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

[citysnaps]

Not having tried it I feel it’s hard to argue with Tim Cook’s statement that it’s an aha-moment. I do feel the 3500 dollar cost will significantly slow adoption speed, and maybe this device will never attain critical mass in terms of consumer interest.

AVP is not targeted to the general market - ie, people who purchase iPhones/iPads, as an example.

It's an AR tool targeted towards assisting people solving problems. Assuming Apple and developers will soon have a variety of apps to go along with the device, it is certainly well-priced. VR will come along for the ride. But again, that's not AVP's main thrust.

 

[omenatarhuri]

I think it’s exciting, can’t innovate my ass

 

[_Refurbished_]

That’s a joke since it doesn’t support motion controllers. Most games can’t get away with hand tracking alone and 2D gaming with a console controller wearing a headset is ridiculous.

That’s an even bigger joke. No real gamer is going consider getting a phone over a PC or dedicated console.

Right.

Apple has been trying to figure out gaming since the 90’s and their greatest achievement so far is Angry Birds. Don’t get me wrong, they make a ton of money off games from the App Store. They have casual gaming down.

As a gamer, there’s a huge difference between Monument Valley and Ratchet and Clank. Just as Apple has created an entire ecosystem revolving around their products, so have Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo. Large tech companies are becoming famous for getting on stage and slapping Assassins Creed on their platform and casual people think they’re somehow a gaming platform. As Stadia proved, that’s far from the truth. In the gaming world content is everything. Having a few AAA titles won’t get you anywhere.

You need a well designed controller, people to play multiplayer games alongside and a voice party system to support that. You also need exclusive content that’s only available on your platform.

As someone that enjoys VR, and thinks it’s the future of gaming (for certain content), we’re a ways off from VR overtaking mainstream gaming. For starters, most people that have used my headsets can’t use them for more than an hour at a time without requiring a break. Additionally, the actual process of getting your play space and area ready for VR gaming is more consuming then hopping on a couch and grabbing a controller. Lastly, you get locked away in another world (which is fantastic) but many people don’t want to be closed off from the world for extended periods of time, every day.

So like you, I laugh when I see MacRumors make ridiculous statements about Apple’s gaming progress. We’re light years away from them creating a viable gaming platform not geared around casual games.

 

[Chambers McMac]

Apple CEO Tim Cook said in an interview with The Independent that the upcoming Vision Pro is part of his nightly routine, and that it has convinced him that spatial computing is the future. He described using the Vision Pro as an industry-defining "aha" moment.

"There are huge differences in how people look at it, depending on if they've read about it or actually tried it," said Cook. "I believe even more about how profound spatial computing is. When you've tried it, it's an aha moment, and you only have a few of those in a lifetime."

While analysts don't expect the Vision Pro headset to sell well during its first year of availability, and have expressed skepticism about Apple's ability to bring costs down, Cook remains positive about the headset's future impact.

Cook has been in Europe to meet with app developers, and he said that so far, Apple is seeing "some incredible work." He went on to explain that there's "so much [developer] excitement out there" over the headset, which is set to come out in 2024.

The headset will have a gaming focus, and Apple is solidifying its reputation for gaming with the iPhone 15 Pro models. There's an A17 Pro in the iPhone 15 Pro and Pro Max that allows for console-quality gaming, and Apple is working with developers to bring console games to the device. Cook said that Apple is "very serious" about gaming and that it is "not a hobby" for the company. "We're putting all of ourselves out there," he said.

Cook's full interview, which also includes some tidbits about apps being created for Vision Pro, can be read at The Independent.

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

The only thing about the headset that I would be concerned with is the weight and fit of the headset and eye fatigue. I use the Air Pod Max and after a while of use they hurt the top of head. Also when I used the Oculus Rift my eyes could only stand it for up to 20 to maybe 30 minutes. If these problems are not an issue than aha.

 

[JamesHolden]

I honestly think it isn't any better or worse than the phone. The pervasiveness of technology and communication is not going away. AI is where people need to really focus their concern when it comes to the health and safety of kids. There are already statistics that show Gen Z and younger are more likely to fall victim to phishing and impersonation scams than Boomers are by virtue of them growing up in connected world and having more inherent trust in technology. AI impersonation is going to make it worse. Then you have kids that are already using generative AI to do awful things to their peers: https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...e-ai-generated-images-naked-minors-2023-09-25. I am not happy about being a father to a daughter growing up in a world where several AI models trained to undress any photo of a woman exist and are easily available on demand to any bully. I'd rather battle VR addiction in kids than face the outcomes of the inevitable AI generated torments hormonal teens and pre-teens will unleash on each other.

Great points. I agree with you on AI. There will always be a part of me that regrets not having a family, but I'm honestly glad I don't have to navigate the ever-encroaching dystopian tech nightmare with kids. So many of my friends and family members who have children really struggle with how tech impacts their kids lives and I see so many of these kids struggle with mental health issues that are 100% tech-driven. Mental health issues are skyrocketing by pretty much any metric and we all know tech addiction (largely driven by social media) is the root cause.

AI will make this a lot worse. You are absolutely right. AI models can crawl a person's social media and very quickly learn to impersonate them. There are websites where one can have questions answered in a public figure's "voice". Decades ago, back in the halcyon Psychic Friends Hotline days, I had this idea for a 900 number where you could speak with your favorite deity. Today I have an app on my phone that lets me text Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and the rest of the band. Even Satan. Generative AI is such a new technology, from the consumer perspective, and it has spread like wildfire. This is just the tip of a very, very, very big iceberg, perhaps an iceberg big enough to sink the human race.

I don't know if you're a sci-fi fan or if you watched the SyFy Channel's Battlestar Galactica remake (one of the best shows ever, in my opinion), but the short-lived prequel series Caprica was quite genius on many levels. At one point the character who invents the algorithm that paves the way for Cylon sentience talks about how little data one needs to scrape in order create a virtual version of any human being. Her human character dies early on, but her AI doppelgänger lives on.

There's a fascinating series of scenes in the Ray Kurzweil documentary Transcendent Man where Kurzweil takes the filmmaker into the storage room where he's collecting everything he possibly can about his deceased father, papers, notes, images, videos, news articles, etc. He talks about how one day he'll be able to feed all of this information into an algorithm and "resurrect" his father. Since ChatGPT arrived on the scene, I've wondered if he's already attempted a resurrection.

Which brings us to Vision Pro (VR in general). Now imagine being totally immersed in the dystopian AI nightmare. The two will go hand-in-hand. You wouldn't just text Jesus. You'll see him and talk to him. Kurzweil's resurrected father? He'll be sitting on the couch right next to Ray. Things are about to get exponentially weirder.

 

[giebe]

Looking forward to it. But the aha moment will come when it reaches normal glasses size and all day battery life.

 

[tomtad]

Was this while watching Ted Lasso?

 

[wanha]

I mean, what else is he supposed to say? That it was a flop, and that Apple did a subpar job trying to copy Minority Report?

I dunno, how about "we're very excited about it" or other such generic corporate BS, but instead he said it's an Aha moment that you only get a few times in a lifetime.

In other words, he could have said WAAAAAAAAAY less than what he said

 

[Allen_Wentz]

It’s quite fascinating how much an extra component can cause failure. 3D TVs were such a great experience (my projector does 3D and it’s out of this world), but the cost and process of wearing additional items were too much for the everyday household.

The vision pro is a solitary machine and regardless of what people try to pitch, will be for quite a while. This is its greatest flaw.

In a world where a lot of households barely use desktop computers, I find it very hard to believe a family of 4 will have much use for the Vision Pro, as cool as it sounds. iPhones solved problems. The Vision Pro enhances your current experience, and for that, will be a hard sell…even at a cheaper price.

You say that you "find it very hard to believe a family of 4 will have much use for the Vision Pro," and that will (initially at least) be correct. However the world consists of more than just toys for families of 4.

No family of 4 has a concrete saw, for instance, but every site contractor in a developed nation has several. No family of 4 has a CAD setup, or a transit, or a boom lift, etc., yet those things are all ubiquitous in the professional world.

IMO the AVP and spatial computing is very, very likely to become very relevant to professionals. Iinitailly at least, issues around toys for families of 4 are short-term not important. Long term, toys for families of 4 have been Apple's core moneymakers, but that does not mean that the world's largest tech supplier can not or should not also serve professionals. Even if AVP never appeals to families of 4, the space for AVP as a tool for professionals is solid. And some families of 4 have huge amounts of extra disposable income, so even that cohort of buyers may surprise us.

Note also IMO this AVP spatial computing thing is a long haul issue. Apple has lots of cash and need not see real commercial profitability for a long time, easily 5+ years if necessary.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Right.

Apple has been trying to figure out gaming since the 90’s and their greatest achievement so far is Angry Birds. Don’t get me wrong, they make a ton of money off games from the App Store. They have casual gaming down.

As a gamer, there’s a huge difference between Monument Valley and Ratchet and Clank. Just as Apple has created an entire ecosystem revolving around their products, so have Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo. Large tech companies are becoming famous for getting on stage and slapping Assassins Creed on their platform and casual people think they’re somehow a gaming platform. As Stadia proved, that’s far from the truth. In the gaming world content is everything. Having a few AAA titles won’t get you anywhere.

You need a well designed controller, people to play multiplayer games alongside and a voice party system to support that. You also need exclusive content that’s only available on your platform.

As someone that enjoys VR, and thinks it’s the future of gaming (for certain content), we’re a ways off from VR overtaking mainstream gaming. For starters, most people that have used my headsets can’t use them for more than an hour at a time without requiring a break. Additionally, the actual process of getting your play space and area ready for VR gaming is more consuming then hopping on a couch and grabbing a controller. Lastly, you get locked away in another world (which is fantastic) but many people don’t want to be closed off from the world for extended periods of time, every day.

So like you, I laugh when I see MacRumors make ridiculous statements about Apple’s gaming progress. We’re light years away from them creating a viable gaming platform not geared around casual games.

You say "We’re light years away from them creating a viable gaming platform not geared around casual games" as if that matters. Only gamers think that Apple somehow needs to suck hard core gamers away from whatever hard core gaming they are now doing. Apple does not need to address every market space (e.g. hard core gaming) as it currently exists.

Apple simply needs to make adequate hardware, market and selling space (i.e. App Store) available to long term make it an attractive space for gaming entrepreneurs to write games into. If that is only casual that is just fine, because the volume that Apple offers exceeds a billion devices.

The hard core can continue to DIY build their own PC furnaces, constantly seeking new ways to remove the heat from ever-improving graphics cards that cost as much as a Macbook Air.

P.S. All the above said, IMO hard core gaming is an area where some future evolutionary branch of AVP may even end up as the most superior way to hard core game.

 

[JamesHolden]

You say that you "find it very hard to believe a family of 4 will have much use for the Vision Pro," and that will (initially at least) be correct. However the world consists of more than just toys for families of 4.

No family of 4 has a concrete saw, for instance, but every site contractor in a developed nation has several. No family of 4 has a CAD setup, or a transit, or a boom lift, etc., yet those things are all ubiquitous in the professional world.

IMO the AVP and spatial computing is very, very likely to become very relevant to professionals. Iinitailly at least, issues around toys for families of 4 are short-term not important. Long term, toys for families of 4 have been Apple's core moneymakers, but that does not mean that the world's largest tech supplier can not or should not also serve professionals. Even if AVP never appeals to families of 4, the space for AVP as a tool for professionals is solid. And some families of 4 have huge amounts of extra disposable income, so even that cohort of buyers may surprise us.

Note also IMO this AVP spatial computing thing is a long haul issue. Apple has lots of cash and need not see real commercial profitability for a long time, easily 5+ years if necessary.

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).

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I doubt it will, iOS or iCloud integration but casting any apps from the Mac to Vision I don’t see that happening.

And yet, that's exactly what was clearly demoed in the WWDC demo: guy on a Mac laptop "throwing" his screen to a super-sized virtual one in Vpro.

Now, technically, he's not throwing the app itself to Vpro and maybe that is what you mean??? But I don't know how anyone who looks at the demo would be able to refute Mac Apps blown up to super-size screen in Vpro. It's entirely obvious in that segment.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

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).

I'm with you on this. I do NOT think this is a professional device. I think it is a relatively expensive consumer device with professional application potential... just like iPads, iPhone and Mac. Where I agree with "them" is I fully expect there will be professional applications to use it as if it is a professional device... just like iPad, iPhone and Mac specialized software can make those devices "professional" use devices.

I suspect "professional" is getting slung around as part of attempting to rationalize a seemingly high price. Is it a high price or not? That's completely eye of the beholder. Is $1599 for a loaded PHONE a high price? A phone!!! That's also eye of the beholder. Is much greater than $3500 for a loaded MBpro a high price? Eye of the beholder again. When Watch launched, there were models that were priced similar to now and there was that Edition version at $17K. Apple sold some of that Edition model. Buyers at $17K for Apple Watch must not have viewed it as "too expensive" or "far overpriced." One man's "far too expensive" is chump change to another man.

I lean pretty optimistic on Vpro myself. I don't perceive myself as rich. However, I'm very interested because I'm somewhat "road warrior" and often wish I had a bigger (than 16") screen with me everywhere for laptop use. As is, I can try to pack & carry extra screen(s) or buy a laptop with foldout extra screens, etc. But I THINK I see this product as being the big screen anywhere for laptop use... without the weight & bulk of bigger screens trying to be jammed in the laptop bag or luggage. That benefit is VERY appealing to me.

Maybe it can be that or not but it APPEARS to be that in the demo. And if it IS that, I do NOT see $3500 as "too expensive." Many of us spent $2K for a fixed size screen with stand option to pair with a desktop Mac, had no problem rationalizing $2K and are regularly evangelizing it in all threads concerning selecting a monitor for a Mac. It will likely never move from the spot it sits now. There's no practical way to take it on trips and/or use in cramped airplane seats. Vpro might offer a way to use "it" wherever one happens to be: on the plane, on the train, in the hotel room, etc. Is $1500 MORE for that much flexibility worth it to all? No. But is it worth it to some? Yes. If there's enough "somes", Apple should sell plenty of Vpros for as little as this single use purpose. That it can do a number of other things- like how a phone can also be a map, a flashlight, a camera, a tape measure, an iPod, etc- may be icing on those buyer's cakes.

 

[4nNtt]

Looking forward to experiencing spatial computing and using for anything outside the Apple ecosystem. It will likely be able to play Steam, Rift, and other OpenVR games through Virtual Desktop. I use that on my Quest 2 since it works better than Quest Link. It even supports VR upscaling. They just need to figure out how to map motion controllers over to the Vision Pro.

 

[JamesHolden]

Looking forward to experiencing spatial computing and using for anything outside the Apple ecosystem. It will likely be able to play Steam, Rift, and other OpenVR games through Virtual Desktop. I use that on my Quest 2 since it works better than Quest Link. It even supports VR upscaling. They just need to figure out how to map motion controllers over to the Vision Pro.

Do you honestly think Apple is going to allow Vision Pro to play games from outside the App Store??? I seriously doubt that! Whatever Virtual Desktop apps they allow in the VP App Store, I think it's pretty safe to say they won't allow mapping controllers, much less give Steam, etc. the keys to the kingdom.

 

[4nNtt]

I suspect "professional" is getting slung around as part of attempting to rationalize a seemingly high price. Is it a high price or not? That's completely eye of the beholder. Is $1599 for a loaded PHONE a high price? A phone!!! That's also eye of the beholder. Is much greater than $3500 for a loaded MBpro a high price? Eye of the beholder again.

Yeah, it is a high price as a toy that is occasionally used. It is not too high if it is one of your primary computing devices. I think Apple is aiming for the later. It will also likely come down over time, but never anywhere close to $500. You can’t create a device for that price without too many compromises. You might be able to create a device that is ok for VR gaming at a much lower price. I’m not sure Apple is interested in that, but we will see. If that were to happen it would likely be an iPhone accessory and part of a push to make iPhone a game console. Apple has a prototype of this since it accidentally leaked the header file source code for it a few years ago. That doesn’t mean they have any intention of turning it in to a product though.

 

[Westside guy]

It was an "aha" moment... for Tim Cook and the Apple leadership.

"Aha! We might be able to get an additional several thousand dollars from our most loyal Apple fans, every couple of years!"

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Yeah, it is a high price as a toy that is occasionally used. It is not too high if it is one of your primary computing devices. I think Apple is aiming for the later. It will also likely come down over time, but never anywhere close to $500. You can’t create a device for that price without too many compromises. You might be able to create a device that is ok for VR gaming at a much lower price. I’m not sure Apple is interested in that, but we will see. If that were to happen it would likely be an iPhone accessory and part of a push to make iPhone a game console.

Yes, all these people spinning lower price version needs to identify what key components they would cut down to hit whatever price they target. For example, do they want lower resolution graphics in each lens? That would certainly reduce the price as we see in competing devices with less-to-much-less resolution than 4K per eye?

Put a slower SOC in there which will affect the fluidness of use?

Fewer cameras to make it not work as well?

Etc. That's likely what it will take to get the lower-priced version. Reduce the overall experience in dramatic ways if one wants dramatically lower pricing. These people need to call what specs of the thing are overkill to chop out and drive that price way down.

Now look at the existing offerings as a kind of analogue. How often do you hear people calling for 4GB RAM or even 2GB RAM or lower screen resolution/quality or MORE jelly roll or M Negative 1 processors, etc to get a lower cost Mac? When people post they want lower cost, ask them what they want to meaningfully cut to get a lower cost. Usually, there is no answer to that one.

It's no use looking at Occulus pricing and wanting Apple to compete at that price. See Android smart phone prices vs. iPhone prices or PC laptops vs. MBs. Apple doesn't ever pursue low price competition. They favor few sales at a much more profitable margin... even ceding their leadership stance with smart phone market share to Android years ago because Apple was happy making most of the PROFIT even if that meant on much smaller volume of total units sold each year.

I confidently suspect Apple looks at cheaper VR tech like they look at cheap smart phones and cheap PCs. Leave those to the masses worried about price above all and sell "ours" to those who will pay up for an Apple level of quality & experience.

I feel the relatively high price apprehension myself. But Apple is not known at all for cutting prices over time and/or reducing their own margin to deliver lower pricing. Exceptions? Yes. AppleTV for one. But per the bread & butter offerings, I would expect it already IS the "lower cost" version and that future versions may add MAX and ULTRA tags.

 

[4nNtt]

The only thing about the headset that I would be concerned with is the weight and fit of the headset and eye fatigue. I use the Air Pod Max and after a while of use they hurt the top of head. Also when I used the Oculus Rift my eyes could only stand it for up to 20 to maybe 30 minutes. If these problems are not an issue than aha.

Supposedly the R1 chip makes it much more comfortable for longer sessions. We will need to see when it comes out. If they truly made it comfortable for all day use it may find success replacing general computing devices instead of just being the best device for a handful of things.

 

[JamesHolden]

I'm with you on this. I do NOT think this is a professional device. I think it is a relatively expensive consumer device with professional application potential... just like iPads, iPhone and Mac. Where I agree with "them" is I fully expect there will be professional applications to use it as if it is a professional device... just like iPad, iPhone and Mac specialized software can make those devices "professional" use devices.

I agree. I'm differentiating between general "professional" apps and the niche use cases people keep throwing around. If there are only 150K architects in the US and AutoDesk pretty much owns the CAD market, why, as a developer, would I spend my valuable time writing an architectural app for Vision Pro? I'll never make any money. That's the problem with all of these niche use cases. They make sense superficially but it's very hard to see how developers make money.

I suspect "professional" is getting slung around as part of attempting to rationalize a seemingly high price.

Bingo!!!

Is it a high price or not? That's completely eye of the beholder. Is $1599 for a loaded PHONE a high price? A phone!!! That's also eye of the beholder. Is much greater than $3500 for a loaded MBpro a high price? Eye of the beholder again. When Watch launched, there were models that were priced similar to now and there was that Edition version at $17K. Apple sold some of that Edition model. Buyers at $17K for Apple Watch must not have viewed it as "too expensive" or "far overpriced." One man's "far too expensive" is chump change to another man.

Agreed, but phones are pretty much an essential tool at this point. The cell phone has also replaced a number of other devices (ie: digital camera) for most people. $1600 is a lot for a loaded phone, but that phone is going to deliver significantly more value for most people than a $3500 headset.

The Edition model was a high priced version of a much cheaper product. It ran the same watchOS as the entry level Apple Watch. Developers weren't dependent on Apple selling a lot of $17K Edition watches in order to sell their software. That is not the case with Vision Pro. There is only one single, very expensive model. And let's not forget that Vision Pro starts at $3500. I wonder what it will cost fully spec'ed out.

For me it's about developer support more than anything else. Apple sells millions of Apple Watches every year and we're seeing more and more developers abandon the platform. Why are developers going to embrace Vision Pro?

I lean pretty optimistic on Vpro myself. I don't perceive myself as rich. However, I'm very interested because I'm somewhat "road warrior" and often wish I had a bigger (than 16") screen with me everywhere for laptop use. As is, I can try to pack & carry extra screen(s) or buy a laptop with foldout extra screens, etc. But I THINK I see this product as being the big screen anywhere for laptop use... without the weight & bulk of bigger screens trying to be jammed in the laptop bag or luggage. That benefit is VERY appealing to me.

I think this is one of the critical use cases for Vision Pro and I do think it will sell some units. At the same time, Vision Pro is also excessive (technologically speaking) as a portable big screen. It doesn't need an App Store, it's own OS, etc. to offer that feature.

Maybe it can be that or not but it APPEARS to be that in the demo.

It appears that way to me too. What wasn't clear to me was how many virtual Mac screens Vision Pro could display.

And if it IS that, I do NOT see $3500 as "too expensive." Many of us spent $2K for a fixed size screen with stand option to pair with a desktop Mac, had no problem rationalizing $2K and are regularly evangelizing it in all threads concerning selecting a monitor for a Mac. It will likely never move from the spot it sits now. There's no practical way to take it on trips and/or use in cramped airplane seats. Vpro might offer a way to use "it" wherever one happens to be: on the plane, on the train, in the hotel room, etc. Is $1500 MORE for that much flexibility worth it to all? No. But is it worth it to some? Yes. If there's enough "somes", Apple should sell plenty of Vpros for as little as this single use purpose. That it can do a number of other things- like how a phone can also be a map, a flashlight, a camera, a tape measure, an iPod, etc- may be icing on those buyer's cakes.

I agree with everything you said, but you're pretty much describing a portable screen, not a new computing platform. For Vision Pro to succeed, long term, the public needs to embrace this whole idea of "spatial computing". They need to use their Vision Pro for more than just a portable big screen display.

I also think techies dramatically overestimate the desire for big displays. In my anecdotal experience, most people are pretty satisfied with their laptop screens. The majority of large external displays are pretty cheap these days. You can get a huge screen for $500. Is the portability Vision Pro offers worth 7x that? To some people, it surely will be, but I suspect those people are a very small sliver of the market. Can't Oculus do virtual screens? Why haven't you bought one of those for travel? Why aren't tons of people with small screens rushing out to buy one? I suspect it's because that feature really doesn't matter to the majority of users.

For me the obstacles Vision Pro faces are obvious. Price is a big deal, but having to wear something strapped to one's face is an even bigger one. I just don't see most people wanting to do that. The idea that many people will want to wear warm, sweaty goggles all day, experiencing the world through cameras, simply to have a bigger screen...it just doesn't seem plausible to me, especially at the price point.

 

[4nNtt]

Yes, all these people spinning lower price version needs to identify what key components they would cut down to hit whatever price they target. For example, do they want lower resolution graphics in each lens? That would certainly reduce the price as we see in competing devices with less-to-much-less resolution than 4K per eye?

Put a slower SOC in there which will affect the fluidness of use?

Fewer cameras to make it not work as well?

Etc. That's likely what it will take to get the lower-priced version. Reduce the overall experience in dramatic ways if one wants dramatically lower pricing. These people need to call what specs of the thing are overkill to chop out and drive that price way down.

Now look at the existing offerings as a kind of analogue. How often do you hear people calling for 4GB RAM or even 2GB RAM or lower screen resolution/quality or MORE jelly roll or M Negative 1 processors, etc to get a lower cost Mac? When people post they want lower cost, ask them what they want to meaningfully cut to get a lower cost. Usually, there is no answer to that one.

It's no use looking at Occulus pricing and wanting Apple to compete at that price. See Android smart phone prices vs. iPhone prices or PC laptops vs. MBs. Apple doesn't ever pursue low price competition. They favor few sales at a much more profitable sale... even ceding their leadership stance with smart phone market share to Android years ago because Apple was happy making most of the PROFIT even if that meant on much smaller volume of total units sold each year.

I feel the relatively high price pain myself. But Apple is not known at all for cutting prices over time and/or reducing their own margin to deliver lower pricing. Exceptions? Yes. AppleTV for one. But per the bread & butter offerings, I would expect it already IS the "lower cost" version and that future versions may add MAX and ULTRA tags.

They might not cut the price. I think there is room for a non-pro model.

You will never buy one for less then $2000 unless they cut out AR features or piggyback off another device. I think there is a slight chance a rumored iPhone Ultra could double as a low end VR device with an accessory though… Maybe limited AR to get your bearings. Such a device would likely capture spatial video better and handle tracking better. Maybe even have a reverse screen since that could be useful for other things.

 

[JamesHolden]

Yes, all these people spinning lower price version needs to identify what key components they would cut down to hit whatever price they target. For example, do they want lower resolution graphics in each lens? That would certainly reduce the price as we see in competing devices with less-to-much-less resolution than 4K per eye?

Put a slower SOC in there which will affect the fluidness of use?

Fewer cameras to make it not work as well?

Etc. That's likely what it will take to get the lower-priced version. Reduce the overall experience in dramatic ways if one wants dramatically lower pricing. These people need to call what specs of the thing are overkill to chop out and drive that price way down.

Exactly. People who assert that Apple will be delivering a "cheap" version soon and that Vision Pro is for developers and professionals...are simply delusional. How will Apple compromise the Vision Pro experience in order to achieve a lower price point? Hint...they won't.

It's also absurd to think they have some cheaper version waiting in the wings. If they could deliver the Vision Pro experience at a cheaper price point at launch...they would! Vision Pro is an extremely expensive new computing platform. End of story. Will the price come down somewhat, eventually...sure. Will the price drop significantly? Doubtful, especially when you look at Apple's pricing history.

But price isn't the biggest issue. Wearing something is. Having something cover your eyes. Weight on your head. Pressure on your face. Warmth. Sweat. Eye strain from having screens shoved up against your eyeballs will no option to simply look away and rest your eyes (without removing the whole headset). The way wearing goggles messes up one's hair. The (deserved) derision one will face wearing it in public...

All so that I can have big screens and app windows scattered around my workspace? I just don't think most people are going to find this appealing.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Can't Oculus do virtual screens? Why haven't you bought one of those for travel? Why aren't tons of people with small screens rushing out to buy one? I suspect it's because that feature really doesn't matter to the majority of users.

I believe Oculus can. However, relative resolution is poor. I bet trying to do work on it vs. watching movies or playing games would be eye straining after a while. What I consistently hear about cheaper VR devices is "eye strain" and "dizzy" and presume the driver of that is that the R in "reality" is not a good enough illusion to fool the eyes into believing they are actually "there." Perhaps Vpro upping the resolution per eye is the cost of entry to overcome that common gripe for all of the cheaper ones... or not? TBD.

As to whether a bigger screen matters to many, fly any airline, take a few walks up and down the aisle and observe. While waiting to take off the connected device- usually phone- is the one is heavy use by many. Once airplane mode is in effect, anyone with any bigger screen wanting to watch something or get work done seems to break out the larger screen. I've seen people in cramped quarters attempting to position laptops in odd ways to watch something on the bigger laptop screen instead of the smaller phone or tablet they also have with them. It seems to be LOTS of people on EVERY flight when I fly. I also believe this craving for more screen is the driver of why companies are trying to get Folding and Rolling (screens) going.

If this will let them wash away the plane completely, wash away the cramped quarters, etc and enjoy a much bigger screen, will some prefer it enough to pay this much for it? TBD. Those- like me- wanting to get work done on long flights seem like strong candidates to want desktop screen space in those cramped spaces. Will they pay $3500 for that? Will they value it enough to rationalize $3500 for it? TBD. I can only speak for me. If it does that well, I see $3500 as a LOT for that benefit, but- with a demo to confirm that it works well- I will likely pay up for it. Will anyone else? TBD.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

I agree. I'm differentiating between general "professional" apps and the niche use cases people keep throwing around. If there are only 150K architects in the US and AutoDesk pretty much owns the CAD market, why, as a developer, would I spend my valuable time writing an architectural app for Vision Pro? I'll never make any money. That's the problem with all of these niche use cases. They make sense superficially but it's very hard to see how developers make money.


Bingo!!!


Agreed, but phones are pretty much an essential tool at this point. The cell phone has also replaced a number of other devices (ie: digital camera) for most people. $1600 is a lot for a loaded phone, but that phone is going to deliver significantly more value for most people than a $3500 headset.

The Edition model was a high priced version of a much cheaper product. It ran the same watchOS as the entry level Apple Watch. Developers weren't dependent on Apple selling a lot of $17K Edition watches in order to sell their software. That is not the case with Vision Pro. There is only one single, very expensive model. And let's not forget that Vision Pro starts at $3500. I wonder what it will cost fully spec'ed out.

For me it's about developer support more than anything else. Apple sells millions of Apple Watches every year and we're seeing more and more developers abandon the platform. Why are developers going to embrace Vision Pro?


I think this is one of the critical use cases for Vision Pro and I do think it will sell some units. At the same time, Vision Pro is also excessive (technologically speaking) as a portable big screen. It doesn't need an App Store, it's own OS, etc. to offer that feature.


It appears that way to me too. What wasn't clear to me was how many virtual Mac screens Vision Pro could display.


I agree with everything you said, but you're pretty much describing a portable screen, not a new computing platform. For Vision Pro to succeed, long term, the public needs to embrace this whole idea of "spatial computing". They need to use their Vision Pro for more than just a portable big screen display.

I also think techies dramatically overestimate the desire for big displays. In my anecdotal experience, most people are pretty satisfied with their laptop screens. The majority of large external displays are pretty cheap these days. You can get a huge screen for $500. Is the portability Vision Pro offers worth 7x that? To some people, it surely will be, but I suspect those people are a very small sliver of the market. Can't Oculus do virtual screens? Why haven't you bought one of those for travel? Why aren't tons of people with small screens rushing out to buy one? I suspect it's because that feature really doesn't matter to the majority of users.

For me the obstacles Vision Pro faces are obvious. Price is a big deal, but having to wear something strapped to one's face is an even bigger one. I just don't see most people wanting to do that. The idea that many people will want to wear warm, sweaty goggles all day, experiencing the world through cameras, simply to have a bigger screen...it just doesn't seem plausible to me, especially at the price point.

You ask "If there are only 150K architects in the US and AutoDesk pretty much owns the CAD market, why, as a developer, would I spend my valuable time writing an architectural app for Vision Pro? I'll never make any money. "

Ask Affinity, or Pixelmator, or GIMP, or Corel or the many others who have now fragmented the images editing market why they spent valuable time writing apps for a market space Adobe Photoshop owned.

And Affinity et al. stole share from Adobe without involving some quantum leap of what image editing is. Adobe post merger with Macromedia used its market dominance to get greedy, creating opportunity for less larcenous entities to enter the space.

With spatial computing, at least a segment of the world of CAD will IMO go through a quantum jump of sorts. Autodesk owns today's CAD market, but IMO the introduction of pro-grade spatial computing will create opportunities in a new subset of CAD. Even if Autodesk fully embraces spatial computing, its core business will be an anchor that allows new devs opportunity. And if Autodesk does fully embrace spatial computing they might find Apple's hardware an appropriate adjunct to their evolution.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

But price isn't the biggest issue. Wearing something is. Having something cover your eyes. Weight on your head. Pressure on your face. Warmth. Sweat. Eye strain from having screens shoved up against your eyeballs will no option to simply look away and rest your eyes (without removing the whole headset). The way wearing goggles messes up one's hair. The (deserved) derision one will face wearing it in public...

All so that I can have big screens and app windows scattered around my workspace? I just don't think most people are going to find this appealing.

As we've covered in several other threads, this perception that people will LIVE in this thing is probably applied extremism. The battery life is not there even if someone wants to live in one. I see it just like I see laptops: pulled out and "opened" when one needs to do some computing on a screen, slipped off and "closed" when finished. I see no one living in this for many hours at a time.

I also do not see any great burden of slipping this on and off- no more so than a bike helmet or ski goggles. Slip them on when you want to use them, slip them off when done. It seems it will be as EASY as millions of people using bike helmets do every day. There's no elaborate process of getting strapped in, or 27 steps to get the thing on and off. Slip it on, slip it off- like a bike helmet or ski goggles. EASY!

Vpro use may mess up hair... like baseball hats or even sunglasses can. Yet millions of people wear hats and sunglasses every day too. And again, bike helmets and ski goggles. Some Goggle head and maybe even temp lines on faces may well be part of the price one pays to enjoy whatever benefits this product offers them. I've taken up guitar playing again and my fingers have callouses on the tips and even string indentions. Oh well, I'll live with those issues for the benefits of a bit of music hobby.

It's easy to pile up negative perceptions while the thing is still mostly vapor. I could do it too. How about the battery cord snag potentials? How about the heat of the battery on one's hip? How about getting through security with this device? How about how freaking limiting only 2 hours on a charge will be for someone wanting to use one of these for a LONG flight? Etc.

But then, one should as easily be able change their lens to the "half full" one. What if it IS used just like we use laptops... less than we have our faces glued to phones each day? What if 4K per eye and/or superior software addresses the traditional eye strain issue typical of the cheap VR options? Etc.

As still vapor, it can be a big pile of ....... or it can be up to the next big thing. Nobody knows yet. We all have our half full or half empty (some extreme full and extreme empty) lenses on in our own guesses about what this is and can be. Until we can actually try one ourselves and see for ourselves, it's a big mess of wild guessing, driven by however our own sentiment leans, sometimes influenced by others sentiment pounding away at this pile of ..... or best thing ever, depending on who we follow and what we wish to see as valid or invalid opinions (which are actually just biased positive or negative guesses).

Personally, I lean positive on this. But I could probably write 50 bullets of negatives if I was so inclined. Vapor anything is easy to bash to an extreme or dream to an extreme- just make up anything that supports whatever bias one wants to take to support the bias. Reality of whatever THIS thing is will soon arrive. Once it is in hand, all of the imagination will switch to great clarity about what it can and cannot do.