perspective, but you can absolutely do them if you want.


Build Great Games for Spatial Computing - WWDC
“You can use hand tracking to let the player grab virtual objects or implement custom gestures, such as pointing at an object or karate chopping them.

You access hand tracking through ARKit, and the device will ask the player for permission, same as when an app wants to use your location or microphone.

There are some things to consider when designing this input.

Hands can only be tracked when they are visible to the camera.

Really fast hand movements can be hard to track.

Take that into account“




Is it the “can be hard to track” that you read as “not allowed”?

Regarding controllers, I genuinely don’t know if VR controllers today are Bluetooth or not. If they are, there is *nothing* preventing them from being used that I saw. I assume they’re not Bluetooth given latency? Anyone know about that?

So maybe you watched different sessions, or maybe you took a different reading of them than I did? Which ones specifically did you watch?

 

[radiologyman]

This is the future... when they figure out how to make it fit in relatively low weight AR glasses. Until then it will be an expensive developer prototype. I will wait for a Vision Air.

 

[Jensend]

Regarding controllers, I genuinely don’t know if VR controllers today are Bluetooth or not. If they are, there is *nothing* preventing them from being used that I saw. I assume they’re not Bluetooth given latency? Anyone know about that?

I believe most VR controllers use custom protocols, not Bluetooth.

But there are additional issues:

There are two broad categories of VR controllers.

1. Controllers that are tracked by headsets — These controllers have a constellation of (usually infrared) LEDs embedded in them. The cameras on the headset are synchronized with the LEDs which are placed in a specific configuration. The headset can use this to determine the position of the controllers relative to the headset. — This is how Quest 1, 2 ,3 and PSVR controllers work.
2. Controllers that are tracked independently from the headset. There are three subcategories
   • Controllers that are tracked by external camera(s), but not the headset. These work similarly to the controllers in category one. These are no longer produced. The original Oculus Rift and PSVR controllers used this method.
   • Controllers with embedded cameras, which can track any environment — This is how the Quest Pro controllers work.
   • Controls with sensors that detect fixed beacons in the room — This is how Valve Index and HTC Vive controllers works

The problem with category one is that The Vision Pro doesn't have cameras that are tuned to the LEDs. Also, the headset doesn't know the configuration of the LEDs.

The issue with category two is that the coordinate space of the controllers would need to be lined up with coordinate space of the headset, which uses a different tracking system.

Apple could possibly develop some form of calibration for category two, but I don't see them doing that.

 

[novagamer]

Can you provide which sessions you’re talking about? I just read the transcripts of “Design for Spatial Input” and “Build Great Games for Spatial” computing and I didn’t see anything regarding “ They explicitly say no wide-ranging motions in front of you”.

They suggested a karate chop as an example of a custom gesture you could use.

What the Spatial Computing WWDC sessions have is clear *guidance* on considering ergonomics when designing custom gestures, but neither of the two sessions I read have anything forbidden. They give you the tools to create whatever gesture you want, but make it clear that non-obvious, confusing, and tiring gestures are not a good idea from a design perspective, but you can absolutely do them if you want.


Build Great Games for Spatial Computing - WWDC
“You can use hand tracking to let the player grab virtual objects or implement custom gestures, such as pointing at an object or karate chopping them.

You access hand tracking through ARKit, and the device will ask the player for permission, same as when an app wants to use your location or microphone.

There are some things to consider when designing this input.

Hands can only be tracked when they are visible to the camera.

Really fast hand movements can be hard to track.

Take that into account“




Is it the “can be hard to track” that you read as “not allowed”?

Regarding controllers, I genuinely don’t know if VR controllers today are Bluetooth or not. If they are, there is *nothing* preventing them from being used that I saw. I assume they’re not Bluetooth given latency? Anyone know about that?

So maybe you watched different sessions, or maybe you took a different reading of them than I did? Which ones specifically did you watch?

Hand tracking information isn’t made available for Windows or Volumes, the app has no access to it because of privacy concerns since it would also capture the room. I expect future hardware and software to account for this limitation.

If you’ve never played with a Valve Index or HTC Vive it’s going to be impossible to explain what I mean but you can have true immersion where you don’t even look at a target and fire with a handheld controller you’re physically holding, this experience will not be replicable in VisionOS currently despite the large array of sensors.

The ARKit implementation is awful for games, see the latency in Apple’s own demo here: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/visionos/happybeam/

It’s going to need a major hardware and software revision and maybe even additional hardware controllers before it supports the type of experience you can get now with mid/high end VR gaming. I do think it will come, but not for a few years.

Full immersion shuts off if you take more than a step or two which makes most experiences impossible, because remember the hand tracking data is only available in those modes. It’s a weird limitation, but probably exists due to the reasons I mentioned earlier.

Multiple sessions reference these limitations but they don’t focus on them extensively for obvious reasons, but they are dealbreakers for serious VR game experiences.

It’s going to be eye tracking and pinch or click for an action kind of stuff which is great for computing but not for games.

Beat Saber is so huge it wouldn’t entirely shock me if Apple grants them some exception or private API with maybe wands or something but beyond that I think a lot of people will be disappointed if gaming is a focus, because this first generation hardware and software is just not built for it.

Also edit to say yes, the quote about not tracking fast movement is a huge limitation and I believe it only applies to the front cameras but this is just my guess. I think the main focus of the onboard processing chip is to have almost no latency for gestures made in your lap, since that immediacy is necessary for pinch to click and scrolling etc. Exactly where all the other focus is for this first gen - establishing spatial computing and purposefully not giving a lot of consideration to serious gaming, which I think is somewhat on purpose. It’s possible an OS update will vastly improve this, but I think it’ll need new hardware also.

There will be very neat demos etc. and eye tracking (which data is also very limited to apps, I think it’s totally abstracted actually) which will establish some new forms of interface but I don’t think anyone will spend hours gaming in this headset beyond the novelty period. It’s going to be a spatial computing rarely, content consumption mostly, kind of thing.

Second gen if they go for lighter material like Titanium or Carbon fiber and further miniaturize some components will make it a much more useful exercise tool, and possibly gaming as well if they allow hand held controllers and a low latency way to interact with them, possibly using a custom chip. We’ll see.

 

[Jensend]

Full immersion shuts off if you take more than a step or two which makes most experiences impossible, because remember the hand tracking data is only available in those modes. It’s a weird limitation, but probably exists due to the reasons I mentioned earlier.

Very few VR games require more than a step or two. Valve pushed the whole "room scale" thing early on, but it didn't really catch on, beyond a handful of games. The lack of controllers is a much bigger issue.

Beat Saber is so huge it wouldn’t entirely shock me if Apple grants them some exception or private API with maybe wands or something but beyond that I think a lot of people will be disappointed if gaming is a focus, because this first generation hardware and software is just not built for it.

Meta owns Beat Saber, and I doubt they would bring it to VisionOS. Yes, it's on PlayStation and PC, but that happened before Meta acquired them, and those platforms are less direct competitors.

There will be very neat demos etc. and eye tracking (which data is also very limited to apps, I think it’s totally abstracted actually) which will establish some new forms of interface but I don’t think anyone will spend hours gaming in this headset beyond the novelty period. It’s going to be a spatial computing rarely, content consumption mostly, kind of thing.

Yeah, the API is quite restrictive. I saw an idea for having something like Siri, but instead of needing a wake word, you could just look at a widget in you space and the assistant would listen. A third party couldn't do something like that, because the only way for an app to know if you've looked at something is if you do the click gesture.

 

[ackmondual]

you really think he pays for it?????

Seems moot if you're an Apple CEO. I recall some protest form his colleagues when Steve Jobs priced some Mac models, saying "but Steve, you're a millionaire!"

 

[Zimmy68]

Opening up your credit card statement after buying this is the real A-Ha moment.

 

[jimbobb24]

All true, but professional use cases will not drive mass adoption. Look at the launch video. A guy in an office with virtual screens was about as professional as it got. Apple was pitching end users, consumers, ie: that family of 4, in the launch video, not niche professional users.

The idea that Vision Pro is some sort of professional device keeps getting thrown around as if it's gospel by a few people...yet there's no evidence that Apple is on that track. According to a quick Google search, there are around 150,000 architects in the US. Even if every single one bought a Vision Pro, that's a drop in the bucket. And every single one won't buy one. Neither will every site contractor, etc.

Finally, who is going to write all of these amazing niche use case professional apps? Unless AutoDesk embraces Vision Pro, it's dead in the architectural world. Will enough of their customers demand Vision Pro support? We'll have to wait and see.

No matter how many times a few people parrot this idea that Vision Pro is for professionals, there's simply no evidence to support it (at this point). Every indication from Apple is that Vision Pro is a consumer-oriented device. Developers will have to see the value in writing apps for specialized niche use cases and right now I don't see how anyone makes money doing that (outside of a few big names adding Vision Pro support to existing software, ie: AutoDesk).

If we watch the presentation on the device about half is people doing work with some use for play and consumption. I think if the AVP has adoption near that of the Mac Pro I think apple will be happy. Widespread adoption might come as the technology improves but let’s say it’s even a goal apple has…well it’s not going to happy as a single user device at that price.

Niche software does fine on all platforms because you don’t charge 99¢ for it. If it really has productivity gains it will be worth it to some. If not…it’s dead.

Also it may end up being a unique consumption device for some rare people. One of the people who used it said if the court side NBA experience was as good in practice as it was on the device demo he would consider buying it just for that reason. Court side tickets can cost thousands so some sports fanatics might buy one for consumption but that’s a tiny group.

 

[NT1440]

If we watch the presentation on the device about half is people doing work with some use for play and consumption. I think if the AVP has adoption near that of the Mac Pro I think apple will be happy. Widespread adoption might come as the technology improves but let’s say it’s even a goal apple has…well it’s not going to happy as a single user device at that price.

Niche software does fine on all platforms because you don’t charge 99¢ for it. If it really has productivity gains it will be worth it to some. If not…it’s dead.

Also it may end up being a unique consumption device for some rare people. One of the people who used it said if the court side NBA experience was as good in practice as it was on the device demo he would consider buying it just for that reason. Court side tickets can cost thousands so some sports fanatics might buy one for consumption but that’s a tiny group.

I think it’s going to be a hit in the architect/commercial realty market.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Also it may end up being a unique consumption device for some rare people. One of the people who used it said if the court side NBA experience was as good in practice as it was on the device demo he would consider buying it just for that reason. Court side tickets can cost thousands so some sports fanatics might buy one for consumption but that’s a tiny group.

I'm not so sure about 'tiny.' There is abundant business for PPV events. There are abundant events that people would love to attend if they could allocate the time/travel/money to be there... wherever 'there' happens to be.

Event seating is finite: one butt per seat. Whether that seat costs upwards of $40K for NBA games- as I've seen first hand myself in select games last year- or $50 for less desirable events, only one ticket can be sold for that seat and only one person can sit there.

However, an event entrepreneur could virtualize a front row/courtside/prime seat for the VR many, selling the same seat to many thousands or tens of thousands of VR customers, while still selling an actual seat to a live person too for up to $40K. Obviously VR 'there' doesn't compete with actually being 'there' so the guy who pays $40K still pays $40K to actually be there. However, now the many guys who could never justify $40K and/or just can't be 'there' could virtually attend too for much less expense.

Look no further than existing PPV and/or special sports packages like NFL Sunday Ticket. Those not able to follow their team to all of the games in person may pay the $600 to follow them on a 2D TV screen. MILLIONS do exactly that. What would a segment of those millions pay for a NFL ST VR that can make it seem much more like being at the game? Look around and see fans virtually seated next to you. Look behind you and see lots of fans seated at the game too. Instead of watching the game through a 2D window, look wherever you want, whenever you want and see what someone being there would see. During the TV commercial breaks, watch how the live event fills that time (in person, there's entertaining filler while TV viewers watch commercials).

Got a similar fanatic friend across the country or world? Maybe a NFL-ST-VR offering can sell you 2 VR seats side by side... so that you in Tennessee and they in Tokyo can get as close to being at the game in Las Vegas as possible without either of you paying to fly there, get a hotel, pay up for great seats, etc. You look over at your friend sitting next you (actually in Tokyo), they look over and see your reaction to the big play.

Think about PPV fight fans. WWE wrestling fanatics. Olympics fans. All sports. Broadway show fans who can't make it to NYC. Concert fans who can't make it to the big show. Etc. There is a TON of this kind of service opportunity.

Why would the promoters/arenas be interested? Again, think about the math. Sell a prime seat for $40K to one person. Sell a virtual version of about the same seat for $200. Since live > VR, they still get the $40K. But now, without having to allocate an actual physical seat to a live person, they sell maybe 5,000 people. 5K times $200 = $1M. Optimize that VR seating pricing. Maybe a test at $100 per VR seat sells 20,000 people for $2M? Or maybe they "get greedy" and price it at $500 and only sell 1,000 people for $500K. In all such scenarios, they still get the $40K live guy but they add a lot of extra revenue for those passionate enough about whatever it is to pay to virtually attend the show/event vs. only watch through a 2D window (television) if the event is even available at all on television (many desirable events are NOT).

Could there be that kind of added revenue in this? Take a look at what getting to watch a PPV thing like top boxing matches generates in terms of PPV buys. Now, pessimistically assume that instead of paying to watch on a television, a smallish segment of those numbers pay to feel more like they are there: ringside VR. Let's make it only 10% are fanatical enough to pay for VR seats and a Vpro headset. Looking at a fight like Wilder vs. Fury (#5 on that page) 600K purchased PPV on TV, so 10% would be 60K opt for VR. You pick the price of what they pay. Let's be cheap and assume only $100. 60K times $100 = $6M for NOT selling an actual seat, which can still be purchased by those who are actually at the fight in person... and those (including groups of friends) who would rather watch on television, still pay the PPV rate to watch on television.

Do the same for all of the other PPV events people pay to see. Package up all kinds of other live events already available as add-on packages for a television screen with a VR version.

One-time cost of entry would be this "expensive" headset... and then various VR-PPV packages for whatever kind of thing interests someone. Apple would likely want their 30% off the top for every PPV-VR event (more services revenue). Promoters/arenas could sell a bunch of additional people NOT seats to the big show(s) for even more money. Existing offerings for television viewer could be maintained. Existing sales to actual people willing to pay up to attend live would still sell out. This results in more revenue for everyone involved AND people less able to afford some events in person could have the next best feeling like being there... than only watching on television... or not at all if the event is not available on TV.

I foresee this whole VR services portfolio as clearly as I see super-size screen on demand. If you re-watch the Disney segment of the WWDC presentation, the montage of things to watch includes a bit of what COULD be interpreted as only ESPN television (basketball game)... but what if it is ESPN VR PPV service teaser instead? Re-watch this bit and think about what is being said...

I can't interpret that as only watching the ESPN channel on a virtual TV screen. Can you? Like Apple, Disney covets "mo-mo-mo-money" too. Instead of only airplaying ESPN to a bigger screen in Vpro, what if you can virtually attend the game through a new service from ESPN? If that doesn't move someone, think of all the games you might want to watch that are NOT included in an ESPN tv channel subscription.

This new kind of entertainment service seems like it would be very desirable "middle ground" above a NFL-ST type experience but shy of spending much more money to actually be there for all those who will not pay for $40K seats, etc. Now think back to various rumors about Apple being in the running for NFL-ST, a bigger MLB package, etc. What if they were NOT after television packages but VR variations of the same? NFL could still sell ST to Hulu but then monetize the same content with this brand new NFL service from Apple. MLB could still sell the same TV services but also monetize the same content with this brand new MLB service from Apple. Imagine this launching ahead of NCAA March Madness and offering March Madness VR as an initial VR sports service. I would think THAT would motivate a bunch of college basketball fans not able to be at the games but wanting something more than the television version to want to buy Vpro.

And all such sources of content desire ways to make more money from the same basic offerings too. Here's a brand new one that doesn't seem to step on anyone else's toes.

"Think different"

 

[Expos of 1969]

I'm not so sure about 'tiny.' There is abundant business for PPV events. There are abundant events that people would love to attend if they could allocate the time/travel/money to be there... wherever 'there' happens to be.

Event seating is finite: one butt per seat. Whether that seat costs upwards of $40K for NBA games- as I've seen first hand myself in select games last year- or $50 for less desirable events, only one ticket can be sold for that seat and only one person can sit there.

However, an event entrepreneur could virtualize a front row/courtside/prime seat for the VR many, selling the same seat to many thousands or tens of thousands of VR customers, while still selling an actual seat to a live person too for up to $40K. Obviously VR 'there' doesn't compete with actually being 'there' so the guy who pays $40K still pays $40K to actually be there. However, now the many guys who could never justify $40K and/or just can't be 'there' could virtually attend too for much less expense.

Look no further than existing PPV and/or special sports packages like NFL Sunday Ticket. Those not able to follow their team to all of the games in person may pay the $600 to follow them on a 2D TV screen. MILLIONS do exactly that. What would a segment of those millions pay for a NFL ST VR that can make it seem much more like being at the game? Look around and see fans virtually seated next to you. Look behind you and see lots of fans seated at the game too. Instead of watching the game through a 2D window, look wherever you want, whenever you want and see what someone being there would see. During the TV commercial breaks, watch how the live event fills that time (in person, there's entertaining filler while TV viewers watch commercials).

Got a similar fanatic friend across the country or world? Maybe a NFL-ST-VR offering can sell you 2 VR seats side by side... so that you in Tennessee and they in Tokyo can get as close to being at the game in Las Vegas as possible without either of you paying to fly there, get a hotel, pay up for great seats, etc. You look over at your friend sitting next you (actually in Tokyo), they look over and see your reaction to the big play.

Think about PPV fight fans. WWE wrestling fanatics. Olympics fans. All sports. Broadway show fans who can't make it to NYC. Concert fans who can't make it to the big show. Etc. There is a TON of this kind of service opportunity.

Why would the promoters/arenas be interested? Again, think about the math. Sell a prime seat for $40K to one person. Sell a virtual version of about the same seat for $200. Since live > VR, they still get the $40K. But now, without having to allocate an actual physical seat to a live person, they sell maybe 5,000 people. 5K times $200 = $1M. Optimize that VR seating pricing. Maybe a test at $100 per VR seat sells 20,000 people for $2M? Or maybe they "get greedy" and price it at $500 and only sell 1,000 people for $500K. In all such scenarios, they still get the $40K live guy but they add a lot of extra revenue for those passionate enough about whatever it is to pay to virtually attend the show/event vs. only watch through a 2D window (television) if the event is even available at all on television (many desirable events are NOT).

Could there be that kind of added revenue in this? Take a look at what getting to watch a PPV thing like top boxing matches generates in terms of PPV buys. Now, pessimistically assume that instead of paying to watch on a television, a smallish segment of those numbers pay to feel more like they are there: ringside VR. Let's make it only 10% are fanatical enough to pay for VR seats and a Vpro headset. Looking at a fight like Wilder vs. Fury (#5 on that page) 600K purchased PPV on TV, so 10% would be 60K opt for VR. You pick the price of what they pay. Let's be cheap and assume only $100. 60K times $100 = $6M for NOT selling an actual seat, which can still be purchased by those who are actually at the fight in person... and those (including groups of friends) who would rather watch on television, still pay the PPV rate to watch on television.

Do the same for all of the other PPV events people pay to see. Package up all kinds of other live events already available as add-on packages for a television screen with a VR version.

One-time cost of entry would be this "expensive" headset... and then various VR-PPV packages for whatever kind of thing interests someone. Apple would likely want their 30% off the top for every PPV-VR event (more services revenue). Promoters/arenas could sell a bunch of additional people NOT seats to the big show(s) for even more money. Existing offerings for television viewer could be maintained. Existing sales to actual people willing to pay up to attend live would still sell out. This results in more revenue for everyone involved AND people less able to afford some events in person could have the next best feeling like being there... than only watching on television... or not at all if the event is not available on TV.

I foresee this whole VR services portfolio as clearly as I see super-size screen on demand. If you re-watch the Disney segment of the WWDC presentation, the montage of things to watch includes a bit of what COULD be interested as only ESPN television (basketball game)... but what if it is ESPN VR PPV instead?

This new kind of entertainment service seems like it would be very desirable "middle ground" above a NFL-ST type experience but shy of spending much more money to actually be there for all those who will not pay for $40K seats, etc. Now think back to various rumors about Apple being in the running for NFL-ST, a bigger MLB package, etc. What if they were NOT after television packages but VR variations of the same? NFL could still sell ST to Hulu but then monetize the same content with this brand new NFL service from Apple. MLB could still sell the same TV services but also monetize the same content with this brand new MLV service from Apple. Imagine this launching ahead of NCAA March Madness and offering March Madness VR as an initial VR sports service.

"Think different"

Cook to Eddie..."Get off your growing ass and do something. Hire this guy from Hobe Sound, FLA and start making us some deals. NOW!"

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I'm genuinely hoping that THIS is what those rumors about Apple trying to get NFL-ST, soccer, more MLB, cricket, et all was/is about. The timing seems right and especially sport & event fans are already proven to pay ANYTHING for "more." I fully believe there is a sizable market for this "middle ground" PPV service... more like being there than watching on television, much less expensive than actually being there... and sizable new revenue benefit for each arena/promoter/team/company too in volume plays (they can't replicate with sales of physical seating).

Is this for everyone? Of course not- NOTHING is for everyone. A big percentage will still be happy to watch the traditional way (if they can watch, not all events are on TV). Groups will still gather around the TV to watch together and experience the group/social dynamic. A small, elite group can still pay up for those expensive, prime seats.

If one can imagine this new segment between the two- as I easily can- pick a size (perhaps a small percentage of those already readily paying for countless PPV events on television)- and THAT group may be buyers of Vpro... not for computing on giant screens or slicing bricks in half games... but perhaps primarily for THIS type of application... much like NFL-ST once required people to hook satt dishes to their homes and install boxes of tech to show the games.

 

[novagamer]

Very few VR games require more than a step or two. Valve pushed the whole "room scale" thing early on, but it didn't really catch on, beyond a handful of games. The lack of controllers is a much bigger issue.

I'm not talking about room scale at all (which is neat for the few games that support it, but a step or two is natural e.g. when playing a boxing game or ... really most standing VR. I was wrong about the distance, it's way more restrictive, per: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/visionos/creating-fully-immersive-experiences

You can only move your head 1.5m from the initial position for immersive experiences. Just ducking down could get you outside that range depending on your height. That magical demo Apple showed people at WWDC did not use full immersion, and as soon as that's gone you run into limitations discussed.

Meta owns Beat Saber, and I doubt they would bring it to VisionOS. Yes, it's on Play

I didn't realize they bought this. What a damn shame.

Yeah, the API is quite restrictive. I saw an idea for having something like Siri, but instead of needing a wake word, you could just look at a widget in you space and the assistant would listen. A third party couldn't do something like that, because the only way for an app to know if you've looked at something is if you do the click gesture.

Yep, you've got it. This is totally why I think anyone hoping for gaming on this device is going to be sorely disappointed. The other experiences being described are going to be neat and interesting, but this is an early adopter device, big time. Probably the biggest one since the original iPhone without app store. I think even the Series 0 watch was a bit more forward compatible hardware-wise, even though it was dog slow.

The Vision Pro at least as the potential to change a bit with software or add-on controllers, but I still think they will wait an entire generation (or for the cheaper version) to launch all of that, if they decide to pursue that avenue.

 

[bobcomer]

What would a segment of those millions pay for a NFL ST VR that can make it seem much more like being at the game?

I'm a Sunday Ticket holder, have been for MANY years, and I like watching it on a 2D screen in privacy and wouldn't pay for a VR experience. I wouldn't pay anything to be there in person either, you see a LOT less of the action in person snacks are harder to come by, and get none of the commentary.

I expect there will be some that would like a NFL VR experience, but nobody like me would. (an introvert)

 

[Expos of 1969]

I'm a Sunday Ticket holder, have been for MANY years, and I like watching it on a 2D screen in privacy and wouldn't pay for a VR experience. I wouldn't pay anything to be there in person either, you see a LOT less of the action in person snacks are harder to come by, and get none of the commentary.

Your beer is much cheaper and I imagine the lineup for your bathroom is much shorter

 

[bobcomer]

Your beer is much cheaper and I imagine the lineup for your bathroom is much shorter

That too!

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I'm a Sunday Ticket holder, have been for MANY years, and I like watching it on a 2D screen in privacy and wouldn't pay for a VR experience. I wouldn't pay anything to be there in person either, you see a LOT less of the action in person snacks are harder to come by, and get none of the commentary.

I expect there will be some that would like a NFL VR experience, but nobody like me would. (an introvert)

I fully agree. Many will certainly be happy with the as is. Plenty of people- myself included- have no Apple Watch. I favor traditional mechanical watches. I don't even have an iPhone. My cellular iPad Mini stands in for telephony & texting needs just fine for my purposes (buds with mic for calls).

I wouldn't expect EVERYONE with a service like that to want Vpro. But moving only a small segment who pays for such services across all of sports & entertainment, etc, to go Vpro can add up to a LOT of Vpro buyers.

Many NFL-ST buyers have friends over to share it on a single TV screen. I wouldn't expect that to change. However, others watch alone... or travel a lot and are away from the home theater. I'm a big NBA fan and had to watch a few playoff games on tiny seat-back screens on a few flights last year even with the availability of wifi to potentially stream the same. If- as backup- the big home theater screen can be with me wherever I travel, my Sunday Ticket or similar experience could also be wherever I happen to be... even at 37K feet.

 

[Jensend]

You can only move your head 1.5m from the initial position for immersive experiences. Just ducking down could get you outside that range depending on your height.

Yes, I am aware of the 1.5m restriction. But most VR games fit very comfortably in a 3m diameter. And a tall person would have to lay on the floor to get 1.5m away from their initial position from "ducking down".

 

[novagamer]

Yes, I am aware of the 1.5m restriction. But most VR games fit very comfortably in a 3m diameter. And a tall person would have to lay on the floor to get 1.5m away from their initial position from "ducking down".

Yeah, my contention is the VR we’re used to allows you to draw boundaries and this will not be the case. I think that 1.5m limit will be a huge barrier, the 3m area is fine particularly for current VR since it will show you the fencing as an overlay - Vision Pro will throw you out of the immersive experience, totally change what the App is allowed to access, and I have doubts about how well it will re engage, if it even does.

We’ll see in a few months. Hopefully I’ll be surprised.

 

[carestudio]

I believe spatial coming is the future if one it can be as cheap as 300 bucks, two, not with the headset. Something lighter and easier to setup would be the best.