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

[NT1440]

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.

It does map controllers, literally declared in the Keynote.


MR’s has become 90% hot takes where people can’t even bother to reference the answers that are easily available to them.

 

[JamesHolden]

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.

Agreed. 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 FOLDS and Roll (screens) going.

Absolutely. But these people already own phones, laptops and/or iPad and are already carrying them, so of course they're going to favor them over the crappy little in-seat screen! Are they going to buy a $3500 headset instead of using their laptop? That's the question. I doubt it.

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.

Some people will. Just like some people pay for first class. But the majority of people settle for cramped seats and a cheaper ticket. There will surely be some frequent travelers who see the value in the Vision Pro experience on a plane, but I suspect the vast majority of people who travel will continue to use the devices they already own instead of paying a ridiculous premium for a big virtual screen. Personally I'd way rather pay for the first class ticket, be comfortable, and watch a movie on my iPad than be crammed in an economy middle seat wearing a Vision Pro.

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.

I agree that there's a market for what you describe. I just don't think that market is very big.

 

[JamesHolden]

It does map controllers, literally declared in the Keynote.

They aren't going to allow Steam (or any other) games on the Vision Pro unless they get a cut through the app store. I'm not saying that controller mapping isn't possible or won't exist for App Store games, but Apple will most definitely not allow games on their platform through some kind of virtual desktop unless they get a cut. Get real.

MR’s has become 90% hot takes where people can’t even bother to reference the answers that are easily available to them.

The comment I responded to suggested that Steam, etc. games will be available on the Vision Pro through virtual desktop with controllers mapped. Do you really think Apple is going to allow that??? Did you even read my previous comments? Or are you one of the 90%?

 

[JamesHolden]

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.

Because there's an obvious much larger installed user base across Macs, iPhones and iPads and average people want to edit photos too. Average people have no interest in CAD.

You're going to twist yourself into a pretzel trying to justify your fantasy that professional users are all going to jump on board and that we'll be awash in apps for custom niche professional use cases.

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.

Doubtful. File compatibility will be critical. Having developed a custom app for a business that uses AutoCAD and Revit in a big way, I can say that we never found any third party app that handled Autodesk files without issue on any platform. No one in the architecture world is going to ditch AutoCAD either.

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.

What opportunity for new devs? Autodesk owns the market. If they don't embrace Vision Pro, it's dead in the architecture/CAD world.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Some people will. Just like some people pay for first class. But the majority of people settle for cramped seats and a cheaper ticket. There will surely be some frequent travelers who see the value in the Vision Pro experience on a plane, but I suspect the vast majority of people who travel will continue to use the devices they already own instead of paying a ridiculous premium for a big virtual screen. Personally I'd way rather pay for the first class ticket, be comfortable, and watch a movie on my iPad than be crammed in an economy middle seat wearing a Vision Pro.

I agree that there's a market for what you describe. I just don't think that market is very big.

Most people buy Android instead of iPhone. The vast majority of the world buys PC instead of Mac. The vast majority of the world buys other monitors instead of ASD or the Pro one.

Apple doesn't pursue "majority" unless that word is applied to profit.

In fact, there is NOTHING Apple sells where they are pursuing the majority (of people)... only the majority of profit. Even a handkerchief was priced at TWENTY dollars. One can buy a whole bag of hankies for $20.

If this has to sell the majority of people to be judged a success, it is almost certainly a failure before anyone can even buy one. However, I have 0% perception that Apple is chasing the majority here... just like they don't with smart phones or PCs.

To win the majority, you generally need to be very competitive on PRICE. Apple is pretty much NEVER competitive on price. Yet millions and millions of people pay that Apple premium anyway... while billions buy the cheaper options. Apple chooses to sacrifice the majority (of customers) for the majority of profit. I would guess that very same thing- which has worked so well for them all these years- is being applied here too.

 

[JamesHolden]

Most people buy Android instead of iPhone. The vast majority of the world buys PC instead of Mac. The vast majority of the world buys other monitors instead of ASD or the Pro one.

Apple doesn't pursue "majority" unless that word is applied to profit.

In fact, there is NOTHING Apple sells where they are pursuing the majority (of people)... only the majority of profit.

If this has to sell the majority of people to be judged a success, it is almost certainly a failure before anyone can even buy one. However, I have 0% perception that Apple is chasing the majority here... just like they don't with smart phones or PCs. To win the majority, you generally need to be very competitive on PRICE. Apple is pretty much NEVER competitive on price. Yet millions and millions of people pay that Apple premium anyway... while billions buy the cheaper options.

Come on, stop moving goal posts around. You know what I'm saying.

Whether someone has an Android or iPhone or whatever isn't the point. They already have a phone and/or laptop and/or tablet with them on the flight. Are they going to buy an expensive headset in order to have an ever bigger screen on the flight? I just don't see that happening for most people. I admit, I don't fly often, but I've never seen a Quest on a plane or even in an airport, despite the fact that people today could be using it to wash away their surroundings and immerse themselves in entertainment while traveling. Why are people going to embrace a much more expensive option if they aren't interested in the cheaper option available to them today? Hint...because it's not a use case that appeals to most people.

You could already have bought a Quest in order to have big virtual screens, but you haven't. You say you want big virtual screens, but you haven't even tried a Quest based on your previous comment. I guess you only want big virtual screens if they come with an Apple logo attached? Big virtual screens is not a use case that is going to sell significant units. If it were, the Quest would be selling like hotcakes.

Vision Pro is a new computing platform. For developers to get interested, the hardware needs to sell in volume. Otherwise the Vision Pro App Store will resemble the Apple TV App Store. Move the goalposts all you want, but that's the basic truth. Without enough sales, developers won't be interested. Without developer interest, consumers will have no reason to buy. You and a few other people (relative to the overall market) will buy it for big virtual monitors. I do not believe that use case will sell significant units, especially at that price point.

 

[1291030]

Tim is obviously biased here. He is looking for a new product that can bring significant growth. I'll believe it's "special" when I see it. So far, not the faintest bit convinced.

 

[sevoneone]

AI models can crawl a person's social media and very quickly learn to impersonate them.

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.

The tech is already there an being used. It's going to be a wild election cycle in the US.

 

[JamesHolden]

The tech is already there an being used. It's going to be a wild election cycle in the US.

Agreed. The movie about Kurzweil, Transcendent Man, was released in 2009, FYI. The tech definitely wasn't there when he was talking about it, but it's definitely here now! That why I've been wondering if he's resurrected his father yet.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Come on, stop moving goal posts around. You know what I'm saying.

Whether someone has an Android or iPhone or whatever isn't the point. They already have a phone and/or laptop and/or tablet with them on the flight. Are they going to buy an expensive headset in order to have an ever bigger screen on the flight? I just don't see that happening for most people.

You could already have bought a Quest for that purpose, but you haven't. You say you want big virtual screens, but you haven't even tried a Quest based on your previous comment. I guess you only want big virtual screens if they come with an Apple logo attached? Big virtual screens is not a use case that is going to sell significant units. If it were, the Quest would be selling like hotcakes.

Vision Pro is a new computing platform. For developers to get interested, the hardware needs to sell in volume. Otherwise the Vision Pro App Store will resemble the Apple TV App Store. Move the goalposts all you want, but that's the basic truth. Without enough sales, developers won't be interested. Without developer interest, consumers will have no reason to buy. You and a few other people (relative to the overall market) will buy it for big virtual monitors. I do not believe that use case will sell significant units, especially at that price point.

I can't speak for "most people"- just myself. I feel great attraction to the concept MOSTLY for any-size screens on flights (and in hotels). Am I "most people?" No? Yes? I don't know. Are you "most people?" No? Yes? Do you know? I have found a way to rationalize $3500 for an any-size screen mostly for that one benefit. I certainly hope it can do a bunch of other things but I'm probably a buyer if it can do that one thing well. I need to see a demo with my own eyes to confirm it for myself. Until then, the pessimists can be just as right as the optimists as far as I'm concerned.

I've tried Oculus a couple of times. I'm not impressed. Games aren't important to me and I assume use for longer periods probably would lead to eye fatigue, etc. Perhaps that's just my "half empty" bias against FB? Someone who uses Oculus as a virtual screen to get computing work done for long flights please chime in and tell me how great it is and I'll be moved to go give it a fresh look for that purpose and perhaps save myself substantial money if it is indeed great at that. I assume the much lower resolution will not look great... per the countless arguments all over this site of how Mac needs high resolution displays instead of cheap ones. If "we" are going to make arguments of retina or bust, it would seem we can't flip that when the screen is virtual to cheaper is just as good.

But I'll grant you that perhaps Oculus resolution for virtual computer screen is just as good for extended use and await some objective people to chime in to confirm or refute that. If several who are not extremists around here confirm it is perfectly fine, I'll give Oculus a fresh try for that purpose myself and happily save money if it is great at that. In fact, I'm feeling some inspiration to throw the MB in the car and go find somewhere where I can attempt this with Oculus for an hour or so and see for myself. So maybe I'll call around and see if I can find someone who will let me try.

I fully appreciate your last paragraph. There needs to be enough volume to attract developers. I happen to be with the optimists in thinking in at last the first year or two, Apple will sell all the units they can make. If so, demand will appear to exceed supply for an extended time and developers will want to jump on the apparently lucrative opportunities to also sell those "fools" who paid far too much for goggles and have few third party apps initially from which to choose. Presumably, such "fools" will pay up for any good apps like those very first flashlight and lessor apps and still lessor apps in the iPhone store after it opened.

 

[Macalicious2011]

Cook's legacy rests on this … a huge gamble.

Until the costs goes down, I'm betting against him. Sorry Tim!

Correct. Like Meta’s VR, the bill for Vision Pro till total to billions across R&D, payroll, patents, marketing and content partnerships. Break through technology of this kind is either flop(too early) or succeeds(perfect timing).

You cannot convince tens of thousands of people to buy an entirely new product category except if the use-case blows their socks off. Spatial video of personal moments shot using iPhone 15 Pro must be exceptional or else I can’t think of any meaningful content.

 

[JamesHolden]

I've tried Oculus a couple of times. I'm not impressed. Games aren't important to me and I assume use for longer periods probably would lead to eye fatigue, etc. Perhaps that's just my "half empty" bias against FB? Someone who uses Oculus as a virtual screen to get computing work done for long flights please chime in and tell me how great it is and I'll be moved to go give it a fresh look for that purpose and perhaps save myself substantial money if it is indeed great at that. I assume the much lower resolution will not look great... per the countless arguments all over this site of how Mac needs high resolution displays instead of cheap ones. If "we" are going to make arguments of retina or bust, it would seem we can't flip that when the screen is virtual to cheaper is just as good.

I edited my previous post after you replied. I've never seen anyone wearing a Quest on a plane or even in an airport. I also think getting hung up on resolution, etc. is a distraction. The truth is, the Quest is more than adequate for washing away one's surroundings on a plane and immersing oneself in content or getting work done on a big virtual screen. So why aren't more people doing it?

But I'll grant you that perhaps Oculus resolution for virtual computer screen is just as good for extended use and await some objective people to chime in to confirm or refute that. If several who are not extremists around here confirm it is perfectly fine, I'll give Oculus a fresh try for that purpose myself and happily save money if it is great at that.

Plenty of people get work done on lousy screens all day long and are perfectly fine with those screens. So one would think that, if virtual screens was a big selling point, more people would be buying for this purpose even if the resolution isn't amazing. I don't think there's a big group of people sitting on the sidelines waiting for better resolution before they take the plunge (for this specific use case anyway).

I fully appreciate your last paragraph. There needs to be enough volume to attract developers. I happen to be with the optimists in thinking in at last the first year or two, Apple will sell all the units they can make. If so, demand will appear to exceed supply for an extended time and developers will want to jump on the apparently lucrative opportunities to also sell those "fools" who paid far too much for goggles and have few third party apps initially from which to choose.

Maybe, but if they can only make 500K units, that's still just 500K units sold. Demand might appear to exceed supply, but if only a small number of units are produced, developers won't see sales. In my mind, we need only look at Apple TV and the Apple Watch. Developer support for Apple TV is abysmal. Despite the Watch selling millions of units every year, more and more developers are dropping Watch support. It all comes down to unit sales.

 

[bobcomer]

Supposedly the R1 chip makes it much more comfortable for longer sessions.

There's absoultely no way it will help with the weight of the device and the comfort. That's just plain physics, grams, momentum, balance. And what gives me the shivvers the most, heat on a close fitting appliance on my face. NWIH I will be able to use it for any length of time.

 

[AsarTheGod]

Grabbing a vision just cause, but can't wait for my meta quest 3 coming on the 10th. 😍

 

[Bravia3d]

I prefer to do my computing and work without a massive brick hanging off my face 😏
Only thing it would be good for is perhaps watching movies, but then again… I have a massive OLED for that with a home theater system.

 

[_Refurbished_]

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.

Sure, the AVP has a market. So does the PSVR and Meta Quest. But they’re niche markets. This is not a device that will become like the Macintosh, Apple Watch, iPhone, or iPad. Sure it has its uses, but it’s not a product that will garner widespread adoption. As long as people realize this, they won’t be disappointed.

 

[_Refurbished_]

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.

I’m not talking about hardcore gaming, I’m talking about a viable gaming platform that extends beyond casual gaming (which is what’s being promoted by Apple and MacRumors currently). We’re light years away from that. Apple isn’t close to creating that. No one is saying Apple needs to extend past casual gaming, but articles and people in these forums have been promoting otherwise.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Come on, stop moving goal posts around. You know what I'm saying.

Whether someone has an Android or iPhone or whatever isn't the point. They already have a phone and/or laptop and/or tablet with them on the flight. Are they going to buy an expensive headset in order to have an ever bigger screen on the flight? I just don't see that happening for most people. I admit, I don't fly often, but I've never seen a Quest on a plane or even in an airport, despite the fact that people today could be using it to wash away their surroundings and immerse themselves in entertainment while traveling. Why are people going to embrace a much more expensive option if they aren't interested in the cheaper option available to them today? Hint...because it's not a use case that appeals to most people.

You could already have bought a Quest in order to have big virtual screens, but you haven't. You say you want big virtual screens, but you haven't even tried a Quest based on your previous comment. I guess you only want big virtual screens if they come with an Apple logo attached? Big virtual screens is not a use case that is going to sell significant units. If it were, the Quest would be selling like hotcakes.

Vision Pro is a new computing platform. For developers to get interested, the hardware needs to sell in volume. Otherwise the Vision Pro App Store will resemble the Apple TV App Store. Move the goalposts all you want, but that's the basic truth. Without enough sales, developers won't be interested. Without developer interest, consumers will have no reason to buy. You and a few other people (relative to the overall market) will buy it for big virtual monitors. I do not believe that use case will sell significant units, especially at that price point.

Agreed that there is a chicken-and-egg thing regarding AVP hardware sales and devs. But like you said, Vision Pro is a new computing platform. And that is actually a very big deal. Just like 128k Mac was a new computing platform (thanks to the GUI Apple bought from Xerox PARC).

We should not look at AVP in terms of the past and existing apps, but instead as the future of a new computing platform. I see AVP as long term, but unequivocally happening.

 

[tubuliferous]

2. An iPhone was not $3,500. They are up against a significantly higher price tag to try something new. People who need a $3,500 MacBook Pro will buy it. People will be hesitant to pay that jus to try something new.

Agreed, this Vision doesn't feel likely to be a huge hit. Consider, though, that the first Apple Laptop, the Macintosh Portable, weighed 16 pounds, was 4 inches thick, it cost $7,300 (about $17,000 accounting for inflation), and it achieved just one fifth of Apple's projected sales.

This particular Vision Pro may not be THE ONE, but it does open up possibilities and sets themes that may make a future Vision a true hit. Would a much cheaper, much sleeker/portable Vision significantly change the entire device landscape, or is the premise of the Vision fundamentally misguided and doomed to fail?

 

[_Refurbished_]

Agreed that there is a chicken-and-egg thing regarding AVP hardware sales and devs. But like you said, Vision Pro is a new computing platform. And that is actually a very big deal. Just like 128k Mac was a new computing platform (thanks to the GUI Apple bought from Xerox PARC).

We should not look at AVP in terms of the past and existing apps, but instead as the future of a new computing platform. I see AVP as long term, but unequivocally happening.

Correct, a niche computing platform.

 

[Lioness~]

Tim is obviously biased here. He is looking for a new product that can bring significant growth. I'll believe it's "special" when I see it. So far, not the faintest bit convinced.

He is biased as he sees a big income source for Apple and more bonuses for himself.

Not the slightest interest of it myself.

I am waiting to upgrade to M3 Mac Book Air, I want a good keyboard to write on.

 

[Abazigal]

An interesting thought for the vision pro -

Apple should consider allowing Apple Vision Pro owners to virtually attend their WWDC events without the need for an invitation. This would allow them to showcase how users can feel like they are right there in the Steve Jobs Theatre watching their favourite YouTube personality, podcaster or writer covering the event.

This would be an evolution of the existing format where you essentially watch a prerecorded presentation on tv, while maybe refreshing your social media feed from time to time.

I feel the vision pro has immense potential for rethinking the way we experience live performances virtually. We are headed to a future in which one will be able to replicate the movie theatre experience, all the way down to feeling what it is like to consume content in the presence of others (music concerts, theatrical plays, etc.), from the comfort of home. No more having to deal with scalpers, bad weather, horrible crowds, poor viewing angles (how many people get a seat at the stadium, where they can barely make out what is even happening on stage?) or even having to fly out to another country just because a particular artiste isn't making a pit-stop in your country.

 

[NT1440]

An interesting thought for the vision pro -

Apple should consider allowing Apple Vision Pro owners to virtually attend their WWDC events without the need for an invitation. This would allow them to showcase how users can feel like they are right there in the Steve Jobs Theatre watching their favourite YouTube personality, podcaster or writer covering the event.

This would be an evolution of the existing format where you essentially watch a prerecorded presentation on tv, while maybe refreshing your social media feed from time to time.

I feel the vision pro has immense potential for rethinking the way we experience live performances virtually. We are headed to a future in which one will be able to replicate the movie theatre experience, all the way down to feeling what it is like to consume content in the presence of others (music concerts, theatrical plays, etc.), from the comfort of home. No more having to deal with scalpers, bad weather, horrible crowds, poor viewing angles (how many people get a seat at the stadium, where they can barely make out what is even happening on stage?) or even having to fly out to another country just because a particular artiste isn't making a pit-stop in your country.

Take that further: what happens to art, storytelling, movies, etc when an artist’s vision is centered around being *in* the experience?

What does a play look like when the audience can be *on* the “stage” and arranged from day one with that in mind?

What is a movie like when from its conception the notion of simply being on a 2D canvas isn’t how it’s filmed?

What is a concert movie like when your view isn’t confined to what a camera on a boom can do?

What’s a music documentary like when you can be *in* the recording studio with the band? Not just from the POV of a camera, but literally anywhere in the room because it was captured spatially?

Thinking *spatially* is a whole new concept from a creation standpoint. It’s not 3D, it’s so much more.

We’re in for a wild new world once the artistic constraints that we didn’t even know about are no longer there.

Surely a ton of crap will be mass produced, but some really interesting things will be born of this new technology when it’s in the hands of true “Creatives”.

 

[bobcomer]

Take that further: what happens to art, storytelling, movies, etc when an artist’s vision is centered around being *in* the experience?

What does a play look like when the audience can be *on* the “stage” and arranged from day one with that in mind?

What is a movie like when from its conception the notion of simply being on a 2D canvas isn’t how it’s filmed?

What is a concert movie like when your view isn’t confined to what a camera on a boom can do?

What’s a music documentary like when you can be *in* the recording studio with the band? Not just from the POV of a camera, but literally anywhere in the room because it was captured spatially?

Thinking *spatially* is a whole new concept from a creation standpoint. It’s not 3D, it’s so much more.

We’re in for a wild new world once the artistic constraints that we didn’t even know about are no longer there.

Surely a ton of crap will be mass produced, but some really interesting things will be born of this new technology when it’s in the hands of true “Creatives”.

I don't really have a desire for any of those. My imagination handles it quite well.

 

[JamesHolden]

Take that further: what happens to art, storytelling, movies, etc when an artist’s vision is centered around being *in* the experience?

What does a play look like when the audience can be *on* the “stage” and arranged from day one with that in mind?

What is a movie like when from its conception the notion of simply being on a 2D canvas isn’t how it’s filmed?

What is a concert movie like when your view isn’t confined to what a camera on a boom can do?

What’s a music documentary like when you can be *in* the recording studio with the band? Not just from the POV of a camera, but literally anywhere in the room because it was captured spatially?

Thinking *spatially* is a whole new concept from a creation standpoint. It’s not 3D, it’s so much more.

We’re in for a wild new world once the artistic constraints that we didn’t even know about are no longer there.

Surely a ton of crap will be mass produced, but some really interesting things will be born of this new technology when it’s in the hands of true “Creatives”.

Good storytelling doesn’t need gimmicks.

People have been trying to make more immersive theater happen forever…and yet most plays remain an audience on one side of the room and the performance on the other. Same with breaking the fourth wall in cinema. It’s been tried. It doesn’t work.

Not to mention the fact that, even if Vision Pro sells well, there’s no incentive for a filmmaker to make a film that can only be viewed in Vision Pro when the vast majority of potential viewers won’t have access to it.