dumb product that reminds me of a civilization doing nothing but couch surfing with huge headset on and chronic lower extremity edema and venous stasis dermatitis
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple CEO Tim Cook on Using Vision Pro: 'It's an Aha Moment'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Something I don't yet know about, and it something really important that it should work perfectly
(and let's for one moment pretend the Vision Pro is very affordable)
So, both you and your partner both buy Vision Pro (Tim Apple loves you for doing this of course)
You both sit down in your tiny apartment, and want to watch the latest blockbuster movie together on a GIANT screen for you to both enjoy.
Firstly let's suggest that you want to feel like you are in some large cinema/arena to watch this, not your tiny (slightly messy) apartment, so we have a virtually created venue to make you feel like you are in a large space
1: Can you and your partner sync this movie to both headsets, so you are both seeing and hearing the movie at the same time?
2: When you turn your head to see your partner (you are both wearing headsets) what do you see?
The above scenario is pretty much a no-brainer that it should be something that functions perfectly with Vison Pro as one scenario where a couple can enjoy such an experience together, who perhaps don't have the time or the desire to get dressed up, and drive to the movie theatre.
I've not even seen the slightest hint from Apple that this will be a possibility.
(As has been said rather critically a few times previously, all the demos from Apple seemed to show people on their own using it)
(and let's for one moment pretend the Vision Pro is very affordable)
So, both you and your partner both buy Vision Pro (Tim Apple loves you for doing this of course)
You both sit down in your tiny apartment, and want to watch the latest blockbuster movie together on a GIANT screen for you to both enjoy.
Firstly let's suggest that you want to feel like you are in some large cinema/arena to watch this, not your tiny (slightly messy) apartment, so we have a virtually created venue to make you feel like you are in a large space
1: Can you and your partner sync this movie to both headsets, so you are both seeing and hearing the movie at the same time?
2: When you turn your head to see your partner (you are both wearing headsets) what do you see?
The above scenario is pretty much a no-brainer that it should be something that functions perfectly with Vison Pro as one scenario where a couple can enjoy such an experience together, who perhaps don't have the time or the desire to get dressed up, and drive to the movie theatre.
I've not even seen the slightest hint from Apple that this will be a possibility.
(As has been said rather critically a few times previously, all the demos from Apple seemed to show people on their own using it)
We're probably going to hear more about visionOS version 1 closer to release and I think what you're describing will be there from day one. One of the visionOS developer videos talks about shared AR/VR experiences with one or more visionOS users, in particular they talked about this being done through SharePlay over the internet but I suspect Apple will let people in the same physical space start a SharePlay session too.
If it doesn't happen at launch it will be announced at next year's WWDC. I refuse to believe they haven't thought about this.
With the query "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?" you define only two, mutually exclusive, choices. Also you say that "this Vision doesn't feel likely to be a huge hit."
IMO the reality most likely will not fit any of your implications, nor should it. Specifically
1) AVP does not need to be a huge hit. It just needs to be a competent introduction of a new platform.
2) Said competent introduction of a new platform may not need to be "a much cheaper, much sleeker/portable Vision significantly change the entire device landscape."
3) IMO "the premise of the Vision [is not] fundamentally misguided and doomed to fail," except insofar as some folks (such as your post) define anything other than immediate huge consumer hit as "failure." I strongly opine that success needs to instead be looked at as long term (>5 years) competent introduction of a new platform. No huge hits necessary.
Twenty years ago only pros owned laser levels and they cost $thousands. Today homeowners buy low end versions at Home Depot for ~$100. I could name dozens of similar products that started high end and evolved to the masses. The flaw in many posts here is folks thinking AVP needs immediate success with the masses or it is not a successful introduction; I disagree.
the (bright) future for VR has been predicted since the early 90's though, which always had been renewed every single time another attempt has been made.
don't get me wrong: VR has a HUGE future (and also already present), mostly in science, architecture and training for certain duties though
but for general entertainment for the masses, it still has a long way to go.
call me old fashioned, as i've never seen the appeal in VR to have fun with in... maybe only if i still was into hardcore sim racing, but otherwise, it completely lets me cold for entertainment, despite having having tried it out a couple of times...
when i want to have fun, i can have the same amount, or more, even on an old Game Boy, or other things where i'm just knowingly staring on a screen -or even older fashioned things like real life activities.
so for me, i don't think the big break through for the general public will happen, unless they are no more clunky and heavy than ordinary glasses and still have a good battery life without the clunkiness or stupid cables
the price, as has been mentioned numerous time, will make this a really hard sell too.
combine that with the fact, that there is practically no software on Mac that could support this, but i don't think that something like this would sell great on other platforms with some actual software either
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
don't get me wrong: VR has a HUGE future (and also already present), mostly in science, architecture and training for certain duties though
but for general entertainment for the masses, it still has a long way to go.
call me old fashioned, as i've never seen the appeal in VR to have fun with in... maybe only if i still was into hardcore sim racing, but otherwise, it completely lets me cold for entertainment, despite having having tried it out a couple of times...
when i want to have fun, i can have the same amount, or more, even on an old Game Boy, or other things where i'm just knowingly staring on a screen -or even older fashioned things like real life activities.
so for me, i don't think the big break through for the general public will happen, unless they are no more clunky and heavy than ordinary glasses and still have a good battery life without the clunkiness or stupid cables
the price, as has been mentioned numerous time, will make this a really hard sell too.
combine that with the fact, that there is practically no software on Mac that could support this, but i don't think that something like this would sell great on other platforms with some actual software either
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
Time will tell. This concept has been in development since the end of the 1980’s so it’s a very slow burner.
I don’t think anybody expects a headset device to be adopted by the masses. It’ll always be fairly niche due to it being a wearable device and not everybody sees the appeal or can cope with motion sickness. Most people don’t have to use this sort of thing for it to be deemed a success btw.
I think you may have missed the meaning of my reply. I was suggesting almost exactly what you've just stated...that is, that the first iteration of the Vision doesn't need to be popular for the product line to be a success in the future—just as the PowerBook was a great success on the heals of the revolutionary, but ultimately unsuccessful, Macintosh Portable, which had gone a long way in establishing the paradigms that made the PowerBook so popular.
I was replying to an earlier comment that suggested success for the Vision would be an uphill battle due to 1) high price and 2) problems with the premise, hence the apparent false dichotomy of possible outcomes in my reply. That is, assuming that the Vision overcame one of the supposed barriers to success (cost), would the other supposed barrier (unappealing premise) still preclude success?
I happen to believe the Vision WILL be a big success on the obvious strengths of the platform, even if the first entry in the product line is not highly demanded (for any of the various reasons being cited in this thread and elsewhere), and I'm excited to see where this goes...even if it's too expensive for me right now =)
Does this display on an Apple TV whilst the user is on the headset, might seem insignificant but playing the oculus through a shield TV makes gaming less insular.
Oh, I definitely don’t think the product will fail. Apple has a history of launching products under these same conditions and challenges. And it’s always agains doom and gloom headlines and mega criticism. Apple will be responsible for pushing this product category forward massively.
If Vision Pro is getting anything close to what Zuckerberg demoed on the Lex Friedman's YouTube channel then - that IS the future! First Interview in the Metaverse | Lex Friedman
You’re absolutely right. Art and creativity cannot possibly benefit from new ways of approaching it. That’s why all music is in mono after that whole stereo fad came and went. /s
I wrote my post immediately after watching the Sound City documentary, perhaps I was inspired by seeing actual creativity occur? Give people with artistic vision new tools and there’s no way to predict what their creativity will inspire.
Explain that concept to jaded tech nerds on forums (myself included) and you seemingly get “that’s been done” (when it plainly hasn’t).
And they’ve succeeded long ago, with musicals, movies, television.
No, most entertainment has moved past plays, long ago.
This product is not going to be a huge hit right off the bat and Apple knows it. It’ll be version 3.0 or 4.0 that will get this going off the ground. Since Apple realizes this, they’re probably willing to put forth the money for continued R&D despite the losses they’ll have with the first couple of iterations. They know it’s not going to be successful at a $3500 price and probably won’t be until it comes down to somewhere between $1000-1500. Whether that successful iteration looks like a headset or a pair of goggles or a pair of glasses, we won’t know until the market speaks. Think Star Trek IV where Scotty doesn’t know what to do with a mouse because interfaces have evolved. “A keyboard! How quaint.”
Tim thinks that the traditional keyboard and mouse with monitor is going to go away sometime in the future and he wants Apple positioned to create that new UI. So do others, including Meta, though Zuck’s first attempt was rather lousy. This is equivalent to the old IBM PC’s using command prompts being superseded by Macintoshes and Windows machines. That was revolutionary back then. This is the second revolution, though it will have taken 40+ years to get there.
Tim thinks that the traditional keyboard and mouse with monitor is going to go away sometime in the future and he wants Apple positioned to create that new UI. So do others, including Meta, though Zuck’s first attempt was rather lousy. This is equivalent to the old IBM PC’s using command prompts being superseded by Macintoshes and Windows machines. That was revolutionary back then. This is the second revolution, though it will have taken 40+ years to get there.
Lol. Yes, they have succeeded in a novelty sort of way, but the vast majority of theater productions are traditional in the sense that the audience sits on one side of the room and the action plays out on the other, much like watching a film. There's a reason for that. Storytelling, in whatever form it takes, generally has a (mostly) passive audience. That's just how it works. The audience sits back and enjoys a story. As soon as you make it interactive, make the audience look around, make the audience engage, the dynamic changes.
I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with that, but it completely changes the experience and I think there's a reason we still mostly tell stories the way we did back in caves. It just works. The last thing I want in a film is having to look around and engage with it in any way. I want to sit back, relax, and be taken on a journey. Interactive stories are basically video games. They require more active mental engagement, which isn't relaxing and completely changes the dynamic of the storytelling experience.
As you noted, they succeeded a long time ago...yet the overwhelming majority of musicals, movies, and television remain linear and are experienced via the age-old passive audience/active storyteller dynamic. If audiences really wanted more interactive and immersive experiences, why haven't all productions moved in this direction?
That's more than obvious. It's also not the point. As you noted, more immersive theater has been happening for a long time but the vast majority of theater productions are not immersive. If audiences want immersive theater, why haven't all productions moved in this direction? Because most audiences don't want it. It's a novelty. Many of these productions are successful, both financially and creatively, yet most productions follow the millennia long tried and true model and Vision Pro (VR in general) isn't going to change that.
Hopefully I’ll have retired by then. If they are planned to be a complete replacement and office life is destined to be occupied by people isolated within headsets, I’m out.
So clever.
See my post above. I studied film in college and worked in the industry for a number of years, so I hardly consider myself a jaded tech nerd. If that's how you identify, good for you, but that's definitely not me.
In short, immersive/interactive theater has been done for millennia yet the overwhelming majority of productions are linear and follow the age old passive audience/active storyteller dynamic. Once you make a production more immersive and interactive, you basically take it from being a play/film and turn it into a game. Good storytelling doesn't need interactive gimmicks. If that's what you want, just play a video game.
well that addresses my concerns. the guy who is wagering his career thinks the laughably awful thing he’s wagering it on is a good idea.
Practically no one will get motion sickness from the floating iPad apps that Apple demonstrated... because there's no apparent motion.
Even some styles of fully immersive 3D entertainment will have no triggers for motion sickness.
For people unaccustomed to video games, games like Beat Saber or Job Simulator will be more comfortable experiences than most 3D rendered video games on a TV.
Costs come down but prices remain relatively stable because the features keep increasing. The mac or iPhone are good examples. Inflation adjusted relatively stable.